There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Cornucopian vs. Malthusian debate
| A bunch of tree-huggers|
|Save the rainforests!|
|Watch that carbon footprint!|
The debate between so-called "Cornucopians" and "Malthusians" underlies much of the rhetoric behind debates over the implications of environmental science. The term Cornucopian refers to the "horn of plenty" of Greek mythology. Cornucopians generally argue against economic and population growth models with strict limits, while Malthusians (sometimes "neo-Malthusians"), named after Thomas Malthus, take the opposing position.
The debate centers on the severity and policy implications (and sometimes the existence) of environmental issues such as:
- Global warming
- Peak oil
- Ozone depletion (more so in the 1980s-1990s before the ratification of the Montreal Protocol)
- General resource depletion
- Fresh Water depletion
- Agriculture, organic food, and genetically modified food
The Population Bomb
Two of the foundational books of the modern environmental movement are considered to be Rachel Carson's Silent Spring published in 1962 and Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich's The Population Bomb released in 1968. While Carson's concerns were correct, that wasn't the case for the Ehrlichs: The book predicted mass famine and starvation in the 1970s and 1980s, which obviously failed to pass. A major flaw in the assumptions behind some of The Population Bomb's predictions was that the Ehrlichs were unaware of the contemporaneous work of Norman Borlaug, who is credited with initiating the development and spread of high-yield crops known as the "Green Revolution." The Ehrlichs now consider the book to be flawed as well, though they defend it as important in raising the general issue of overpopulation. Despite this acknowledgment, they have still been criticized for not fully incorporating criticisms of the book into their later work and statements.
Limits to Growth
Limits to Growth, the 1972 report produced by the Club of Rome and based on MIT's World3 model, is considered one of the prominent works of the "Malthusian genre". It is often quote mined to make it appear as if it predicted total societal collapse by the end of the 20th century. Limits to Growth, in fact, offered various scenarios and a 2008 study has shown that the core predictions in its business-as-usual, or "standard run", scenario trends have held true.
Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, a 1980 book by William R. Catton Jr., takes the Malthusian view and holds that societies overshooting their ecological carrying capacity has been and continues to be the primary driver of cultural, social, and political change. While never a big seller, the book continues to be a primary reference point for Malthusians today.
The late Julian Simon rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s as Cornucopian bullshitter-in-chief and head "doomslayer". His most famous work is The Ultimate Resource, which argues that growth is, economically speaking, "unlimited" and that human ingenuity is "the ultimate resource". A new generation of Cornucopians has sprung up to fill the void left by Simon, some preferring to call themselves "free market environmentalists". Bjørn Lomborg, author of the scientifically-dubious The Skeptical Environmentalist, claims to have been inspired by Simon. Matt Ridley deftly recycles Simon and a number of denialist talking points in his book The Rational Optimist.
In 1980, Simon made a wager with Ehrlich that the prices of five commodities would be lower in 1990 than they were in 1980, and Simon won the bet. What usually goes unmentioned by Simon fans is that he lost a second bet with professor of forestry David South on the price of timber. In 1995, Simon issued a second challenge, claiming that "all long-run trends" point in the direction of increased material and environmental welfare for the world population. Ehrlich and the late climatologist Stephen Schneider offered Simon a bet on 14 environmental (and one economic) measures, including increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide leading to increased global warming, which Simon then refused because he felt they were not sufficiently directly linked to human welfare. Simon's counter-offer to bet on direct indicators of human quality of life — leisure time, life expectancy, and purchasing power, was also refused.
A similar bet was made by John Tierney of the New York Times and Matt Simmons of the Council on Foreign Relations, in which Simmons bet that the price of oil would reach over $200 per barrel by the end of 2010. Quite obviously, Simmons lost.
Amory Lovins, head of the Rocky Mountain Institute, correctly predicted in the 1970s that energy use and economic growth would decouple over the proceeding decades and has argued for a "soft path" out of the energy crisis, emphasizing energy efficiency in solving global warming and other environmental problems. However, he also made many more failed predictions: that the aforementioned improvement in energy efficiency will lower consumption (repeatedly), that renewables would take over a majority share of the electricity market (1976), that electricity consumption would fall (1984), and that cellulosic ethanol biofuels will solve the U.S. dependency on foreign oil (repeatedly).
Crank ideas tend to accumulate the farther out to either side one travels along the Cornucopian-Malthusian continuum.
Denial of various environmental issues such as global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, etc. can be systematically found on the Cornucopian side. Wishful thinking like abiotic oil is common among the crankier types.
On the Malthusian side, one finds hard green ideologies, the more misanthropic forms of the Gaia hypothesis, and associated nature woo. Predictions of imminent "doom 'n gloom" have been described as "disasterbation." A vocal sub-faction (the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, Pentti Linkola, et al.) holds that the collapse of civilization is not only inevitable but desirable, arguing in quasi-mystical tones that humans deserve to suffer for the hubris of desiring longer lifespans, better medicine, and sufficient food. Also on the extreme Malthusian side can be found "lifeboat ethics," coined by Garrett Hardin, which holds that the poor nations are already too overpopulated to help, and likens the rich nations to lifeboats that will sink if they share their resources and remain afloat if they don't. This view inverts the conventional wisdom by claiming that it is immoral to give aid to the starving, because to do so means the rich and poor nations will both starve. The broader influence of Hardin's line of thought has led to an enthusiasm for immigration restriction in some quarters of the environmental movement, which is highly controversial.
- The Exponentialist Homepage
- Interactive World3 simulation model
- Cornucopian versus New Malthusian Perspectives, Oregon State University
- Cornucopians, A Guide for the Perplexed, The Oil Drum
- Betting on Climate Change, Real Climate
- The Cornucopian Fallacies by Lindsey Grant
- Perilous Optimism by Ernest Partridge
- Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable, Worldwatch Institute
- John Byrne and Leigh Glover. A Common Future or Towards a Future Commons: Globalization and Sustainable Development since UNCED. International Review for Environmental Strategies Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 5 – 25, 2002.
- Paul Dragos Aligica. Julian Simon and the "Limits to Growth" Neo-Malthusianism. The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development (2009) 1(3).
- Anthony Trewavas. Malthus Foiled Again and Again. Nature 418, 668-670 (8 August 2002)
- Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity, The Atlantic
- Ehrlich Revisits the Population Bomb, Stanford Daily
- Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. The Population Bomb Revisited. The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development (2009) 1(3)
- Pierre Desrochers and Christine Hoffbauer. The Post War Intellectual Roots of the Population Bomb: Fairfield Osborn’s ‘Our Plundered Planet’ and William Vogt’s ‘Road to Survival’ in Retrospect. The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, (2009) 1(3).
- Graham Turner. A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of Reality. CSIRO Working Paper Series 2008-2009.
- The Doomslayer, Wired
- The Ultimate Resource II (updated and revised edition of the original book)
- Matt Ridley: Optimism Without Limits, New Scientist
- The Ridley Riddle, Skeptical Science
- Re-Litigating the Simon/Ehrlich Bet by Paul Kedrosky
- The Simon-South Bet on Pine Saw Timber, Auburn University
- The Two Simon Bets, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University
- Economic Optimism? Yes, I'll Take That Bet, John Tierney, New York Times
- The Frugal Cornucopian, The Economist
- Amory Lovins on winning the oil endgame, TED talks
- Energy Tribune: Amory Lovins — Guru or Fakir?
- Jared Diamond on why societies collapse, TED talks
- The Vanishing, New Yorker
- Disasterbation Turns You Blind, Treehugger