April 22, 2011 marks the 41 anniversary of Earth Day.
At the first Earth Day observance, we drew from two of the books that became the canon of environmental fundamentalism: Silent Spring by Rachel Carson and The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich. In 1972, the Club of Rome would add the Limits to Growth to complete the opposite of good news. At that first Earth Day, we had Ehrlich’s words ringing in our ears, “There will be major famines before the end of this decade despite…”
Yet, since that first Earth Day, the earth has not collapsed, and in some ways conditions for mankind and the earth have vastly improved. The post, Happy 40th Anniversary, Earth Day listed the world’s environmental and our social accomplishments over these last 40 years. Listed was much worth celebrating: pollution has decreased, we’re living longer lives, everyone is three times richer (in real terms) than we were in 1970, the daily intake of calories has risen about 25 percent in the developing world, we have 98 percent of the forest area, as well as other gracenotes.
Given these incredible accomplishments a poll at the end of the post asked you if you were optimistic or pessimistic (or neither) about the next 40 years. From the results of an informal poll at the end of the blog’s post it was obvious that most people saw no silver lining but only dark skies ahead. If it weren’t for me, my wife, and another person saying we were optimistic about the world’s chances, the response would have been completely negative. An astounding 75 percent said they were pessimistic.
Now, one might have expected the poll to be maybe 60/40 but not so lopsided toward pessimism. Now eleven people clicking a button on an obscure blog does not constitute unbiased data. No, it’s highly biased data.
How is it that people can look at the same facts and draw completely different conclusions?
Nullius in Verba 