The point here, as it is with Al Gore's carbon footprint or any one else's, is not that Diamond is a hypocrite or a bad person. Rather the point should be obvious: asceticism does not offer a path to stabilizing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, much less global sustainability (however you'd like to define it). This thought occurs to Diamond's interviewer:“The average per-person consumption rate in the first world of metal and oil and natural resources is 32 times that of the developing world,” says Diamond. “That means that one American is consuming like 32 Kenyans.” The problem is not the number of Kenyans, the problem is when Kenyans or, more pressingly, big developing countries
such as China, gain the ability to consume like Americans.
Can’t humans simply increase the supply of resources as they have done before? “We can change the supply of some things if there is only one limiting resource. If it is food, then we can have a green revolution and produce more crops,” he says. “Unfortunately, we need lots of resources. We need food, we need water. We are already using something like 70 or 80 per cent of the world’s fresh water. So you say, ‘Alright, we’ll get around water by desalinating sea water.’ But then there’s the energy ceiling, and so on.”
With a nod to the feast before us, I say there seems little chance that Chinese or Indians will forgo the opportunity to live a western-style existence. Why should they? It is even more improbable that westerners will give up their resource-hungry lifestyles. Diamond, for example, is not a vegetarian, though he knows a vegetable diet is less hard on the planet. “I’m inconsistent,” he shrugs.
But if we can’t supply more or consume less, doesn’t that mean that, like the Easter Islander who chopped down the last tree, thus condemning his civilisation to extinction, we are doomed to drain our oceans of fish and empty our soil of nutrients?So we should all be so lucky as New Guniea highlanders? Right. As a policy analysis this line of thinking falls well short of credulity for obvious reasons. Diamond's inconsistency should tell us is that sustainability must be made compatible with first world standards of living, because once you pose them as trade-offs, guess which one is going to win out? For just about everyone, Jared Diamond included, standards of living are not negotiable. Policy proposals should start by accepting this reality, otherwise they are simply "magical solutions."“No. It is our choice,” he replies, perhaps subconsciously answering his critics again. “If we continue to operate non-sustainably, then in 50 or 60 years, the US and Japan and Europe will be in bad shape. But my friends in the highlands of New Guinea will be fine. Some of my friends made stone tools when they were children and they could just go back to what their ancestors were doing for 46,000 years. New Guinea highlanders are not doomed,” he says, draining his pomegranate juice. “The first world lifestyle will be doomed if we don’t learn to operate sustainably.”
21 comments:
This is an example of "global thinking" rather than "specific thinking". "living sustainably" is larger, more complex, and more vague and open to different points of view, than, say, "using less water."
However, providing for people's needs is all about specifics. Specific needs in specific places (like water in Colorado or food in Appalachia) which have specific solutions, with specific kinds of personal behavior (culture),resources and technologies.
I'm sure if you asked a historian of any century or any culture, you would find that asceticism has a place- not usually the most popular place, however.
Jared Diamond lacks credibility because he has demonstrated that he lacks the ability to think coherently. He accepts as fact the prediction that government must impose draconian policies or face a world without resources. I assert that his ability to predict the future is no more credible than his ability to think coherently.
Another in a long line of pop anthropoloty frauds. These grand theories of cultural anthropology come and go, generall supporting one contemporary ideology or another. Diamond tapped into the noble savage/environmental degradation zeitgeist and served up a simplistic theory of everything in nice paperback-sized chunks. A study just came out claiming to show that the Maya civilization rose and fell because of a temporary warm period that allowed them to extend their agriculture - the opposite of Diamond's overextention of agriculture leading to the degradation of the environment. The one thing I know about this matter is that we'll never know for sure, and anyone who claims that he does know - across centuries and continents - is a hustler.
And of course, whether it is "the point" or not, Diamond certainly is a hypocrite on the grandest scale. Jimmy Swaggert blushes when he sees Jared Diamond's mansion.
Well, it sounds like his sustainability argument will pop up in his next book (on what tribal societies can teach modern civilization, according to the article). Roger can save this for future re-posting.
Also, it's interesting that the FT piece failed to mention the allegations of Diamond falsifying a recent article on New Guinea tribesman. That seems a bigger inconsistency that his magical thinking.
A couple of points...
