Philosophy

According to yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald, Australia’s most influential catholic, Archibiship George Pell, in a speech to US Catholic business leaders, said Western democracy was … suffering a crisis of confidence as evidenced by the decline in fertility rates and that:

“Pagan emptiness” and Western fears of the uncontrollable forces of nature had contributed to “hysteric and extreme claims” about global warming.

“In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.”

The results of following the policy prescriptions of pseudo-environmentalists like Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich is not a cleaner environment but inefficient use of scarce resources, according to a new video featuring Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, and Dr. Fred Singer from the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

I have not seen the video, but provide this information on behalf of a reader of this blog. The issue is certainly one often discussed here, but the language used by Williams and Singer is perhaps new?

Titled ‘The high cost of pseudo-environmentalism’ the converation between Williams and Singer apparently focuses on the issue of whether or not the United States is taking the right approach to the environment.

The promo for the CD/DVD which costs US$25 includes:

“The discussants agree that much of what passes for environmentalism today is based on parochial interests rather than creditable science and the common good.

Williams and Singer criticize Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich for their Malthusian predictions that have proven to be grossly inaccurate.

The opportunity cost of pseudo-environmentalism is the good that could have been done in other areas of public policy. Specific examples of imprudent policies, like the banning of DDT, are discussed. Dr. Singer questions the scientific validity of much environmentalism. He agrees with Walter Williams that environmentalism has been used to advocate government control of people’s lives much like the discredited ideologies of socialism and communism. Both discussants believe that providing the media with accurate information about the environment would help educate the public about the dangers of pseudo-environmentalism.”

Growing up, I aspired at different times, to be a florist, a marine biologist, an archaeologist and a botanist. I worked for many years as an entomologist. I never thought I would become a writer.

Now I am a writer I am very aware of the importance of ideas, evidence, and freedom of expression in particular as a counter to the power of propaganda. I have written about the five basic rules of propaganda as defined by Norman Davies in a blog post titled ‘Interest versus Propaganda’.

Propaganda is perhaps easier to define than ‘free speech’ and usually much more subtle.

Free speech can be very offensive.

Explaining why e-journal Online Opinion did not publish the cartoons mocking Islam, but defending the right of others to publish the cartoons, Graham Young has written,

“If free speech defends only the right to be nice to others, then it is not worth defending itself. Free speech exists to protect the objectionable and the unreasonable, or it means virtually nothing.”

Today I read at Reporters without Borders that as a consequence of publishing those offending cartoons,

“At least eleven journalists are being prosecuted in five countries and six have been jailed. Some face long prison sentences if convicted. Two editors in Jordan have been charged with provocation and encouraging disorder. Four journalists have been jailed in Yemen and charged under article 103 of the press law, which bans publication of anything that “harms Islam, denigrates monotheistic religion or a humanitarian belief.”

I support the call from Reports without Borders for the imprisoned journalists to be released.

………………

The cartoons can be seen by linking to Tim Blair’s blog.

The last paragraphs of this blog post was changed and updated, following comment and advice from readers of this weblog including those offended by the cartoons, on the morning of 20th February and the cartoons and direct link removed.

Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park and other best sellers, gave a lecture on 6th November with the text now ‘doing the rounds’ on the internet. Titled, ‘Fear, Complexity and Environmental Management in the 21st Century‘ it is a bit of a ramble covering issues as diverse as management of Yellowstone National Park and deaths at Chernobyl, click here for the entire speech with some powerpoint slides.

In the speech Michael Crichton claims that the BBC and New York Times reported 15,000-30,000 dead from Chernobyl when the actual number was 56. Crichton claims:

Chernobyl was a tragic event, but nothing remotely close to the global catastrophe I imagined. About 50 people had died in Chernobyl, roughly the number of Americans that die every day in traffic accidents. I don’t mean to be gruesome, but it was a setback for me. You can’t write a novel about a global disaster in which only 50 people die.

Crichton claims CNN estimated there would be 3.5 million future deaths when in reality there were less than 4,000.

In the speech Crichton claims:

But the shock that I had experienced reverberated within me for a while. Because what I had been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong-it was astonishingly wrong. Let’s review the data.

The initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on …

Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. Let’s try to get some idea of how big. Suppose we line up all the victims in a row. If 56 people are each represented by one foot of space, then 56 feet is roughly the distance from me to the fourth row of the auditorium. Fifteen thousand people is three miles away. It seems difficult to make a mistake of that scale.

But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.

The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000. That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.

But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that “the largest public health problem created by the accident” is the “damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information … [manifesting] as negative self-assessments of Xanax health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state.”end of quote

Is this true? How many really died from the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl?