Science by knee-jerk

Years ago, as a small and angry child, I was taught in school to be an environmentally friendly little youngster. Various kids publications and lesson plans encouraged me to use paper instead of plastic. Yes, paper was bad because it hurt the trees (not the trees!), but plastic was doubly bad because it takes a couple hundred years to decompose. We were all shown pictures of giant garbage pits and litter in cities, assured that unless we did something, we'd all be kings of the mountain, standing upon Diaper Hill and wishing we'd thought more about how long it takes certain things to decompose. PS, if anyone gets the reference I just made, Kudos to you (the good kind of Kudos, the ones with chocolate, not the shitty abstract concept).

Now, though, we've switched gears. Landfills and garbage are no longer as deadly as... OHMYGOD CLIMATE CHANGE!! Now, we are told to use plastic bags. Why? Because for every 14 trucks you fill with paper bags, you could get the same grocery-carrying capacity from 1 truck of plastic bags. That's right, paper bags might decompose, but "you're killing mother Gaia with diesel fumes, you plundering bastards," the granola-munchers now say. Make up your THC-addled minds, you no-good hippies, before I go out and get an eco-friendly reusable grocery bag made from baby harp seals!

This is what I call "science by knee-jerk." Whatever the ecological threat of the times, that is why we should change our popluar concept of science to fit.

Another example: ethanol. Even the commie EU now recognizes that this biofuels stuff (especially corn) has a certain element of cowpies to it. Just like paper vs. plastic, I remember reading stuff about this in school -- holy crap, they made a car that can run on CORN! Isn't that great kids? I remember an SNL sketch where Jimmy Fallon was reporting on how someone made a car that could run on macadamia nuts. He then remarked "aren't macadamia nuts like 8 bucks a can?" and then reported "this just in... scientists have also come up with a car that runs on bald eagle heads and Faberge eggs." One of my favorite-ever SNL jokes and it has stuck with me to this day.

Yeah, it's great when you're a dumb little 8-year-old, and think it's soooo cool that you could run a car on corn, but grown-ups can see that this has a massive effect on the global food market. Apparently these eco-nuts have the thinking capacity of... 8-year-olds. Because they didn't think this through, and now the price of corn and other foodstuffs has gone through the roof. Of corse, there are widespread allegations that this messianic "alternative fuel" business is to blame. So now, maybe biofuels aren't the way to go. So where does that leave us? NOWHERE DAMMIT. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

One final word about gloom-and-doomers. This, I think, is actually the most interesting.

It's called the Simon-Ehrlich Wager. Credit to TheLokys for introducing me to this historical gem, as I had never before heard of it. Basically, this guy Paul Ehrlich is an entomologist who also has a penchant for human population research. He published a popular book in 1968 where he said that food and resource prices were due to skyrocket because the demands of a rapidly increasing population were outpacing supply. This, he argued, would result in mass starvation (very Malthusian). Julian L. Simon, a since-deceased business admin professor and Cato Institute member, slammed Ehrlich with the sledgehammer of fallacy (to quote a famous internet presence who used that phrase to describe something else) and challenged him to a good old-fashioned pissing contest.

Ehrlich predicted doom and catastrophe for years, until in 1980, Simon challenged Ehrlich outright, throwing down the gauntlet by making "a public offer to stake US$10,000 ... on [his (Simon's)] belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run." He told Ehrlich he could choose any of these non-government-controlled commodities -- any at all. Ehrlich and his team of fellow granola-munchers took up the challenge and came up with five raw materials: copper, tungsten, chromium, tin, and nickel. The bet was reduced to $1000, but the very public debate was on.

Catastrophic resources did not bring down the global economy. Ten years later, in 1990, Ehrlich mailed Simon a check. Another victory for science and rational thought.

Just for reference, the quotes and such are from a Wired article, posted here.

Anyways, the Simon-Ehrlich debate is very interesting on a philosophical level. The most interesting part to me is that Ehrlich's book predicting all of this was hugely popular. According to Smithsonian Magazine, this book sold more than three million copies! For a non-Harry-Potter book (and "non-fiction" nonetheless), that's a pretty wide distribution, especially in 1968.

If you look at some of the other assertions this guy made, the fact that this book was so widely accepted as science is hilarious. He said he would bet that England would not exist as a country past the year 2000. He also said that "famines of unbelievable proportions" would occur by 1975. This just goes to show where "science by popular opinion" can get you. Clearly, every talking head and self-involved hippy across the country must have been chattering away about this "outstripping of natural resources" stuff. Now... I'm going to leave global warming for another day, but let's just say there are some strong parallels...

The point of all this is that maybe we're doing things with good intentions. But honestly, what the environmentalists say has changed so many times over my short lifetime that I don't know whether I'm helping the planet or shitting all over it any more. And for once, it'd be nice if science wasn't made to fit the latest environmental fad.