Re: Ideology of Death -- please hold the soap opera
From Jay Hanson:
I see. So it's your intention to divert attention away from the issues
and
convert it into a personal attack on me. Nice tactic, but pretty
transparent Saul
and in an earlier posting, Hanson said:
Saul, your moaning and groaning is rather unproductive.
Who's whining ("moaning and groaning") now? It ill behooves someone who
has condemned, lock, stock and barrel, root and branch, the whole tribe
of economists (the argumentative equivalent of genocide), withoout
moderation, and in an "uncivilized fashion" (as Ed Weick puts it), to
take offense at getting a little bit of his own medicine back. It is a
bit like Hitler taking offense at Charlie Chaplin's parody in THE GREAT
DICTATOR.
I have to admit, however, some shame at getting into a dispute that
flames Hanson, or may seem to flame him, insofar as I raised the
question whether -- if we discourage flaming an individual -- we should
tolerate the wholesale flaming of an entire category of individuals. If
Hasnson will admit that the wholesale nature of his attack on economics
and economists, without limit or reservations, constitutes a lack of
moderation or sense in argument, and amounts to wholesale flaming, than
I will admit regret at attacking him personally.
He seems, however, either to be in gross cogitative error or totally
disintenuous when he thinks that he has presented arguments that are so
frame that they can be, or are worth, refuting in their specific
arguments or in points of facts, by economists or anyone else. The
whole tenure of the argument is an attack that must be met at its root,
in terms of its basic assumption (wrongness and wickedness of economics
and economists per se), vehemence and motivation of incessantly
pursuiing the argument in various forms, and characteristics of its
rhetoric. Attacking the argument at its roots, therefore, is the most
efficient and valid way of attacking it. Getting involved with Hanson
in refuting the points of its obsessive rhetoric is unnecessary; it
risks appearing to validate the compulsiveness behind the position he
takes by taking the specific arguments seriously enough to try to refute
them, one by one; and is likely to turn into a fool's errand, a
paperchase without end, and without the faintest chance of making a dent
in the closed system of a true believer.
I will close, however, by dealing with a point made by one of Mr.
Hansen's defenders, who seems to be more rational and moderate in his
arguments. He brings forward Orwell's essays (particularly an essay
that was prefaced to one of the edition's of ANIMAL FARM; I am familiar
with the essay, but from the edition of Orwell's COLLECTED ESSAYS and
other writings and haven't seen it connected with ANIMAL FARM -- it may,
perhaps, have been added by an editor). Yes, Orwell was very sceptical
about the degree to which we, in the democracies, had escaped the kind
of political and linguistic manipulation that he pilloried in his
writings about the totalitarian dictatorships, particularly ANIMAL FARM
and 1984. Orwell did, indeed, talk and write, among other examples,
about the wartime BBC which in its broadcasts -- particularly to the
colonial world and India -- distorting the truth so as to shield the
British Empire from the same sort of criticisms that it levellled at the
enemies of Britain. But, to the best of my recollection, Orwell always
criticized the way in which institutions were corrupted, and in which
they tried to corrupt all of those with whom they dealt -- in the case
of the BBC, its broadcaasters and audiences together. Orwell NEVER
suggested that, as a result, the whole category of people that were
involved in wartime broadcasting were necessarily taken in by these
efforts, or did not try to resist them. Indeed, he was very frank in
various essays in describing his own frustrations and his own methods of
dealing with BBC controls, and the way in which he got around them, e.g.
in his selection of Indian authors and intellectuals who were available
in London to participate in broadcast discussions directed at the Indian
subcontinent. Elsewhere, in other essays on politics and language,
Orwell attacked the forms of political invective that were used in
debates, particularly the demeaning of one's oppponents by using
intemporate langauge, such as "fascist hyenas" etc. -- he saw this as
corruption of language, which was his central fear in that it blurred
the distinction between truth and lies, fact and falsehood. I am pretty
sure, if Orwell were with us today, that, on the basis of his writing,
he would have some sharp analysis and argument to make about the
failings of economics and of some economists. But I am equally sure
that he would not have tolerated wholesale condemnation of econoomics
and economists, and the kind of linguistic license with which this
argument has been pursued.
