On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Steve Kurtz wrote:
> I didn't coin this term.( Eva: 'Horn of Plenty' is another similiar term )
>
> Here is a snippet from a paper "THE CORNUCOPIAN FALLACIES"
> Lindsey Grant (1992)
>
>
> An intense if intermittent debate is under way between environmentalists
> and
> "cornucopians." The environmentalists warn of threats to the ecosystem and
> to
> renewable resources, such as cropland and forests, caused by population
> growth and
> exploitative economic activities. The cornucopians say that population
> growth is good,
> not bad (Julian Simon), or that it will solve itself (Herman Kahn),
>
> [This is the part that I was referring to specifically in my use of the
> term, SK]:
> **
> that shortages are
> mythical or can be made good by technology and substitution, and generally
> that we can
> expect a glorious future. **
>
> The debate has strong political overtones. If things are going well, we
> don't need to do
> anything about them—a useful argument for laissez faire. If something is
> going wrong,
> the environmentalists usually want the government to do something about it.
> The debate
> thus gets mixed up in the current reaction against "petty government
> interference" and a
> generalized yearning to return to earlier, more permissive economic and
> political
> practices.
>
> Although there are substantial differences between their views (as we shall
> see later in
> this chapter), both men are identified with a simple message of reassurance
> to a
> society that does not seem to want to be told about problems. The message
> is best
> exemplified in the title of the article in Science magazine that brought
> Simon to
> prominence: "Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad
> News."
> 2
>
> For the employer seeking assurance of cheap labor or the businessman hoping
> for the
> larger market, it is comforting to be told that more immigration and
> population growth
> are good things. The idealist, eager to help hungry fellow humans and
> fearful that pleas
> for lower fertility are a cover for racism, is just as likely to be
> beguiled by the message,
> unless he or she has come to realize that laudable purposes sometimes
> conflict with
> each other.
>
> One could hardly object to having a couple of cornucopians urging people to
> be of good
> cheer and stout heart, were it not for the danger that may convince some
> citizens and
> policy makers not to worry about some pressing problems that urgently need
> attention.
> The cornucopians' argumentation, however, is seriously flawed as a tool for
> identifying
> the real and important present trends.
>
> There is an asymmetry in the nature of the arguments of the
> environmentalists and the
> cornucopians. The environmentalist—the proponent of corrective action—is
> (or should
> be) simply warning of consequences if trends or problems are ignored; he or
> she does
> not need to predict. The cornucopian, on the other hand, must predict to
> make his or her
> case. He must argue that problems will be solved and good things will
> happen if we let
> nature take its course. Since nobody has yet been able to predict the
> future,
> cornucopians are asking their listeners to take a lot on faith. They say,
> in effect, "Believe as I do, and you will feel better." Simon says
> explicitly that his conversion to his present viewpoint improved his state
> of mind.
>
> The cornucopians have made assumptions and chosen methodologies that simply
> ignore or dismiss the most critical issues that have led the
> environmentalists to their
> concerns:
>
> * The cornucopians pay little attention to causation and they project past
> economic
> trends mechanically.
>
> * They casually dismiss the evidence that doesn't "fit."
>
> * They employ a static analysis that makes no provision for feedback from
> one sector to
> another. * They understate the implications of geometric growth. * They
> base their
> predictions on an extraordinary faith in uninterrupted technological
> progress.
>
> We will look into some of these cornucopian fallacies, the reasoning
> processes and
> omissions that characterize Simon's and Kahn's analyses.
> (snip)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> more at: http://208.240.253.224/page45.htm
On the cornucopian side, there is no known limit to the carrying capacity
of the universe. However, in the short term humans could run out of
resouces and the know how to expand into a new and more bountiful
ecosystem.
FWP.
*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send "Subscribe Future.Cities" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex ***
