At the core of every argument about science and technology are certain assumptions upon which the evaluations ultimately rest. Basic science has, for example, a fundamental value in that it raises the quality of human life by allowing people to understand and enjoy the physical world on an increasingly deeper intellectual and emotional level as their knowledge increases. This is one reason that science
More compelling is the assumption that technology is good because it increases the quality
and the quantity of human life. If we value human life and desire that its quality should be improved, then only the most selfish elitists can argue that the number of high quality human lives and the length of those lives should not also be maximized. We seek to maximize some function of the general form: [quality of human life] x [number of human lives] x [length of human life] = value.Quality and length of life depend, of course, upon number of lives. If there are more people than can be technologically provided for, quality and length decrease. The whole function must be considered.
Where the elitists err is in their assumption that their own lives are of far, far greater value than those of other people. This causes them to write the above function as something like: [quality of life] x [(elite lives) (K) + (ordinary lives)] x [length of life] = value. They put a very high value upon K. From Auschwitz and Dachau to the board rooms of big time pseudoenvironmentalist organizations today, it is this inflation of the value of K that has been used to justify virtually any atrocity.< /FONT >
Elitists often advocate "minimization of suffering'' as a substitute for "maximization of value.'' This leads to the golden tears mentioned on page one, above. "Minimized suffering'' is a functional goal with flawed boundary conditions (except as viewed by those who use a high value of K). After all, one can minimize suffering by just killing everyone - or at least everyone
else except for the elite decision makers.We usually do not express these assumptions explicitly, but they are always there. An individual with the elitist, Auschwitz mentality might read
Access to Energy for a while, but before long this underlying difference in assumptions would repel him. Few such people do read Access to Energy because Petr Beckmann's personal assumptions over a period of 20 years selected against this mentality."Can Technology Spare the Earth? Evolving efficiencies in our use of resources suggests that technology can restore the environment even as population grows'' by J. H. Ausubel in
American Scientist 84, pp 166-178, March-April 1996, gives several examples. One of these relates to farming as shown in Figures 3 and 4 from that paper.Even though world population has continued to grow, the area of farmland planted to grain has been decreasing since about 1980. It is approximately the same as in 1960, as is shown in Figure 4. This has been possible because of technological improvements in farming that have increased the yield of grain per acre as shown in Figure 3. The "spared'' line in Figure 4 shows the amount of farmland that would have been needed had this increase in productivity not taken place. The "spared'' line assumes that productivity per acre remained at 1960 levels.
Anyone who has invested in farmland during the past 35 years is familiar with the effect of this increase in productivity. American farmland increased in real value until about 1980 and has decreased since.
Ausubel calculates the area of farmland that may be required if world population doubles from the current level to a total of about 10 billion. He estimates that a vegetarian diet requires production of about 3,000 calories per person per day, while a diet of meat, milk, and other foods such as that consumed by most Americans requires about 6,000 calories. The difference is calories lost in the production of livestock.
Irish wheat and American corn now yield an average of 8 tons per hectare. He calculates that, if average world productivity rises to just 5 tons per hectare (for reference, see figure 3), the entire 10 billion people can eat an American (6,000 calorie) diet, and one-fourth of current world farmland -
an area the size of Alaska - can be taken out of production. An 8 ton per hectare average idles an area of farmland the size of Australia. The curves in Figure 3 indicate that this is reasonable.This is a wonderful effect of the advance of science and technology - but the elite "environmentalist'' leadership does not agree. They are doing everything possible to diminish technology - including the technology that increases farm yields. Why? Surely they support the reversion of vast tracts of cultivated land to the "natural'' state. The answer is that environmentalism is, to them, only a tool with which to accumulate wealth and power and to
reduce the world population in accordance with their enormous estimates of their own self-importance.Whether or not the issue is nuclear power, chemicals for farm fertilizer and pest control, chlorine and bromine compounds for refrigeration, or the use of coal, oil, and natural gas for power, lubrication and chemical production, underlying assumptions about life divide most scientists and technologists irreconcilably from their enemies. Why can the enviros not see the wonderful benefits of the advance of science and technology in a free-enterprise economy? They cannot see these benefits because, in their world view, these are not benefits at all.
|
|
Vol. 23, No. 7
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 23, No. 7 Date: March 01, 1996 02:42 PM Title: Golden Tears
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|