10 comments on “Sorry George

  1. “population growth in the rich world, largely driven by immigration, is more environmentally damaging than an increase in population in the poor world.”

    It’s alright to say “they’ll be melting icecaps” but not “rivers of blood.”

  2. I went over to look at Monbiot’s piece. He simply doesn’t “get it” about nearly anything. It’s useless to try to explain “resources” to someone so,, so–“unreflective” is the only word that comes to mind.

    But, if anyone feels contemptuous for the guy–or even sorry for him, try reading down through some of the “comments,” in which a virtual asylum-full squabbles among themselves in parsing various idiocies. He seems the leader of a very sick pack: the residual reality, I suppose, of over a century dominated by the “politics (and education) of envy.” Glimpses like this make it entirely superfluous to watch scary movies.

  3. What DK says. Resources are finite. It’s basic science. That we can do near unlimited things with them is the crucial point that should always be shouted afterwards. Seeing as we are pretty much constrained to the Earth then its limits are its own. Last I checked, it didn’t go on forever. I challenge you to find infinite matter and energy on this spinning little globe.

    I haven’t read his piece – it would probably just upset me – but he’s right on this one.

  4. “but he’s right on this one.”

    In the mathematical sense of his words, but he didn’t mean them that way, so he’s not right.

  5. “Seeing as we are pretty much constrained to the Earth then its limits are its own”

    Oh, really?

    The Americans did not fake the lunar landing and the next steps are slow in coming, or so they seem to me, but I’m impatient.

    We already have effective infinity, but for politicians who screw up legal and property systems.

  6. We’re making a mountain out of a semantic molehill. Resources, sometimes superfluously termed “scarce resources” are not some established quantity of material. They’re whatever it is that is available to us only in such quantity that we cannot have any more than a certain amount of it because of the insufficiency of the means through with to effect its procurement. The quantity of specific resources undergoes change: some become available only in lesser quantities; some become more abundant, either because we’ve discovered new sources or, often, because our requirement for their services has diminished–again, for more than one reason.

    I wouldn’t quibble with Monbiot’s use of the word “finite”–there are more serious miscomprehensions going on in that man’s mind.

  7. BlacquesJacquesShellacques, I’m keen on space travel too but thus far we’ve lost more resources (e.g. space kit) to it than we’ve gained (e.g. rock samples). Even if we extend the argument out to the entire universe, most regard it as having limits, albeit expanding ones.

    That said, I’m with Gene on this one, I only took the issue up because Tim only quoted one line of George’s piece and in isolation it doesn’t seem as absurd as his usual dribblings.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.