Re: Ideology of Death -- please hold the soap opera
Saul, your moaning and groaning is rather unproductive.
Who's whining ("moaning and groaning") now? It ill behooves someone who
I meant that your comments are totally irrelevant Do you suppose anyone
cares what you think about me?
I would be more interested in hearing your solution for our ecological
crisis? Do you recommend more economic growth?
Jay -- www.dieoff.com
--
References:
James White, co-author of a study published in the journal Science, said
that the Antarctica ice cores show a temperature increase of about 20
degrees F within a very short time about about 12,500 years ago. .. Ice
cores from Greenland, near the Arctic, show that at the same time there was
a temperature increase of almost 59 degrees in the north polar region within
a 50-year period, White said. [AP, 10/1/98]
The National Climatic Data Center has just announced that last month was the
warmest September on record - almost a degree F above the previous record
and nearly 4 degrees F above the average. It is the 9th consecutive month to
break the previous all-time record. ... there are areas of the Earth, such
as the Arctic, where the temperature increase is 3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
This is enough to melt permafrost, the permanently frozen ground that
characterizes northern tundra bogs. And melting bogs release methane, a
greenhouse gas. [UPI, 10/8/98]
Large swathes of the planet will be plunged into misery by climate change in
the next 50 years, with many millions ravaged by hunger, water shortages and
flooding, according to evidence published yesterday.
Findings from Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Change presented to 170
countries in Buenos Aires show that parts of the Amazon rain forest will
turn into desert by 2050, threatening the world with an unstoppable
greenhouse effect. [Guardian (london), 11/3/98]
Industry deregulation of electric utilities in the U.S. has cut utility
investment in energy saving programmes by 45 percent. [Reuters, 10/02/98]
U.S. government scientists said this year's ozone hole over Antarctica was
the largest ever observed, leaving an atmospheric depletion area greater
than the size of North America over the southern land mass. [Nando, 10/7/98]
Humans have destroyed more than 30 per cent of the natural world since 1970
with serious depletion of the forest, freshwater and marine systems on which
life depends. [Guardian, 10/2/98]
Age-adjusted mortality in Russia rose by almost 33% between 1990 and
1994 Russia is not alone in experiencing drops in life expectancy; all
the nations created from the break-up of the Soviet Union have reported a
decline in life expectancy since 1990, although none has been as large as in
Russia. [JAMA. 1998;279:793-800]
Africa is beginning of a full-on Malthusian dieoff. See "Worldwatch
Briefing: Sixteen Dimensions of the Population Problem" at
http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/pr98924.html and
"Life on Earth is Killing Us" press release at
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/1998/10/100298/killingus.asp
and study itself is http://dieoff.com/page165.htm
"To put this in context, you must remember that estimates of the long-term
carrying capacity of Earth with relatively optimistic assumptions about
consumption, technologies, and equity (A x T), are in the vicinity of two
billion people. Today's population cannot be sustained on the 'interest'
generated by natural ecosystems, but is consuming its vast supply of natural
capital -- especially deep, rich agricultural soils, 'fossil' groundwater,
and biodiversity -- accumulated over centuries to eons. In some places
soils, which are generated on a time scale of centimeters per century are
disappearing at rates of centimeters per year. Some aquifers are being
depleted at dozens of times their recharge rates, and we have embarked on
the greatest extinction episode in 65 million years." [ Paul Ehrlich, Sept.