We have no water shortage, but we have a great deal of water mismanagement. We use water, but we do not use it up. We spend billions channeling fresh water away from us (drainage), then spend billions more trying to pull it out of the Earth from depleting aquifers. We send household waste water to the sea, when it would do wonders for our lawns. Then we water our lawns with expensive potable water and claim we do not have enough to drink. We have water, water everywhere, but we use it very badly.
Also...
Watching environmentalist argue over sustainability is like watching alchemists argue over the best way to turn lead into gold. In both cases, the goal is impossible and the argument is a waste of time. The difference between the two is that the goal of sustainability is not even desirable. If you believe that it is, ask yourself: "What time in history was worthy of being sustained indefinitely?" None? Well neither is this one.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Sustainability is death of it. Sustainability is the precautionary principle incarnate. It is the death knell of a culture or civilization that has lost its will to live and grow. It is not a philosophy of living, but a philosophy of stalling death. If you can see the difference, than maybe there is hope.
"Rather the point should be obvious: asceticism does not offer a path to stabilizing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, much less global sustainability (however you'd like to define it)."
You are so right, Roger; jawboning and hairshirts (and harsh words to perceived enemies and fence-sitters) are of extremely limited use with respect management of a vast global commons. Only carbon pricing and offsets can work to pull out the private investments, technological breakthroughs and changes needed to stabilize CO2 concentrations in any timeframe earlier than two or three centuries.
"For just about everyone, Jared Diamond included, standards of living are not negotiable. Policy proposals should start by accepting this reality, otherwise they are simply "magical solutions.""
So you agree with China, India and others who say that the developed world needs to bite the bullet in a meaningful way first, or are you saying that mitigation policy/carbon pricing/massive government expenditure on R&D is simply impossible (as no one wants his lifestyle to suffer), so it`s every man and nation for himself in adapting?
Jim, nothing wrong with the water problems you point out that clearer property rights, freer markets and more accurate pricing won`t solve.
"Sustainability is the precautionary principle incarnate. It is the death knell of a culture or civilization that has lost its will to live and grow. It is not a philosophy of living, but a philosophy of stalling death."
With all respect, nonsense. "Sustainability" is what actors in a vibrant society call the various approaches they take to address the misallocation of valued resources when it is clear that existing property rights are non-existent or ineffective, or involve wide externalities.
Not tackling important externalities is the "death knell" of valued resources
Diamond is wrong about New Guinea being safe. If the developed world is in trouble, it's unlikely that we'll leave the highlanders alone.
Tom, isn`t Diamond simply saying that the higher have farther to fall, and that since the highlanders still have lifestyle relatively unleveraged by modern power, they would have much less trouble adapting to the loss of such power?
"If the developed world is in trouble, it's unlikely that we'll leave the highlanders alone."
Sure; those living in inaccessible, mountainous terrain will be first on the list.
I agree with Jim Clarke on the issue of "sustainability." If you look at how the word is actually used, it is little more than a rhetorical device by which the speaker reasserts the desirability of a policy without having to explain why.
And to the extent that one can extract a meaning from this buzzword, it implies the absurd criterion that an energy source (or other technology) is unacceptable unless it can be used by every human being on Earth into the indefinite future. Does this mean that we never should have started burning wood?
S. C. Johnson & Son, A Family Company, provides an excellent example of how far wrong the situation has become. The Company presents a short blurb on the PBS program Nature. In the blurb the successful use of alternative energy sources for producing the Company's products are outlined. And the Save the Planet by Reducing CO2 Emissions aspect is the focus of the presentation.
What always strikes me as odd is that the company produces products that are not necessary for basic human survival; all the products are luxury products. So, apparently, it's ok to use Earth's resources to produce unnecessary luxury products so long as one attempts to reduce the carbon footprint.
This outlook is so wrong. It's not just that we Americans, and people living in other Developed Countries, have larger-than-average Carbon Footprints. We also are using Earth's limited resources. And, we have opened up and polluted and destroyed previously pristine parts of the Earth so we can enjoy all these unnecessary luxury products ( parts of New Guinea, BTW, is an example ). As less-developed countries progress up the economic ladder, their citizens will begin to demand their share of the Earth's resources so as to produce unnecessary luxury products.
Just as those who advocate, demand even, that the developed countries must lead the way as an example for other countries, how about those advocates leading the way for us citizens of the developed countries. My observations have led to me to conclude that almost all those advocates have much larger carbon footprints than I do. Every penny of their multi-million dollar incomes have all been bought with carbon emissions. Their much-higher-than-average consumption of resources does not set an example for citizens of developed countries to follow. Even today, as they make hundreds of thousands of dollars in income, that income is based on carbon emissions.
