As I already mentioned over at the Corner, Tom Friedman lets his inner Malthus out for a drive today:
You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?
“The only answer can be denial,” argues Paul Gilding, the veteran Australian environmentalist-entrepreneur, who described this moment in a new book called “The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World.” “When you are surrounded by something so big that requires you to change everything about the way you think and see the world, then denial is the natural response. But the longer we wait, the bigger the response required.”
Gilding cites the work of the Global Footprint Network, an alliance of scientists, which calculates how many “planet Earths” we need to sustain our current growth rates. G.F.N. measures how much land and water area we need to produce the resources we consume and absorb our waste, using prevailing technology. On the whole, says G.F.N., we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth’s resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished, so we are eating into the future. Right now, global growth is using about 1.5 Earths. “Having only one planet makes this a rather significant problem,” says Gilding.
This is not science fiction. This is what happens when our system of growth and the system of nature hit the wall at once. While in Yemen last year, I saw a tanker truck delivering water in the capital, Sana. Why? Because Sana could be the first big city in the world to run out of water, within a decade. That is what happens when one generation in one country lives at 150 percent of sustainable capacity.
Full disclosure: Friedman gets under my skin like few others. But this is dangerous stuff and Friedman’s slide into Population Bomb territory is significant.
But first a few easy shots. One of the standard complaints against Friedman is that he leaps from anecdotes and conversations—often with CEOs or press flacks for evil regimes—to sweeping conclusions about the state of the Universe. For instance, the whole idea behind his book The World Is Flat stems from Friedman’s complete misunderstanding of a point made by Nandan Nilekani, the CEO of Infosys, about level playing fields.
In today’s New York Times column, Friedman says that he saw a tanker truck delivering water in Sana. And this is supposedly a rich reportorial nugget suggesting that Sana may run out of water. Well it might. I confess to not knowing much about Sana. But I do have some experience seeing water trucks. I’ve seen them in lots and lots of places, from Mexico to Alaska. I’m pretty sure that if I jumped to the conclusion that Fairbanks, Alaska was running out of water because I saw a water truck, few reasonable people would find that persuasive.
I saw a taco truck setting up in downtown DC on my way into work today. Does that mean DC has reached “peak taco”?
And then there’s the whole “sustainability” thing. We apparently all must now live within our means. Okay. For the record, this is Tom Friedman’s house, which he defends by arguing that it is a “green space” for wildlife.
Oh and here, my friend Jim Geraghty recaps some back-of-the envelope calculations about Tom Friedman’s carbon footprint.
Anyway, one need not rehearse the tale of Julian Simon’s wager (I got to know Simon a little bit when I was a lowly—yet noble!—researcher here at AEI 20 years ago and he would come visit). But when Friedman cites these calculations that depend on “prevailing technology” he’s committing the classic blunder of making a straight line projection from the present to the future. Think of all the technologies we didn’t have ten years ago and you realize how stupid it is to think we’ll be stuck with the same technologies ten years from now.
We have more trees in the United States than we had over a century ago. Why? Because new technologies rendered trees obsolete as a fuel and less vital as a construction tool. So now there’s vastly more forest on the East Coast than there was at the end of the 19th century.
Also, Friedman misses an important point. Much of the scarcity of resources we have in the United States isn’t the result of actual physical scarcity. It’s the result of man-made scarcity. Fossil fuels aren’t really so scarce in absolute terms, but in legal terms. That may not be the case in some parts of the developing world. But his column is aimed at people in America who irresponsibly want to live as lavishly as Tom Friedman.
print this page
Paul’s comment that “we are running out of resources” suggests that a course in classical economics would be beneficial. We never “run out” of resources — as history shows, we find and utilize new ones.
Friedman’s problem is that he is a dilletante — he knows just enough to wirte familiarly (and sometimes persuasively) about a subject but not enought to write accurately. Too many people (largely on the left) read this crap and think that he must be on to something — which he is not.
If only Cameron M., Paul, and Tom Friedman were satirists, I could enjoy their modest proposals. Instead, they are racists and megalomaniacs and not clever enough to disguise their unreasonable and base natures. When discussing “overpopulation,” one never senses that Friedman is stating their should be fewer people like him; no, better to have fewer “poor” people that lack the power and influence to maintain access to resources. “Much better for those poor devils if they never exist at all,” would be the Paul Ehrlich line. I can just see Cameron, Paul, and Tom sitting in their velvet chairs in their jolly old London club giving each other the “hear, hear!” after each ridiculous proclamation and waving for the help to come refresh their drinks. Drucker may have written, “The best way to predict the future is to create it,” but that doesn’t mean we should allow Tom Friedman to create a future that mandates fewer Africans, Asians, and Indians so he can keep his precious status quo.
