WHAT MAKES BOTH LUNDBORG'S SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST AND RIDLEY'S RATIONAL OPTIMIST SO FLAWED IS THAT BOTH BOOKS ESSENTIALLY ASK THE SAME QUESTION AND GET THE SAME RESULT: ARE WE BETTER OFF TODAY THAN WE WERE FIFTY OR A HUNDRED YEARS AGO? MEASURED IN HEALTH OUTCOMES, LONGEVITY, MEDIAN INCOME AND SUCH, THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING 'YES'. THE PROBLEM IS, THEY THEN CONCLUDE FROM THAT (WITH A VERY BIASED ANALYSIS) THAT IF WE KEEP DOING THE SAME THINGS INTO THE FUTURE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO IMPROVE OUR LOT.
THE CRITICAL QUESTION IS NOT 'ARE WE BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE FIFTY YEARS AGO?' IT IS, 'ARE WE BETTER OFF THAN WE WILL BE FIFTY YEARS FROM NOW?' AND I AM AFRAID THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS ALSO A RESOUNDING 'YES'.
IF YOU WANT TO GET AN INTELLIGENT ANSWER TO A QUESTION VITAL TO ALL OF US, TO INGEST AND ASSIMILATE QUICKLY THE MOST RELEVANT DATA IN PLOTTING A COURSE FOR MANKIND, THEN YOU BETTER ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION. THESE BOOKS AMOUNT TO NOTHING SERIOUS. THEY ARE MERELY APOLOGIES FOR DRAGGING THE STATUS QUO IN ALL ITS MOST GRIEVOUS FORMS FORWARD INTO WHAT SURELY WILL BE OBLIVION, OR AT LEAST A HOT DANGEROUS WORLD OF FIFTEEN BILLION PEOPLE, WHO WILL HAVE SHED MANY OF THE THINGS WE HOLD MOST PRECIOUS FOR OURSELVES AND OTHER CREATURES IN THE BIOSPHERE AND THAT WILL AFFECT THE HISTORY OF NOT ONLY MANKIND BUT THE EARTH ITSELF.
No comments:
Post a Comment