25, 1998] http://dieoff.com/page157.htm
As capitalism fails in more-and-more countries, these countries will
disintegrate too. Ultimately of course, this will lead to world wars over
natural resources. See Homer-Dixon's work at
http://utl2.library.utoronto.ca/www/pcs/tad.htm
Re: Ideology of Death -- please hold the soap opera
Jay Hanson wrote: I meant that your comments are totally irrelevant Do you suppose anyone cares what you think about me? I would be more interested in hearing your solution for our ecological crisis? Do you recommend more economic growth? Jay: 1. What makes you think that I think anything of you at all? Why should I care about you, personally? You may be the most splendid person on earth, or you may be the biggest jerk (and I'm sure you would say the same about me). Your personality has nothing to do with this. 2. I do care about the nature and persistence of your argumentative antagonism to the whole tribe of econoomists, labelling them in the most pejorative fashion, without reservation. That is not justified, and it does concern me because of (a) the essential argument that Orwell made, and that was at the heart of most of his writings -- the corruption of language, of which one form is the use of wild diatribe against those with whose views we may disagree, prevents us from distinguishing between truth and lies, fact and falsehood; (b) because hate mongering, against any group, holus bolus, is different from criticism, and a world in which hate mongering is tolerated (even when directed against economics and economists) puts all of us at risk; and (c) because the wholesale rejecting of economists and economics may beguile some other individuals who otherwise would dispassionately consider whether there are elements of economic reasoning and policy that *might* be used to attain worthwhile objectives (e.g. -- to pick one element at random -- using selective ecological taxes to condition behavior so as to limit or direct production and reduce environmental impacts). 3. Your question about ecology is simply a red herring. Just because you are passionately advocating environmental concern, and just because you may be right that some aspects of economics and some arguments made by some economists, some or all of the time, encourage unlimited economic growth and production at all times, in all circumstances, and without heed to real costs -- something that should, indeed, concern us all -- doesn't justify you in your wholesale, apparently ignorant and heedless condemnaation of all econoomists, and all econoomics, at all times. Again, this, rather than you, is all I am concerned about, and I can only understand the fervor of this behavior by characterizing it as obsessive behavior, or, rather, obsessive argumentation. 4. A minor matter re. your environomental conclusion. You are, of course, blindly making unwarranted assumptions that anybody who oppposes your arguments, or thinks that you have gone way too far in your arguments against economics and economists, must therefore be an advocate of unlimited economic growth. Not that it matters, but in my case, I am on record, since the 1970's and continuiing through the 1980's (I am retired now) as working, and writing, on behalf of environmental efforts. amd supporting and trying to popularize and embed in policy (with what degree of success or failure, I cannot judge) environmental concerns, in Canada and overseas. For example, in 1970-1971, I was co-director of a report on urban problems and technologies for the Science Council of Canada that was the first, or one of the first, studies that proposed and elaborated on the need for urban recycling programs as a means of cutting down on waste, while generally putting forward (in a public report) the signs that our society was wasteful in its use of resources (not as widely recognized then as it is now). In 1972 or 1973, I did a series of papers for the National Design Council, which advised the Minister of Industry, pointing out the economic, environmental and social costs of our system of "externalities" and suggesting that the tax system be used, together with other methods, to make industries re-internalize these costs as a disincentive to their environmentallly-disruptive behavior, and, in addition, that selective consumption taxes be studied insofar as these might be targeted in ways that would discourage wasteful consumption patterns. Admittedly, this was probably a wasted effort, and certainly one that did not earn me any brownie points, but it had to be made, and I was gratified that at least I convinced some of the colleagues and Council members on the Council. In the mid-1970's, I worked on the Fourth Quarter Century Trends review document of the Department of Environment (a public document which also went to the Canadian cabinet) and later on a follow-up internal document involving interviews of key decision-makers who had paarticpated in review of the document which had, in part, identified a number of problem areas that were emerging in economic and environmental areas (prepared by a team of DOE analysts and outside consultants). I could go on with many more examples, some more important, some less, all of which -- given the magnitude of what we faced then, and what we are
