At 08:18 PM 12/8/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>For your edification:
>
>http://dieoff.org/page45.htm
"There is an asymmetry in the nature of the arguments of the
environmentalists and the cornucopians. The environmentalist—the
proponent of corrective action—is (or should be) simply warning of
consequences if trends or problems are ignored; he or she
does not need to predict. The cornucopian, on the other hand, must predict
to make his or her case. He must argue that
problems will be solved and good things will happen if we let nature take
its course. Since nobody has yet been able to predict
the future, cornucopian are asking their listeners to take a lot on faith.
They say, in effect, "Believe as I do, and you will feel
better." Simon says explicitly that his conversion to his present viewpoint
improved his state of mind."
Ok, the article did have some good points (though I'd like to hear
a detailed rebuttal), but the above statement is wrong. If
environmentalists and cornucopians were just arguing in ivory towers, then
yes, the burden of proof would be on the party making the definite claim
about the nature of the future. However, this debate is really about
policy, or the need for "corrective action," changing the burden of
proof. In this case, simply not letting things take their course is not an
options, a specific set of remedies needs to be proposed or nothing can be
done. Having to make specific recommendations, and thus a specific model
of the future brings the environmentalists back into the realm of precise
predictions.
Also, the burden of proof naturally shifts with the introduction
of specific plans, so that it is on the person who wants to change the
status-quo. Otherwise, we would never be able to pick one of two roughly
equal courses of action, and would just oscillate between them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT