Mars is getting warmer.
Update: ...And Michael Crichton would like to tell us all that environmentalists are religious fanatics. I actually agree with some of the things he says in the abstract, but the problem is that his speech is just as defunct of citations as he accuses others of being. I even looked around a little on his website and I can find the speech, but nothing about the mound of studies he describes and the whole arguement is suspicious when there are just as many people claiming the need for politics or religon and science to be separated who are coming up with very different ideas.
Just to take on one of the points: as I understand it, there has been a huge controversy concerning whether the effectiveness of DDT against mosquitos and, therefore malaria, which has killed millions, and there has been evidence to show that it may not be dangerous to humans initially, but there is a problem with bioaccumulation in the environment.
He is right about the incorrect predictions about population explosion and I have trumpeted the stablization of population as evidence against doomsayers, but this is one place wherein even I will admit that there was a massive population explosion and until scienctists had other evidence (as they now do) it was not that unreasonable to assume that current trends would continue until they had other evidence.
All this is to say that I think he brings up good points about the way we treat science, but I find it disturbing that in his scree against diluting science with fanatical beliefs he very much comes across as a prophet crying out in the wilderness that we are all going to die.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
WOOT! I'm taking the SUV out for another spin around the block!!!!
Honey, get my boots!
If those of you with little Japanese cars that run on water would kindly line them up for me, I’d like to try something I saw at the Monster Truck rally....
Having not read anything that our esteemed sci-fi author has written about environmentalism and fanaticism, I would like to offer this:
First, Mr. Crichton has little ground to stand on since his field of "study" has brought little other than good entertaining reading, some horribly conceived movie adaptations, and Scientology (Not personally).
Second, Define "stable" in the context of population. The human population is still increasing exponentially. Not exactly a stable situation. I've heard conservative right-wingers mention the failure of the Malthusian model of population growth with the advent of new agricultural technology, but what is that technology based on? Oil. Much of the food that we've grown during the industrial revolution that has been able to feed the population explosion can be attributed to the discovery of oil and, consequently, oil based derivatives like fertilizer and pesticides (for example, DDT). Unfortunately, our food supply for an increasing global human population is rooted in a finite and heavily polluting commodity. So what happens when the oil runs out or when extraction becomes increasingly costly, a phenomenon known to geologists and oil barons as Hubbert's Peak (google it), which is said to be upon us?
I don't want to appear to be a doomsayer or a chicken little, but it is certainly a healthier attitude place uncomfortable and inevitable situations under scrutiny rather than dismiss unpopular ideas as fanaticism or worse. When has turning a blind eye ever gotten us anywhere?
After actually reading the article, I must say that I agree with his accessment of moving back to scientific environmentalism. As far as his statements about supposed myths of the environmentalist movement, I can't substantiate, but I am obligated not to take his words at face value.
Post a Comment