Hmmm ...wondering about the validity of that data Andy. I can tell you that
if everyone was prepared to live at the same density as New Yorkers the
whole planet's population would fit into a space the size of the former
Yugoslavia leaving the rest of the planet to a few farmers and rainforest.
When will anyone I wonder be brave enough to suggest we all go vegetarian -
thus saving six sevenths of grazing lands and killing all domestic dogs and
cats saving goodness knows how much. Obviously that is a bit harder to sell
than stopping hunting or rigging the coffee markets or do we value Labradors
more than humans - or do we not even have to make that choice?
However I have heard all this before - one Thomas Malthus - and he was very
badly wrong.
I do worry that there are very few people/organisations making the other
side of the arguments in schools - namely the planet is fine - we are better
off now than ever before. Two and a half billion on the planet is a sign of
our success not our failure. This whole (sorry Finbarr) ecological debate
currently seems to lack scientific rigour. Using a bit of logical positivism
- I try to (and get students to) question the source of the information, how
it was gathered and try to destruct the argument - a bit of Popperian or
Baconian falsification would not go amiss in this - before we accept
anything as truth.
I wonder very much about the geography doom mongers - not many of them would
sell books, TV series, or lectures with titles like - everything OK or
Planet not doomed. If you set out to prove the world is doomed you will of
course find evidence to support that - but how much of the evidence to the
contrary is ignored.
Is Economics still a science?
Mischievously yours
Chris
|