Recitation
2: Doom and Gloom vs. Techno-Optimism: The Cornucopian Arguments
Student name:___________________________
Student
#:___________________________
TA name:___________________________
As we discussed in class, views on the seriousness of
environmental problems vary widely. Some
analysts claim that modern, industrial society threatens the very existence of the
biosphere, and, eventually, the well-being of humans, while others see human
ingenuity and technology as likely to overcome or at least adapt to
environmental problems. The textbook is
good at pointing out problems and solutions, and is reasonably well-balanced,
but could still be read as leaning toward the “Cassandra” (limits to growth) end
of the argument, so this exercise requires you to take up the argument of the “Cornucopians” drawing, I suggest, on at least two mentioned
in class: Julia Simon and Bjorn Lomborg.
First, visit: http://www.juliansimon.com/
(see especially his essay on
population growth: http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Articles/POPOPED3.txt
You might also see: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n2-1.html.
See also: http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm
Any reasonably competent web surfer can find dozens of sites
with useful, solid information on the views of these and other “anti-environmentalist”
thinkers, so explore as you see fit. Then build two lists. First,
a list of the arguments by the optimists as to why our environmental problems
are not as dire as suggested by many environmentalists. Then build a
list of at least five distinct dire environmental predictions and concerns
you have heard, and give a possible solution or a reason the problem is not as
significant as often argued. Although we’re early in the class, I expect you
have a mental list already, but you can indeed look ahead through the text for
ideas. Print out and use this page, (over if you need more space).
Five Reasons Why We Do Not Face Environmental Catastrophe (reformat for space as needed):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Recitation discussion questions: How do the optimists explain or acquit obvious problems like species loss? Might the reality best be viewed as a mixture, perhaps time-specific, in which we are in a period of growing problems that can be overcome by market forces and technology at some time in future?