Brad, it’s
good to hear from you. You’re right, we can’t ignore the impact of population
in the debate about global warming and diminishing resources. In fact, there
are some who appear to be planning on disaster economics to take care of many
of our current problems, as some appeared to be vis a vis category 5 hurricanes.
My guess is that Lovelock included this in his new book, although not in the
OpEd.
Recently I
heard a TV lecture about effects of population by the physicist Albert Bartlett
discussing Hubbert’s Peak. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/bartlett/
See his
Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crises horror stories http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section1.htm
Bartlett was
not only informative but also entertaining, breaking the scientists can’t be amusing stereotype. Not
incidentally, he also reminded me of my paternal grandfather, a learned man who
did not tolerate laziness of mind or body. - kwc
Brad wrote: I do not think
one needs to view "the earth" in any kind of benevolent
and quasi-personal sense
to "take good care of it". To take good care of the earth can
also be
enlightened (not the guru kind) selfishness. Analogy: As the
Rockefellers say:
youhave to treat the workers well today to be
able to make profits from them 50 years from now.
Remember, Darwinean evolution
don't give a sh-t about anybody or anything -- it's the natural analog of
what persons create in the form of "free enterprise" (As Werner Herzog
titled
his film about the tragedy of Kaspar Hauser: "Every man for himself
and God against all.") We need to take good care of the earth
because we are at its mercy. We are under extortion from the
mindless bringer of oncogenes and orgasms and everything else.
Sort of like, if we were taken hostage by
terrorists, we might find it wise to look out for their well being to
try to minimize the damage they do to us.
As to the other part about civilization being energy intensive, that's
just not true. It's large populations, wasteful social arrangements,
the craving for ever more trinkets, etc.
that are the energy hogs. Commuting to work in a car for many
miles adds nothing to the quality of anyone's life above what the
persons would get if they lived where they work.* Reading (or, even
better, writing) a book of lasting value does not require hardly
any energy (expending a day at DisneyLand is what takes
energy! Or "seeing the USA in your Chevrolet", etc.)
We could have a far higher quality of life if we stopped
potlatching and multiplying. What a shame it all is....
\brad mccormick
--
* Yes, I remember Arthur's story of the man whose only peace in life
was during his commute. Maybe in a more human society
he would have "a way out" of the dilemma that put him there.
Karen Watters Cole wrote:
A pessimistic conclusion from the author of Gaia. Note the plea for a
powered descent, like the Peak Oil activists who advocate a managed
transition to post-cheap energy survival and community rebuilding. kwc
*James Lovelock: The Earth is about to
catch a morbid fever that may
last as long as 100,000 years *
*Each nation must find the best use of its resources to sustain
civilisation for as long as they can *
*The Independent UK, 16 January 2006 *