Many of the most vocal advocates have several large houses along with several automobiles. It is not right that their example of consumption of limited resources, even when accomplished with 'reduced' carbon footprints, is a good thing. Don't all citizens of China and India, for example, deserve to have two huge houses plus a car for every member of the family?
So it goes.
As the nitty-gritty facts of the situation become more widely known and understood, every one of these "do as I say, not as I do" advocates will become marginalized and swept aside into the dustbin of history.
Let me clear. I am not an advocate of, or an example of, less-is-more. I fully realize that I have a larger-than-average carbon footprint; powerful automobiles and powerful motorcycles have always been a part of my life, for examples. my carbon footprint is above the average, but my carbon footprint is orders of magnitude smaller than that of almost all less-is-more advocates. Which of these has larger carbon footprints; motorcycle touring or heli-skiing or eco-tourism or downhill skiing?
"Tom, isn`t Diamond simply saying that the higher have farther to fall, and that since the highlanders still have lifestyle relatively unleveraged by modern power, they would have much less trouble adapting to the loss of such power?"
It amazes me that people have such respect for Jared Diamond. I admit I haven't read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" but I have read "Collapse."
It amazes me that people think that analyzing what may have happened on incredibly isolated islands (e.g. Easter Island, Greenland) more than 200 years ago offers any significant predictive power for the world in the coming decades.
Diamond says, “If we continue to operate non-sustainably, then in 50 or 60 years, the US and Japan and Europe will be in bad shape."
This is meaningless tripe. (Of course, it *is* an interview, and he was speaking off-the-cuff. So some meaningless tripe is excusable.)
But what does it mean, "be in bad shape"? "In bad shape" compared to whom?
To the highlanders in New Guinea?
To the people in Japan, the U.S., and Europe in 2009?
To what they hypothetically would be if they lived "sustainably"?
And why "50 or 60 years"? Is he predicting that people will be better off for 49+ years, and then the Collapse will occur?
I think it's helpful when academics step out of their field of expertise, it opens the discussion to bigger underlying issues and leaves windows for debate and growth. To say "standards of living are not negotiable. Policy proposals should start by accepting this reality..." is talking about policy but with a premise based on anthropology, sociology and even morals. Standards of living here is almost an euphemism for excessive wealth, and the statement borders on claiming excessively rich people will not be willing to forego this wealth under any circumstance. This is a statement about human nature! Sounds almost like William Golding (Lord of the Flies): "man makes evil as bees make honey".
Really, is that the case, that standards of living are not negotiable? This question pertains directly to theology, ethics, anthropology, not policy or science. I think that in the current situation that is for the most part true, the wealthy are holding on to their wealth. But historically thousands, millions have left comfort and wealth for a more fulfilling life. From Chris McCandless to the monastic movement, it happens. It is a possibility that our culture is reaching a point of extreme dissatisfaction with itself, and that standards of living will become unappealing. We live in an infirm society, intoxicated by its meaningless hedonism, that is increasingly dissatisfied with its condition. If this is true, and that people can change, it could mean the psychologist, clergyman, sociologist and anthropologist could be more effective in combating climate change than the scientist.
What underlies the view that "standards of living are not negotiable" is an ingrained cultural assumption precisely from developed countries, informed by centuries of secularization and moral desertification, that believes people cannot change fundamentally. This in turn perpetuates the outcome, an excuse. Breaking through this paradigm could be a bigger breakthrough than a technological one. We need both.
Mark, I liked Guns, Germs and Steel but I agree with you about Collapse; Diamond, like so many others, simply has little understanding of the institutional underpinnings of the tragedy of the commons, which the developed nations have largely addressed using property rights. But of course we in the West also live in a world where of many resources property rights are not defined or not enforceable.
In any case, I wasn`t defending the collapse thesis itself, was I?
Ricardo, while this is a very thoughtful criticism of Roger, it seems to me that Roger is making a pragmatic statement that, in the context of this particular set of problems, it is extremely unlikely that politicians at home and abroad will fashion policies that they believe will (or appear to) negatively affect their standard of living.
As this is in fact the position of those in the developing world (and is at the nub of the poliical debate here), it seems that Roger`s rough shorthand is quite defendable.
