Perilous Optimism

by Ernest Partridge 2000 University of California, Riverside Other Voices

Human beings thrive on hope. Without some sense that our individual deliberate effort brings us closer to a fulfillment of our personal goals, we simply cannot function from one day to the next. And yet, hope often betrays us, as it blinds us to clear and evident danger and leads us to courses of action and inaction that will eventually result in the loss of our property, our livelihood, our liberty, and even our very lives.

Pangloss is admired, and Cassandra is despised and ignored. But as the Trojans were to learn to their sorrow, Cassandra was right, and had she been heeded, the toil of appropriate preparation for the coming adversity would have been insignificant measured against the devastation that followed a brief season of blissful and ignorant optimism. Throughout history, and most recently in the mid-Twentieth century, millions have perished due to stubborn and ill-advised optimism. For example, Hitler made his intentions brutally clear in Mein Kampf, yet neither the British nor American governments took heed until the Wehrmacht crossed the Polish border.

Today, Cassandra holds advanced degrees in biology, ecology, climatology, and other theoretical and applied environmental sciences. In a vast library of published book and papers, these scientists warn us that if civilization continues on its present course, unspeakable devastation awaits us or our near descendants. Turning away from that "present course" toward "sustainability," will be difficult, costly and uncertain, but far preferable to a continuation of "business (and policy) as usual."

As a discomforted public, and their chosen political leaders, cry out "say it isn't so!," there is no shortage of reassuring optimists to tell us, "don't worry be happy." We sincerely wish that we could believe them. But brute scientific facts, and the weakness of the Panglosian arguments, forbid. And so, in this paper we will confront some of the arguments of the optimists, and sadly conclude that their reassurances can not stand up against scientific evidence, fundamental natural laws, logical scrutiny, or even plain common sense. While the optimists are numerous and their reassurances familiar, we will focus our attention primarily on two individuals: the late economist, Julian Simon, and the philosopher, Mark Sagoff.

Julian Simon's Cornucopism: The Elements

The late Julian Simon's essential thesis is that there are no physical limitations on economic growth or human population growth. The only resource shortage, he claims, is human knowledge and ingenuity: "The Ultimate Resource" which, in adequate supply, is capable of solving any and all resource problems. Prof. Simon's ideas have been universally dismissed by environmental scientists as crackpot, and yet he was something of a hero among libertarians, neo-orthodox economists, and their political disciples. Because the latter group is far more influential in the articulation and implementation of national and international environmental and economic policies, Simon's ideas should be taken very seriously, and scrupulously examined and rebutted. 12

Similarly, Mark Sagoff believes that human ingenuity, what Simon calls "The Ultimate Resource," combined with accumulated information and technological advancement, will overcome any and all resource and consumption limits in the near or distant future...In sum, Sagoff assures us that "... technology can deliver greater and greater abundance...." and that "the endless expansion of the global economy is physically possible..." 4 (Sagoff, 1997, 29). In addition: "if there is a limiting factor in economic production, it is knowledge, and ... as long as knowledge advances, the economy can expand." 5 (Sagoff, 1995, 610)

In brief, both Sagoff and Simon are confident that knowledge and human ingenuity, combined with market incentives, will suffice to meet any upcoming environmental emergencies...If the optimistic view of Simon and Sagoff is overwhelmingly rejected by informed scientific opinion, why should anyone take the optimists seriously? Should we not, instead, ignore them as we move ahead with the serious business of establishing a sustainable world economy, in harmony with the physical and biotic limitations of the Earth?