I’m extremely thankful for the extreme points of view that Tom Friedman provides. An extreme point of view is just that, extreme – meaning the majority of the population will not be striving towards his vision, and thus won’t obtain it. He sets the bar high, which is a good motivator for our current state of society. I am mainly just confused as to why you wrote a response bashing him for this article. Maybe it’s because I’m just a naïve 26 year old (who still acts 21). Maybe it’s because I’ve never read a column by yourself or Friedman before. But I just am put off by your response. It seems pointless, misguided, and the thing that really irks me, is the waste of an opportunity it is for someone like you in a position of influence.
Do you really think anyone who reads this article is going to sell their home for a cabin in the woods, quit their job to work part-time at the local grocery store, decide to reduce the number of children they will have and switch from driving their Car to a pedaling a bike to work come next Monday? No. Friedman’s column is one of many ongoing education and awareness campaigns that are needed to make our population more aware of the issues that exist.
The column in question is simply painting one vision of the future, one that puts an idea in the readers mind – and the idea is a very positive one. Be proactive. Knowing my background above, why mock someone trying to identify future problems? It is counter-productive and seems to be self-motivated.
Presenting with ‘sweeping conclusions’ can be extreme, of course, but I don’t sense the threat from reading this article that you seem to sense, or even come close to. Keep in mind that no one can accurately predict that far into the future, but they shouldn’t be chastised and attacked for doing so. Maybe the lines of thought Friedman uses move at swift rate with steps of rationale being skiped, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t merit in the general direction of movement he is encouraging. After this small sample of reading, he just seems he might be an impatient presenter to those who haven’t yet shared his end vision, and need a step-by-step approach to get there (likely the majority reading). But the direction he points is correct.
Regardless of how you view him as a person, I think you should instead ask yourself, with an open-mind “What effect does his article, and my response to it, have on the world?” That is what is really important. Not settling a personal grudge, or calling out someone’s mistakes just for a laugh or some other satisfaction you get for this column. The readers don’t have the emotional attachments to Friedman that you possess (whatever they may be, I’m not speculating here).
Whether his actions contradict his words or not, or whether his thoughts are convoluted to your viewpoint, keep in mind that the vast majority of readers do not share that sentiment. Also keep in mind that when projecting as far as 40 years into the future, you’ll be able to play a game that never ends; no matter the prediction made it can be viewed as extreme or one that skips steps based off of any example referencing modern day to vision that far forward. That is because, as you mentioned, our environment does not move on a straight line.
I view Friedman’s article of one projection of potential future issues we could face. Potential. Future. Could. At least he’s trying to make a positive difference. Do you not see that? It would be one thing if Friedman were promoting a Kool-Aid party next Sunday afternoon, but his dream and vision are not only admirable in my eyes, they are also based on telling facts and trends we should all be made aware of.
Maybe he’s a poor illustrationist and it concerns you he could be misleading, but I would venture to guess that you actually don’t understand his viewpoint, which isn’t a bad thing. Just be tolerant of his differing viewpoints and methods of presenting his thoughts, if not constructively supportive to making readers more aware of the challenges we face. This response seems to be desperately grasping at straws, to argue for the sake of arguing. With such ineffective counter arguments, why even make them? Does it make you feel better to scold Friedman for not presenting his thoughts in writing via you? Is it reading the comments from B. Faucett, as he tries to instill the beliefs of his endangered group of thought into you through targeted praise?
Enough speculation, the spot where I take issue with your response is simply this: I think there are many ways you can keep your current position, and simultaneously voice your true opinions, but in a manner that is productive and could help effect and progress society in a beneficial manner. Counter with reason that panic and demise aren’t imminent. Explain why society doesn’t need to be aware of issues in our planet that could be harmful a few decades when you’re in your 60s or 70s (guessimating from your picture). For your response, at the moment, I think you should be ashamed of yourself for slowing the positive effects of an article that was written with good intentions and that will have a positive impact on our society, all for self-motivated reasons.
