Down with Doom: How the World Keeps Defying the Predictions of Pessimists

[financeguy]

Matt Ridley: Down with Doom: How the World Keeps Defying the Predictions of Pessimists

When I was a student, in the 1970s, the world was coming to an end. The adults told me so. They said the population explosion was unstoppable, mass famine was imminent, a cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment was beginning, the Sahara desert was advancing by a mile a year, the ice age was retuning, oil was running out, air pollution was choking us and nuclear winter would finish us off. There did not seem to be much point in planning for the future. I remember a fantasy I had - that I would make my way to the Hebrides, off the west coast of Scotland, and live off the land so I could survive these holocausts at least till the cancer got me.

I am not making this up. By the time I was 21 years old I realized that nobody had ever said anything optimistic to me - in a lecture, a television program or even a conversation in a bar - about the future of the planet and its people, at least not that I could recall. Doom was certain.

The next two decades were just as bad: acid rain was going to devastate forests, the loss of the ozone layer was going to fry us, gender-bending chemicals were going to decimate sperm counts, swine flu, bird flu and Ebola virus were going to wipe us all out. In 1992, the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro opened its agenda for the twenty-first century with the words `Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being.'

By then I had begun to notice that this terrible future was not all that bad. In fact every single one of the dooms I had been threatened with had proved either false or exaggerated. The population explosion was slowing down, famine had largely been conquered (except in war-torn tyrannies), India was exporting food, cancer rates were falling not rising (adjusted for age), the Sahel was greening, the climate was warming, oil was abundant, air pollution was falling fast, nuclear disarmament was proceeding apace, forests were thriving, sperm counts had not fallen. And above all, prosperity and freedom were advancing at the expense of poverty and tyranny.

I began to pay attention and a few years ago I started to research a book on the subject. I was astounded by what I discovered. Global per capita income, corrected for inflation, had trebled in my lifetime, life expectancy had increased by one third, child mortality had fallen by two-thirds, the population growth rate had halved. More people had got out of poverty than in all of human history before. When I was born, 36% of Americans had air conditioning. Today 79% of Americans below the poverty line had air conditioning. The emissions of pollutants from a car were down by 98%. The time you had to work on the average wage to buy an hour of artificial light to read by was down from 8 seconds to half a second.

 

[Kieran McConville]

As always it's neither all good nor all bad. There are real problems of course (for example the non-planet-ending, but still worrisome climate aspects of environmental change, or the debatable future of growth), but apocalypse, maybe not.

On a side note I was just wondering a few weeks ago what happened to this year's Rage Flu Panic Season.

 

[financeguy]

On a side note I was just wondering a few weeks ago what happened to this year's Rage Flu Panic Season.

That's last year's panic. I'm more concerned about the Rampaging Mobs of Mutants.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'm worried about the wrath of the weather gods, myself .

As always it's neither all good nor all bad. There are real problems of course (for example the non-planet-ending, but still worrisome climate aspects of environmental change, or the debatable future of growth), but apocalypse, maybe not.

This is how I feel . You all know me, I'm a "glass half-full" type of person. Pessimism seems a self-fulfilling idea to me.

Angela

 

[Kieran McConville]

I should clarify that I am not an optimist, on the whole. I'm probably a good deal more pessmistic than the author of the quoted piece (who strikes me as a little too jovial by half. It's not as though the acid rain and the ozone layer weren't a problem, but efforts were taken. The 1970s famine fetish might have come true were it not for certain revolutions in agricultural production. Etc. The ice age stuff was just silly, though. Probably influenced by subliminal Cold-War nuclear winter imagery)

But history tells us that the reporting of a thing magnifies its apparent significance by a factor of ten (or something). So to reiterate: there most definitely are problems. Whether they require the suspension of civil society as we know it, is more debatable.

 

[purpleoscar]

Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist has tons of examples and Michael Crichton as well but a bigger problem than predicting destruction is just simply that we can predict the future with much certainty at all.

