I extract this discussion I had with a well known growthmaniac John McCarthy on sci.environment, in part as proof that I am not making this stuff up; these are not red herrings and straw men that I am tilting against. As I recall, John McCarthy says he is a member of the National Academy of Science, the Hoover Institute, and he co-invented the computer language of LISP. One of his specialties is computer logic applied to problem solving. His pro-growth web page can be visited at http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
My point here is that these guys are not using valid facts and logic as their main thrust, but rhetoric of the kind often called "high school debate team rhetoric", or cheap propaganda and demagoguery. Here are some common arguments environmentalists face. While Mr. McCarthy's fallacies may be based on false assumptions, we must understand that it would make economic sense, it would be highly cost effective for some firms to funnel a few dollars into the anti-environmentalist propaganda and myth mills. Consider this in the context of the billions spent in overt advertising and the "Got milk?" or "California raisins" generic product campaigns.
Are there organized semi-covert anti-environmentalist propaganda and myth mills? Our factual evidence is not easily put in the nutshell this medium requires, so my proof here relies on pure logic and economic theory: If something provides a legal, highly cost effective benefit to an industry, can it not exist? The false grass-roots (astro-turf) Wise Use agencies and the theories of fear-driven urban myth are examples of being cost effective since like all urban myths, they are self-perpetuating. "Environmentalists are out to GET you!" "The ozone hole is a hoax!" "Rats are more important than people!" The pervasiveness and the power these myths have over some people is best experienced first hand by chatting with people on the street or on Usenet newsgroups such as ca.environment, alt.politics.republican, or alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. However be aware that only with a keen interest in the subject, will one be able to discern the facts from the myths. Better to pay attention to the logic.
You may read the 127 line discussion in it's entirety, or click on:
============Set your browswer at least this wide, 71 characters========
Bashford writes:
Logic? Overpopulation?
It ain't cool, dude. (Like wow.)
Lost liberties? I'm in agreement with Scott Bryan. It is
easy to conclude that in the long run, population control leads
to INCREASED liberties and per capita wealth for our species and
civilization.
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote about:
Re: overpopulation, globalization, and hunger
>- Scott Bryan includes:
>- If we adopt population controls needlessly the consequences
>- are only lost liberties for the current generation(s) of
>- people. If we don't, and should have however, the
>- consequences are much more than lost liberties for our
>- descendants. I find your [Brian Carnell] reasoning nowhere
>- near compelling
>- enough to warrant such a huge risk. The other side doesn't
>- need a compelling argument--simple prudence is sufficient to
>- justify their motives. We should indeed be considering the
>- issue.
John McCarthy writes:
>- Scott Bryan is unspecific about what he means by "adopt population
>- controls" and therefore can think wishfully about the limited
>- consequences of that.
Wishfully? hmmmm...
Conversely, --as we shall see, -- it is typical for the pro-growth
crowd to elicit images of extreme Draconian measures without even
the slightest hint such measures are our intention. Personally, I
have lost count of the number of times I've been directly accused of
promoting genocide, and even images of death camps have been unleashed
from time to time. (My solution is based in education.) My impression
from the
emotional nature of these accusations (often after a long
conversation) is that these are not intentional red herrings nor
intentional straw men, but a reflection of the writer's own world
view. It may be degrading, -- perhaps ridiculous -- for us
no-growthers to preface each argument with; "I'm no monster...",
but alas, given our opposition's world view, it seems to be needed.
In fact, I suspect that point needs to be hammered home.
Indeed, according to well known economist/biologist Garret Hardin's
recent *Living Within Limits*, this is the pro-growther's strongest
weapon and cliche. He explains that this is a main reason why the
population movement has nearly died. Conversations like that at a
cocktail party just ain't hip, baby.
>- Africa has the largest rate of population
>- increase. How should "we" control their population?
For example, this "us v. them", seems manufactured out of thin air.
Also...are we now accusing no-growthers of racism? Is that the
implication? Why was Africa mentioned instead of central America
which is closer to home and has similar growth rates? Again, this
accusation is documented by Hardin. It is real. And it does not make
for breezy conversations. Hardin also mentions they like to link the
issue to abortion. It ain't fun. Saving trees and dolphins is fun.
>- Won't nature and their habit of war do it?
Perhaps. If that is your solution, keep in mind many of them will
have nukes soon, and some volatile nations already do. So it is
possible the situation will be more dire than dogs in the yard
fighting over the garbage can. The National Security Council has
called overpopulation a threat to our National Security for good
reason.
>- If, contrary to history and present trends, there proves to be too
>- many people, it will be politically possible to institute population
>- controls without war.
Perhaps. But I believe your (John McCarthy's) unarticulated premise,
like most faulty yet thoughtful logic, is in error. After reading
many of your articles, and you WWW page, I have concluded that like
most pro-growthers your root foundational premise is similar to Marx's
Historical Dialectic, or historicism-as-proof. (You say: "contrary to
history and present trends".) However unarticulated premises are
almost impossible to defeat in an argument, even an argument with
one's self.
Since John McCarthy's specialty is formal logic, yet he resorts to
logically falsified arguments, (that is illogical) let me resort to
some wild speculation, (or is it reasoning?).
Sir Carl Popper did not falsify historicism-as-proof until the 1950s,
about the time McCarthy graduated. Popper turned science on it's ear,
this was no small change in scientific thinking. If we give Mr.
McCarthy the benefit of being honest, it would NOT be illogical to
conclude that he grew up believing in historicism-as-proof and has
been unable to shake this, contrary to his intellectual knowledge to
the contrary. This could result in a faulty world view and WOULD
explain the use of logical fallacies by a person who should know
better. The other explanation is not so polite.
My point here is to point out how powerful the fallacy of
historicism-as-proof is among pro-growthers, we need to be aware of
it, once we are, we will see it almost universally being abused,
particularly by those who learned to think when it was considered
valid.
>- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>- *
>- He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>- http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
--Doug bashford@psnw.com
He who confuses arithmetic with reality gets frozen in time.
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html
My reply was that a major goal is to get truth-seeking skills
including scientific method, formal logic and science emphasized
at the high school level.
My reasoning is that I have never met an anti-environmentalist,
nor growthmaniac with a broad education. Unlike economics, the
sciences are founded on assumptions of unbreakable finite limits
such as the speed of light, no creating something out of nothing,
and no perpetual motion. While economists may say; "no free
lunch", many seemingly do believe that civilization's
wealth can be created out of nothing (such as the accounting practices
for labor or mining). This way of
thinking about limits is perhaps the major assumptional
difference between the two disciplines. (see Hardin or Daly)
(High-tech machines are now challenging many
old assumptions about labor as creator of wealth.
Undisputable global environmental problems are now challenging many
old assumptions about Earth-extraction as creator of wealth.
These are causing many economists to do two separate
unscientific patch-jobs on economic
theory by redefining things to supposedly fit reality. We think
they would do better to examine their foundational assumptions
and instead, look at the (biological) sciences to
find the true source of wealth. A unified theory is there for the
observant. Get science. Man is a
social animal, not magic, not a god.)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html -- environment, truth, and politics