« Time to Reconsider Nuclear Power? | Main | Carbon Offsets: Modern Day 'Indulgences'? »

February 16, 2007


Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.

Despite inadequate ideas, outdated beliefs and preternatural theories found in cascading disinformation from the masters of the universe and their minions in the mass media, Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri and other experts have courageously spoken out loudly and clearly for good science regarding global climate change. They cannot be sufficiently praised even though many will try to find words that extoll their virtues.

Three cheers for Dr. Heidi Cullen and the scientists who have spoken here.

IF remaining willfully blind and mute is a particularly pernicious enemy of good science and population experts continuously refuse to comment on the new science of human population numbers from Hopfenberg and Pimentel, then would it be correct to say that their maintenance of silence is both a sin of omission and an ironic “expression” of potentially suicidal behavior from presumed leaders of the human species?


Earthquake detection has been well established for a long time. Seismographs can detect events at great distances provided they are large enough. I think the small rise in earthquakes reported since 1960 merely indicates that detection has edged maturity over that period.

In contrast the other types of disasters depend upon human witness and reporting. Some nations, such as the USSR and China, often suppressed information about disasters quite sucessfully for political reasons. Otherwise, increased population and communication now lessens the chance that events are not overlooked or don't make it to centralized records.

The UN, working through various agencies, has been steadily improving world statistic collections about almost eveything. It is no surprize that notable event counts have mostly increased since WW2.

But if they do not steady soon - I think they will - that calls for more concern.

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.

Two points of clarification follow that are related to the question I have raised above.

1) regarding the words, “ironic ‘expression’ of suicidal behavior”. These words are deployed the way a psychologist would take note of “negative symptoms” of schizophrenia.

2) nothing in the earlier statements is intended to suggest that the human species has some sort of predisposition to suicide, in the sense of the human species being somehow uncontrollably “set” to extirpate itself. NO! At least to me, the human species appears NOT to be innately suicidal. However, as a species, if we were to choose NOT to use the miraculous, distinctly human attributes God has given us and NOT to benefit from the best available good science, yet another gift from God, then human species behavior could become so dangerously maladaptive as to precipitate extinction.

The human species has the freedom to choose.

Simply put, EITHER the human species can choose to continue adamantly insisting upon endless growth of its consumption, production and propagation activities, which would eventually result in resource depletion, environmental degradation, mass extirpation of biodiversity and, perhaps, the extinction of the human species; OR humanity can choose to limit further INCREASES in its per capita consumption, production and propagation capabilities now overspreading the surface of the resplendent planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit.

To the limited extent I can see what is somehow true, and in all the profundity of truth, know this: EITHER humankind can choose to change its course of seemingly endless, global growth activities OR our species chooses to run the risks of complete depletion of vital natural resources, irreversible degradation of the environment, unacceptable biodiversity loss, reckless compromise of the integrity of the Earth and, yes, human extinction.

Perhaps the human community is approaching a crossroads where an apparently unwelcome alternative awaits.



The comments to this entry are closed.

Want Email Updates?

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz


  • This is a personal web site, reflecting only the opinions of its authors. It was built and is manitained in occasional spare moments. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than the person offering up the views.


  • Our Ecological Economics web-log is designed to daylight and refine economists’ and ecologists' views, agreements, and disagreements on current environmental and natural resource issues. We also hope this blog will help ecological economics ideas gain traction in social and political discussion and policy making.


Ocassonal Contributors

Would-Be Contributors

Strategic Thinking Blogs

Blog powered by Typepad