To me, your response comes off a bit defiant and self-serving, and referencing a friend’s article seems like bullying tactic of sorts. How do you know that his lifestyle (including his house) of the past wasn’t what led him to understand the thoughts he conveys in his articles? (I could be teeing myself up with that one, but again, I’m coming into this with no previous ties…) Maybe his actions now are a way to repent and give back because he feels guilty for that lifestyle? Does that make his message and its effect incorrect? Why stop an impactful message in the present, because the person made a mistake in the past? The point is the message, in its entirety is valid – let it be. You are in a position to have a positive effect on the world, and you should make the best of this opportunity by helping others.
-Cameron M.
http://www.NewCharityEra.com
RE: Motorsheep – Speaking of parables, in all the billions of years that the earth’s been in existence, you pick a 25 year period of time out of the 100s of thousands that humans existed to draw a conclusion from that we’ll make it through the next 4 decades just fine? I’m not saying you’re vision is necessarily wrong, it just seems like a ‘sweeping conclusion’ to me, and a small sample size to use. Let’s just hope we deal with it more constructively than destructively. Which goes back to the point I took from Friedman’s column. Construction, being proactive, preparing, planning and adapting, prevents problems. However, destruction is usually a reaction to one. We have the choice to wait and adapt, or prepare to progress.
This response misses the point entirely and does little to actually address Friedman’s very valid point.
We are running out of resources. It’s as simple as that.
Listening to denialists like Goldberg will only lead us all to ruin– but I guess it would be good for Goldberg’s stock portfolio in the short term… and that’s what’s really important, right?
Just noticed a typo in my comment, point 4, line 5, “declined” should be “defined.”
I didn’t anticipate that the AEI blog would ever link to Wonkette, but I’m pleased that I did and hope to see more.
This is the type of nonsense to which Libtards have resorted for years. Nothing new here–just another Limousine Liberal trying to dictate to the rest of us. Imagine that Friedman is featured on some talk shows as a voice of conservatism–what a friggin’ joke!
Good column, Jonah. you are one of the stars of the younger conservative flank.
I have to admit, for someone who is as irritated by Friedman as you claim to be, this is a pretty calm and reasoned response to his article. I am old enough to remember the doomsaying about population growth and running out of food, oil, etc. from the early 80′s. While I do see this planets exploding population as the source of many ills, we are still here and I can still fill up my gas tank without TOO much pain. I can appreciate article’s like Friedman’s as cautionary parables, but without any concrete and realistic solutions, it is pretty much just sensationalism. The world is a self-regulating place, and if we do indeed get too numerous for our own good we will certainly find ways to adapt, either constructively or destructively (probably both) so penning articles about ‘population bombs’ while sipping a cappuccino in a spacious NY apartment is not exactly what I think of as ‘journalism’.
… by the way, I am writing this in Ketchikan, Alaska, home of the highest annual rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere, and we have plenty of water trucks here too!
Add to all you’ve said, Jonah, that:
1. Human contribution to global warming is likely very, very small–perhaps calculable, theoretically, but definitely not measurable.
2. Global warming doesn’t cause more tornadoes but fewer–see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/the-tornado-pacific-decadal-oscillation-connection/.
3. Population pressure didn’t cause the spikes in food prices, since yields per acre have consistently grown much faster than population, but Green mandates for biofuels production have taken lots of cropland out of food production into fuel production, and that most certainly did contribute significantly to rising food prices and consequently increased hunger and starvation among the poor in developing countries. See the Goklany article linked in Cornwall Alliance’s April 6, 2011, newsletter at http://www.cornwallalliance.org/newsletter/issue/newsletter-april-6-2011/, or go directly to it at http://www.jpands.org/vol16no1/goklany.pdf.
4. Population is likely to peak around 2050 (I’m guessing a little earlier–maybe by 2035 to 2040–because all the perverse incentives cause the population watchers to exaggerate, not understate, both levels and growth rates of population and to exaggerate fertility rates and understate the rapidity of their declines–you know Simon’s work in the field and the explanations behind it) and then begin declining shortly thereafter, and the big problems are going to be not overpopulation (which has never been successfully declined–none of the “problems” that accompany “it” correlates statistically with density or growth rate or even age structure, but all the “problems” correlate just great with poverty) but a rapidly aging population with not enough people of working age to support the elderly. See http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7123.
One could go on, but Friedman’s perspective runs up against a whole truckload of stubborn facts.