However, like you I think that Roger has cut corners on nuance. For example, I disagree with him that "asceticism does not offer a path to stabilizing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, much less global sustainability". In fact, the developing nations are calling on the West to bite the bullet first (and help accelerate the spread of low-carbon technology in developing nations), but this will only occur if we decide it is fair that we do so. Further, asceticism can be inspirational, and it has been precisely Gore`s apparent lack of it which has led his message to be ridiculed. Asceticism has a very definite place.
In further response to Jim Clarke and Andrew Dalton, I would agree that "sustainability" is a rather muddled concept.
But it nevertheless targets real problems and, to the extent voluntary is of course an entirely legitimate approach, one that, when adopted by large corporations has the double advantages of making employees and managers feel good and forestalling potential regulation.
As for the real problems, I`ve written a little more here about how we contribute to them:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/28/too-many-or-too-few-people-does-the-market-provide-an-answer.aspx
Well, heck, since there seems to be only minor nuance in this corner of the world in the criticism of Dr. Diamond's ideas, let me offer this full-throated defense of his perspective: they are an excellent synthesis of historical research, with a dose of a serious attempt to learn from that history and prevent needless tragedy through repetition. Reading dozens of posts and ripostes here in the Pielke house, I am left with the sense of a defensive chorus of libertarian-leaning science hobbyists mixed in with the occasional thoughtful post.
I find that Diamond's propositions that we need to treat resource management seriously, that east-west continental orientations have advantages in food cultivation and migration over north-south orientations, and that ideological diversity and experimentation produces winners in the arena of ideas more frequently than enforced homogeneity are all valid and interesting points. These are Diamond's signature ideas, and while I thought Collapse was less revolutionary in concept than the other books (though academically well-supported), I believe we will all live his resource-stressed predictions over the next 50 years. Castigating the messenger over his imputed lifestyle ignores the potentially important ideas at the peril of the stone-throwers' frisson. I am a fan of Gore's advocacy, while bemoaning his personal hypocrisy and entitlement. But the discussion of the salient points is important in spite of human shortcomings. To belittle Diamond's very important ideas while lionizing such climate delay- and techno-enthusiasts as Lomborg and the Pielkes strikes me as a cramped, narrow, and biased perspective. Kind of scared of a bit of change, perhaps, and clinging to a mythical cornucopian past and science-fictionally actualized cornucopian future.
The role of government in the management of the commons is to protect and preserve through policies that provide incentives for profitable, beneficial private or public actions. Charging a use fee for peeing in the pool in order to implement remedial actions is morally appropriate, economically sensible, and environmentally sustainable (darn that word). Make the users pay for the privileges of use. Only the owner of the pool can enforce the collection of the peeing fee, though. In the case of the earth's atmosphere, that owner's proxy is the various representatives of the planets inhabitants, creating and taxing the right to pollute the atmosphere and alter the chemistry of the planet.
For those that would make their enthusiastic defense of the right to pee in the pool I swim in without cost (no new energy taxes!), I would say: let's put it to a vote. I bet I can make my case more strongly than you can make yours. Internalizing externalities is either done by a government or vexed neighbors, which amounts to the same thing. Watch those elbows.
And I expect that you would find that Dr. Diamond would gladly pay his disproportionate fee for peeing in the pool.
Thanks Tom for your response. Yeah, I see that Roger's intention and shorthand has validity, and he almost needs to do that. And for the most part what he says is an accurate description of the current scenerio.
I was trying to challenge the assumption that he and many others should work within that framework alone. I am not being cycnical when I say I is helpful for a policy analyst or a scientist to step out of their discipline, there needs to be a broader discussion. Here I agree with Sam that Diamond opens the discussion to more underlying questions of how to address the tragedy of the commons, ideological diversity, human factors. Technophiles reel from addressing these more human elements because they seem the longer route, but if the tech breakthrough never comes we will be more desperate, and even if it does the commons traegdy was never really addressed. Shortcuts can lead to dead ends, and not knowing where we took the wrong turn. Intellectual due process is needed.
Going back to the commons, we can talk about scarcity all day, our finite resources, how to improve on tech and re-distribute goods by politics and economics. And that is important. How about the other premise? Hardin's "greed" or Smith's "invisible hand", driving forces of the "tragedy", Pielke's "standard of living". Address this premise too. I know it is out of fassion, "not realistic", humanities are the laughingstock of academia, but out of intellectual honesty if the point is to solve a real and serious tragedy of the commmons, these questions play a major role for everyone.