Good example:

Nuremberg Chronicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First age: from creation to the Deluge
Second age: up to the birth of Abraham
Third age: up to King David
Fourth age: up to the Babylonian captivity
Fifth age: up to the birth of Jesus Christ
Sixth age: up to the present time (the largest part)
Seventh age: outlook on the end of the world and the Last Judgement

Nachricht f�r Netscape 4 User

A brief Seventh Age follows, reporting the coming of the Antichrist at the end of the world and predicting the Last Judgement. This is followed, somewhat unsystematically, by descriptions of various towns

This was written in 1493. Boy that seventh age was a doozy!

 

[melon]

It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that pessimism largely seems to rise and fall with the economy. The 1970s were as economically dire then as they are now for consumer nations (producer nations certainly enjoyed the rise in commodities prices, and many went nearly bankrupt in the 1980s during the oil glut). And much like the present, the malaise of the 1970s was due to energy shocks, which--for then, as much as now--means oil. In the 1970s, it was due to a combination of geopolitical instability and, in the case of the U.S., tax disincentives to production. Nowadays, I think the difference may not be an issue of policy, but just an issue of demand from emerging markets finally causing an end to the era of "cheap oil."

I'd like to think that these sustained high prices (it may not be $147/bbl anymore, but remember a decade ago when anything over $50/bbl was considered an economy killer? It's still $75/bbl now) should generate investment in alternative energy sources, but if we've thought of $75/bbl or so as the "new normal," then perhaps not. Either way, I still think it's going to take a combination of nuclear power and hydrogen fuel generated from those nuclear sources to maintain the prosperity that we're used to. Otherwise, I imagine that another "new normal" might appear, where the average Western standard of living will look a lot more meagre over time (while, of course, the fabulously wealthy will still live as opulently as ever).

It's not the end of the world, but is it the world we want to live in?

 

[the iron horse]

As always it's neither all good nor all bad. There are real problems of course (for example the non-planet-ending, but still worrisome climate aspects of environmental change, or the debatable future of growth), but apocalypse, maybe not.

On a side note I was just wondering a few weeks ago what happened to this year's Rage Flu Panic Season.

There are no real problems?

Every year 15 million children die of hunger.

Search hunger >>>

 

[Kieran McConville]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

This is not the first time you have completely, I repeat, completely misread something I have posted. Like, taken away a meaning diametrically opposite to that in the post.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Could his unrealistic optimism be linked to the collapse of Northern Rock?

 

[the iron horse]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

This is not the first time you have completely, I repeat, completely misread something I have posted. Like, taken away a meaning diametrically opposite to that in the post.

To whom are you asking this question?

 

[AEON]

I am leaning toward the idea that the Second Coming is a process and not a singular event. With that in mind -- and I think we are generally headed in the right direction -- but certainly not in a straight line.

 

[PhilsFan]

To whom are you asking this question?

Kieran literally said
"THERE ARE REAL PROBLEMS"

and you read it as "There are not real problems."

You have displayed time and again some seriously problematic reading comprehension issues.

 

[Diemen]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

This is not the first time you have completely, I repeat, completely misread something I have posted. Like, taken away a meaning diametrically opposite to that in the post.

This post could have done without the first sentence...

 

[Kieran McConville]

I suppose so, but in my defence I was seething with rage at the time. Apologies.

 

[the iron horse]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

This is not the first time you have completely, I repeat, completely misread something I have posted. Like, taken away a meaning diametrically opposite to that in the post.

Please accept my apology.

 

[pcfitz80]

Matt Ridley: Down with Doom: How the World Keeps Defying the Predictions of Pessimists

The verdict is not in yet. Certainly when people hear these things about the future they automatically seem to think its right around the corner. After all, dire predictions were made about the 21st century and now we are in the 21st century. But still, just because some of these really bad things haven't happened yet doesn't mean they won't still or that the people predicting them were off base. In some case it may be that the prediction of certain events led to steps being taken to prevent, or at least delay them. After all, thats the goal: to warn people of what may happen if certain steps are not taken. Assuming those steps are taken it should not come as a suprise that the predictions never come to fruition, or at least don't as quickly as they would have.

