October 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad

« Does One Need to Know Economics to Do Political Philosophy? | Main | Two Liberalisms: A practice in search of a theory; a theory in search of an application »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Indur Goklany at Cato is doing great stuff at the policy level.

It's Earth 2100, incidentally. Not that that makes the claims any less absurd.

Huh... this looks like a job for an environmental or agriculture&applied economist. Just saying.

Also, it might be worth considering, at least for a second, that some of this scenario's elements might make sense. The fact that TFP rose in developed economies at around 2.5% per year, with large high frequency variance, for the la 50 years or so, is not a good reasons to simply assume that it will still do that. (A first order pass at things, I agree.)

I would not nominate Bjorn Lomborg to be the next Julian Simon even though I think he might come close. However, Lomborg is fully on board with the idea of human-caused global warming, he just thinks it isn't worth incurring the costs to do anything about it. If he has bought into the premise, how long can he resist the conclusion?

I await anxiously for the arrival of the next Julian Simon, whoever that may be. However, the sorts of doomsday claims being made shouldn't require anyone as astute as Julian Simon. The claims themselves are so ridiculous it would seem any ordinary person with a modicum of independent thinking would see them for what they are.

I nominate Dr. Russ Roberts of George Mason University.

Frankly, I'm somewhat concerned about the future for a variety of reasons. Rather than looking for someone to counter the argument, which seems to indicate simply assuming that argument is wrong, I think its more important to analyze the data and determine what alternate interpretations are available based on the data. Simply assuming a rosey future is no more rational than simply assuming a hellish one. Cassandra isn't always wrong!

I don't know Scott. The Cassandras of environmental and economic doom HAVE been consistently wrong. Paul Ehrlich should be ashamed to even open his mouth anymore. Part of Pete's point was that there ARE reasons to believe that the future will be better than the past and that the worst scenarios of the doomsters are pure fantasy.

If I was to rely on past predictive accuracy, I'd be dismissing the Cassandras out of hand.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books