"Reading dozens of posts and ripostes here in the Pielke house, I am left with the sense of a defensive chorus of libertarian-leaning science hobbyists mixed in with the occasional thoughtful post."
Reading Jared Diamond's interview and his book "Collapse", I am left with the sense of a researcher (Dr. Diamond) who has a hammer, and therefore sees every analysis as a potential nail.
And reading praises for Dr. Diamond's "Collapse," I am (once again) left with the impression that people enjoy the thought that they live in apocalyptic times, especially with respect to the environment, regardless of whether or not such thoughts are scientifically defensible.
"I believe we will all live his resource-stressed predictions over the next 50 years."
Jared Diamond has made no "predictions". (At least not in the interview in question.) As I've already pointed out, "If we continue to operate non-sustainably, then in 50 or 60 years, the US and Japan and Europe will be in bad shape"...
...is meaningless tripe. (Again, it's excusably so, considering he was speaking off-the-cuff.) His "prediction" is in no way scientifically valid, because it's completely unfalsiable (incapable of being proven wrong). Falsifiability is an absolutely fundamental requirement for a prediction to be considered scientific. If it's not falsifiable, it's not scientific. Among the aspects that render his "prediction" unfalsifiable include that he does not: 1) Define what "bad shape" even means (i.e., "bad shape" compared to whom), 2) Define what "unsustainably" means, or 3) Define exactly what the progression to "bad shape" will look like, so we can scientifically evaluate whether he is likely to be right or wrong before the "50 or 60 years" comes up (since all of us will likely have forgotten by then).
Apparently, the software objecte to the length of my comments ;-)
To Dr. Diamond (and any of his supporters), I say, “Make some scientifically falsifiable predictions of the future. If you're good, your falsifiable predictions will come true.”
For example, what will be the life expectancy at birth in Japan, the U.S., and Europe in "50 or 60 years"? What will be the per-capita GDPs (year 2009 dollars) in those countries in "50 or 60 years"? What will be the percentage of income spent on water? Percentage of income spent on food? Percentage of income spent on energy?
My guess is that Dr. Diamond will never make any such falsifiable predictions. If he did, his predictions would either: 1) conflict with the general message of impending doom he gives (when he can't be shown to be wrong), or 2) would be shown to likely be wrong in just a decade or two.
P.S. Lest anyone think I'm asking Dr. Diamond or his supporters to do something I'm unwilling to do myself, here are my predictions for Japan, the U.S., and Europe (represented only by the original OECD European countries) in 2060-2070:
1) Life expectancy at birth: 100+ years.
2) GDP per capita (2009 dollars): $200,000+
3) Percentage of income spent on water: less than or equal to percentage in 2009.
4) Percentage of income spent on food: less than or equal to percentage in 2009.
5) Percentage of income spent on energy: less than in or equal to percentage in 2009.
"TokyoTom" (#14) asks:
"In any case, I wasn`t defending the collapse thesis itself, was I?"
I didn't take it that way. I took your statement, "...isn`t Diamond simply saying that the higher have farther to fall, and that since the highlanders still have lifestyle relatively unleveraged by modern power, they would have much less trouble adapting to the loss of such power?"
...as being an accurate assessment of the point I think Jared Diamond was trying to make about the people of New Guinea. He was saying they'd be all right, because they knew how to make stone tools (I'm exagerating a bit for effect) whereas presumably Western civilization would collapse.
My rejoinder was that Jared Diamond does not seem to appreciate the vast differences between civilizations that existed and collapsed on Easter Island and Greenland versus modern Western civilization. Modern technology and global interconnections make Western civilization far more adaptable than the isolated groups on Easter Island and Greenland.
For example, crop failures on Greenland could not be compensated for by importation of food hundreds of years ago. In contrast, in the winter, the apples I typically buy in the store come from Chile. And the frozen foods that are my main source of sustenance can literally survive for years, as long as the freezer stays below freezing.
Similarly, the people of Easter Island relied on wood for boats for transportation. In contrast, our transportation can use steel, aluminum, and plastics.
Even the alleged Achilles heel of Western civilization, energy, is not such a huge problem. Nuclear fission could literally supply virtually all of humanity's energy needs (assuming plug-in hybrid vehicles). It might result in spending more for energy, at least for a few decades. And of course the damage from destruction of a nuclear facility could be awful (as Chernobyl demonstrated). But civilization would certainly go on.
Post a Comment