 

[hiphop]

There are no real problems?

Every year 15 million children die of hunger.

Search hunger >>>

If you wouldn´t have chimed in, I probably would have said the same.

"life expectancy had increased by one third, child mortality had fallen by two-thirds"? I recently looked up Zambia on wikipedia and found out that average life expectancy had fallen from 60 years to 37 years (women) and 38 years (men), largely because of AIDS.

In 2008, 100 of every 1.000 new born babies died.

The quantity of available optimism/ pessimism depends on where and how you live. I will not conclude that Zambia´s people are pessimists - I´ve never been there.

Also polar bears probably aren´t that happy with the glacier melting.
Melting ice kills polar bears, say boffins • The Register

Dolphnis in Japan aren´t happy either.
The Cove Movie: Welcome

One thing is interesting though, pollution from cars is down 98%? Is this guy sure? Back that up for me if you can. Where´s this data from?

Anyway, I don´t want to seem pessimistic. Today 79% of Americans below the poverty line have air conditioning. To quote another poster, as soon as the paycheck arrives, we can buy what we want, uh yes!

 

[financeguy]

Today 79% of Americans below the poverty line have air conditioning. To quote another poster, as soon as the paycheck arrives, we can buy what we want, uh yes!

I don't see anything particularly noteworthy about this. In quite a few parts of the US - including probably the less wealthy parts - air conditioning is a necessity.

 

[Kieran McConville]

If you wouldn´t have chimed in, I probably would have said the same.

Well yes but be fair, he wasn't chiming in against the quoted opening author's somewhat pollyanna-ish take on the world, but against something I actually didn't say.

And the quoted opening author, while almost certainly on someone's payroll, did have half a point: global collapse, while never out of the question, has not happened yet. The world has failed to end. Some of those 1970s hobby-horses (ice age?) do look a bit silly now, while others have risen to higher prominence (peak oil). I'd agree that some of the implications he draws from that are a tad dodgy, but if end-of-the-worldism is on the way out, I say good. It's a cop-out.

 

[hiphop]

Well yes but be fair, he wasn't chiming in against the quoted opening author's somewhat pollyanna-ish take on the world, but against something I actually didn't say.

I don´t care; the main point is that millions of people still die of hunger, after we already had optimistic previews as early as 1970 which said that hunger and poverty would be eradicated soon.

And the quoted opening author, while almost certainly on someone's payroll, did have half a point: global collapse, while never out of the question, has not happened yet. The world has failed to end.

Let´s see about the future, climate change really worries me; from floods and hurricanes to vast parts of developing countries losing their harvest.

Of course the world in one way or antoher will continue to exist. The question rather is, with or without mankind. See, even after a world wide nuclear war there would be a couple of cockroaches left.

Nature itself is quick to recover, if left alone by mankind/ pollution etc. A former city will be overgrown by jungle in about, say, 100 or 200 years? Which is a pretty short timespan for nature.

How quick has the human race been to ruin most balances that nature developed in millions of years? We just needed 300 years to blow the balance up.

The athmospheric effects we feel now stem from pollution from the 1980s/90s. Needs a minimum of 10-20 years, so we´ll find out sooner or later if we´ve really ruined the natual balance for good.

 

[Kieran McConville]

On your last point, I'm intrigued by the claim that the atmospheric effects of today stem from pollution in the nineteen eighties and nineties! That one is news to me. Isn't it usually posited as a cumulative effect of the pollution from about 1850 to today?

It isn't as though climate change isn't a concern, but I'm afraid the timeframes are a bit on the long side. That is precisely why it is so hard to get it on the political centre stage.