Here it is (ta da!), my first post to my "Projectile Logorrhea" blog. Why Projectile Logorrhea? Because, try as I may to let no non-edifying words come from my mouth, I have to vent (and not just in traffic). So let the catharsis begin...
Rant #1: Scientific illiteracy, especially as it applies (and is applied by) politicians and the voters who elect them. We are a nation of voters who can't remember basic 6th grade science, let alone comprehend Economics 101 or what a few degrees of global warming -- er, excuse me, climate change -- really mean. People, get a clue!!! We aren't turning up the thermostat of our planet a few degrees. We are tampering with the life support system of Spaceship Earth, and for those of you who are religious (as I am) this is not good stewardship of the planet for which I believe we have been entrusted.
Whether or not you believe in evolution, the projected loss of as much as 40% of land species is not a "minor deal" in the grand scheme of things. (The first rule of intelligent tinkering: Save all the parts.)
Of course, there are the anti-global-warming conspiracy theorists who love to proclaim that global warming is a grand scheme to spread socialism or snag research dollars. These ideologically-blinded folk may be dismissed outright. But for those attempting to make"economic" arguments against reducing carbon emissions, these folk have forgotten (or never bothered to learn) the basic science of carrying capacity in their arguments: The human race (and its various economies, impressive as their accomplishments may be) have overshot sustainable use of the resources of this planet, and the laws of biology and physics will bring us back into check, no matter what our ideological views of the subject matter.
Yeah, yeah, I can hear the Malthus barbs already waiting on the tongues of those college-educated economists who lack environmental science training. You see, as a natural scientist who has studied economics, I understand the efficient allocation of scarce resources that can (and has) occurred under private "ownership" of capital and "free-market" prices. However, as an interdisciplinary natural and social scientist, a student of game theories and commons tragedies, I also understand that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is not the hand of God. Substitution and privatization are not remedies for ecological overshoot. I fear that we are about to receive a lesson in basic biology and physics that will shock the clueless economists and idealogues who taut "business as usual." But, even as vindictive as I feel right now, I pray I am wrong.
Rant #1: Scientific illiteracy, especially as it applies (and is applied by) politicians and the voters who elect them. We are a nation of voters who can't remember basic 6th grade science, let alone comprehend Economics 101 or what a few degrees of global warming -- er, excuse me, climate change -- really mean. People, get a clue!!! We aren't turning up the thermostat of our planet a few degrees. We are tampering with the life support system of Spaceship Earth, and for those of you who are religious (as I am) this is not good stewardship of the planet for which I believe we have been entrusted.
Whether or not you believe in evolution, the projected loss of as much as 40% of land species is not a "minor deal" in the grand scheme of things. (The first rule of intelligent tinkering: Save all the parts.)
Of course, there are the anti-global-warming conspiracy theorists who love to proclaim that global warming is a grand scheme to spread socialism or snag research dollars. These ideologically-blinded folk may be dismissed outright. But for those attempting to make"economic" arguments against reducing carbon emissions, these folk have forgotten (or never bothered to learn) the basic science of carrying capacity in their arguments: The human race (and its various economies, impressive as their accomplishments may be) have overshot sustainable use of the resources of this planet, and the laws of biology and physics will bring us back into check, no matter what our ideological views of the subject matter.
Yeah, yeah, I can hear the Malthus barbs already waiting on the tongues of those college-educated economists who lack environmental science training. You see, as a natural scientist who has studied economics, I understand the efficient allocation of scarce resources that can (and has) occurred under private "ownership" of capital and "free-market" prices. However, as an interdisciplinary natural and social scientist, a student of game theories and commons tragedies, I also understand that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is not the hand of God. Substitution and privatization are not remedies for ecological overshoot. I fear that we are about to receive a lesson in basic biology and physics that will shock the clueless economists and idealogues who taut "business as usual." But, even as vindictive as I feel right now, I pray I am wrong.
