XVII. Boomsters 1, Doomsters 0
America's Unknown Enemy: Beyond Conspiracy
Editorial Staff of the
American Institute for Economic Research
[1993]
Contrary to Malthusian notions of scarcity that have propelled the
eco-environmentalist movement, world resources are becoming more, not
less, plentiful. The world's food supply is improving, pollution in
the United States has been decreasing, and economies do not suffer,
but rather benefit, from population growth. That many people continue
to believe otherwise reflects, among other things, a failure to
distinguish between the consumption patterns of nonhuman species and
human resourcefulness.
"Ten years ago, an ecologist and an economist with bitterly
opposing world views made a $1,000 wager over an old question: Was the
earth's population running out of natural resources? It was the
doomster against the boomster, and this fall one of them [the doomster
ecologist] had to pay up." So wrote reporter John Tierney in The
New York Times Magazine last December in an article that marked a
notable departure from that publication's long-standing "green"
editorial policy.
Tierney's piece reported that in the scientific community, notions of
impending planetary doom now are waning. It cited a recent report of
the National Academy of Sciences that concluded, among other things, "that
there was no clear evidence that population growth makes countries
poorer ... but argued that other factors, like a country's economic
structure and political institutions, were much more important to
social well-being. ...It noted that most experts expected the world
food situation to continue improving, and it concluded that, for the
foreseeable future, 'the scarcity of exhaustible resources is at most
a minor constraint on economic growth."' Tierney also observed,
however, that such views are "still far behind when it comes to
winning over the general public."[1]
As to the bet, University of Maryland economist Julian Simon in 1980
wagered Stanford ecologist Paul Ehrlich that over 10 years the prices
of a basket of "scarce" commodities (selected by Ehrlich)
would not increase as a result of dwindling supply but rather would
decrease in response to exploration and discovery, technological
innovation, and other human endeavors. The results a decade later
showed Simon a clear winner: the prices of the selected commodities
had decreased substantially and human well-being, as measured by life
expectancies, food and energy supplies, and the like had improved.
The Resourceful Animal
This outcome confirmed in real-world terms what scientific critics of
Malthusian predictions of ecological disaster have been struggling to
publicize for more than 2 decades: namely, that the human use of
resources differs greatly from consumption in the "natural world"
that often serves as the referent for environmental fearmongering.
Virtually every species except man is forced to comply with certain
observed "laws of nature," which include severe penalties
for behavior (or natural calamity) that threatens the supply of
resources needed to sustain life. Overgrazing results in famines; too
great success in hunting prey is followed by starvation and population
decrease; too little or too much precipitation, or other weather
anomalies, have similar effects. Overpopulation and resource scarcity
thus would seem to be chronic threats to many species, and the
so-called balance of nature is achieved through constantly changing
circumstances that, for the affected animal populations, are
uncontrollable and unforgiving. If the needs of the local population
(of rabbits, rats, deer, cougars, or whatever) exceed the immediately
available resources, disaster ensues.
But this is not always, or even usually, so for humans, and it often
is mistaken to apply such "lessons of nature," as many
environmentalists do, to human situations. As the 19th-century
economist Henry George observed, "Both the jayhawk and the man
eat chickens, but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the
more men, the more chickens."
In human experience, scarcity has prompted an innovative search for
ways to overcome shortages, usually with greater abundance, safety,
and environmental cleanliness resulting than before. Scarcities of
wood (many of Europe's forests were virtually obliterated between the
13th and the middle of the 18th century) initially gave way to energy
derived from dirty bituminous "soft" coal, then the cleaner
anthracite coal, which in turn gave way to petroleum-based energy, and
subsequently to nuclear energy, which contrary to widespread
anti-nuclear sentiment is measurably safer and far "cleaner"
than either coal or oil. In agriculture, manual farming gave way in
the late-18th and early-19th centuries to mechanization, thence to the
20th-century "green revolution" resulting from the
combination of crop hybridization and petro-chemical fertilization.
In short, technological innovation in energy and agriculture has
encouraged human population growth far beyond the limitations posited
by Malthusian theory. And recent advances in soil science and genetic
plant engineering, which hold out the promise of even greater yields
and the elimination of the most-harmful side effects of current
technologies (
e.g., erosion and salinization of crop lands, pollution of
ground water, and the hazard of the improper application of chemical
pesticides) would seem to promise even better results in the future.
It is no wonder that the number of farmers in the United States has
been steadily decreasing for the past 2 centuries. The simple fact is
that the provision of foodstuffs in greater abundance and variety than
ever before is one of the triumphs of modem technology -- and it ought
to be apparent to anyone who has shopped the aisles of today's
supermarkets.
