Last April I posted about how the earth had improved since the first Earth Day. At the end of the post is a poll about whether, after reading the post, the reader was optimistic, pessimistic, or ambivalent about the future. Overwhelmingly, people were (and apparently, are) pessimistic about the future of the earth. Matt Ridley, a former science writer for the Economist, has written a book, The Rational Optimist, saying that this overwrought litany of doom is misplaced because our ideas “have sex.”
Between Science and Politics Lies the Environment.
Very humanist ideas. We will adapt and survive, and we’ll be better for it in the end. Why predict anything different than the last 20000 years?
At the same time, though, we should try not to create too much waste and destruction in the process.
Wes
Absolutely Wes. And, if there is waste, one needs to find a way to use it for a profitable purpose.
Those interested in Ridley’s very good book might also wish to know about my own book, THE CASE FOR RATIONAL OPTIMISM (Transaction Books, Rutgers University, 2009), which makes quite similar points and arguments, but develops the case for optimism over a rather broader range of subject areas. See http://www.fsrcoin.com/k.htm