In the words of Professor Simon, "Raw materials and energy are
getting less scarce. The world's food supply is improving. Pollution
in the United States has been decreasing. Population growth has
long-term benefits ... [and] ... The United States needs more
immigrants."[2]
Beyond population concerns, there also is no scientific consensus
that either acid rain, global warming, or ozone depletion pose the
threats that are commonly supposed. Rather, a growing body of
scientific research suggests that acid precipitation is a naturally
occurring phenomenon (as has been known for centuries) whose
environmental effects have yet to be accurately determined. In any
event, the human contribution to this "problem" must be
measured against acid precipitation that results from natural sources
such as volcanic eruptions and the sulfur and nitrogen compounds that
are produced by the decay of organic matter in swamps, wetlands, and
the like.[3]
With respect to global warming and depletion of the ozone layer,
there simply are too few reliable data to make informed judgments. So
far, there are no consistent data to show any long-term global warming
trend, and the computer models used to generate predictions of future
temperature trends suffer from flaws similar to those of the
econometric models that have been so inaccurate in predicting economic
events (and that we have criticized repeatedly). Inquiry into the
process and extent of ozone depletion and its effects seems equally
uncertain. According to the 1987-88 Annual Report of the Rand
Corporation, "The extent of ozone depletion and the severity of
the consequences of projected emission levels are extremely uncertain.
Projections of future depletion are based on complex simulation models
that have not been reconciled with the limited available measurements."[4]
In short, there simply is no good evidence that the world is falling
apart.
Why Do People Believe "The End Is Near"?
One might think that the general improvement in human conditions
ought to be obvious to anyone who has witnessed the favorable changes
in air, water, and food quality, advances in medicine, and the
introduction of various technological accoutrements that have "made
life easier" here and elsewhere since World War II. But it
apparently is not. Professor Simon's views (and those of like-minded
colleagues) have gone virtually unheeded for the past 20 years while
the eco-environmentalist vision of impending catastrophe has captured
the public interest. Indeed, in the absence of scientific warrant for
the belief that the planet is otherwise being destroyed, from a
behavioral science perspective a challenging question is: what
conditions have spawned the apparently widespread conviction in
America that things are getting worse and that "the end is near"?
Professor Simon has identified a number of factors that may
contribute to the popularity of Malthus-like notions.[5] With respect
to population concerns, he posits "that there is in all of us a
built-in intellectual weakness" that predisposes us to believe
the worst. "We are predisposed in this manner because the
negative economic effects of additional people are direct and
immediate and local, and therefore obvious. In contrast, the
beneficial effects are indirect and global and occur only after the
passage of some time" and so are not obvious.
Beyond this, he observes that a number of groups have a parochial
self-interest in promoting doomsaying ideas, among them the media, for
whom impending calamities make dramatic news; the scientific
community, for whom fears of disaster lead to support for research
into ways to prevent them; and political interest groups intent on
acquiring power through intervention in the economy (one might add to
this list business interests that in the name of environmental
protection seek to prevent competition). Yet others seem to harbor a
fascination for "imagined impending disasters" or resist
change of any sort (hence, the opposition to "development"
disguised as environmental concern).
Others have cast apocalyptic views broadly within the context of
Western religious culture. Although much of the current
eco-environmental initiative would seem to repudiate a part of the
Judeo-Christian ethic ("go forth and multiply," "subdue
the earth," etc.), it nevertheless seems strongly supported by
notions of redemption through suffering and the expiation of guilt
that often is associated with religious salvation. In this respect,
the sacrifices that are said to be needed to protect the planet are
consistent with and help to fulfill the requirements of salvation.
We would add to this list two closely related obstacles to any broad
understanding of the relation of humans to their environment. One is
the scientific illiteracy of the American public. In view of the
current propensity to romanticize and anthropomorphize virtually
anything found in nature (including dinosaurs), it seems unlikely that
this situation soon will change. The unfortunate fact is that even
those who have assumed responsibility for reporting and interpreting
pertinent discoveries (
i.e., the media) are themselves ignorant.
In larger context, eco-environmentalist views would seem to be a
further expression of what John Dewey called the "quest for
certainty," which has been an obstacle to human progress
throughout history. It is perhaps understandable that with the
collapse of Communism and the growing inadequacies of the welfare
state, those inclined toward the quest for certainty would seek some
new strain of utopian perfectionism. Ecoenvironmentalism would seem to
promise a riskless society, ideally with as few humans as possible. In
this respect, it is profoundly opposed to capitalism, the vitality of
which depends on the willingness to assume risk. And inasmuch as it
seeks an earth with fewer (perhaps many fewer) people, it also is
profoundly anti-human. The irony of the situation is that the
prospects for both human advancement and environmental protection have
never been brighter, if only political regimes would permit people to
pursue their own interests.
NOTES
- "Betting the Planet,"
The New York Times Magazine, December 2, 1990, pp.52-3,
74-81.
- * Julian L. Simon, Population
Matters: People, Resources, Environment, and Immigration, New
Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers, 1990, p.1.
- For a discussion of acid rain,
see Dixy Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, Regnery Gateway,
Wasbington, D.C., 1990, pp.49-67; see also Research Reports, May
7, 1990.
- Ray, op. cit., p.44.
- See Population Matters,
pp. 3-8.
|
