This is a critique of John McCarthy's "progress" page at
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress.
It was written by Rich Puchalsky. I include the standard disclaimer
about only my personal views being represented.
McCarthy's stated goals
PROGRESS AND ITS SUSTAINABILITY
This Web page and its satellites are aimed at showing that human
material progress is desirable and sustainable. With the development
of nuclear energy, it became possible to show that there are no
apparent obstacles even to billion year sustainability.(1) .
[...]
This page and its satellites will contain references to articles, my
own and by others, explaining how humanity is likely to advance in the
near future. In particular, we argue that the whole world can reach
and maintain American standards of living with a population of even 15
billion.
In other words, McCarthy will marshall scientific evidence that his real-
world goals are achievable. (The question of desirability is a more
forthrightly ideological one.) Does he succeed in doing so?
McCarthy's problems with science
A quote from McCarthy's ideology page:
9. The primary reservoir of objective thinking in human society is
professional science. However, many scientists do not preserve
their scientific attitude when the issues are far from their own
fields. Many do, however, and individuals differ a great deal in
the breadth of their scientific study. Some read only in a narrow
field while ohters are well informed about many.
Let's say we accept the above remarks as true. Does McCarthy take any
precautions to avoid these problems? For instance, is he well informed
in the professional science of the fields that he talks about?
In the main, the answer is no. McCarthy knows something about nuclear
power plants; in other issues outside computer science his knowledge
is noticeably lacking and his evidence for his assertions is nonexistent.
Here are a few of the many possible examples; they concern McCarthy's
treatment of forests, population, and CFCs.
Forests and biodiversity
Q. Aren't our forests being exhausted?
A. No. In the industrial countries, the land in forest is stable and
the quantity of wood is increasing. In the tropical underdeveloped
countries, there is still substantial conversion of forest to
agriculture. Here are some details.
The details mentioned make no mention of biodiversity, only of industrial
sources of wood from tree plantations. McCarthy doesn't even seem to
understand that loss of biodiversity is one of the major concerns when
impediments to human progress are discussed. Posing a question about
forests being exhausted and answering that tree plantations are doing
fine is avoiding this question. Here is McCarthy's summary of the
Old Growth conflicts of the U.S. Pacific Northwest:
If the loggers win, the amount of forest protected by previous laws
covers most of the forest area. It will not be greatly reduced. The
idea that logging the national parks will come next is just a fantasy.
If the environmentalists win the issues currently being disputed, the
amount of wood available for paper, construction and furniture will
not be enormously reduced. There is enough available from privately
held and managed land. Only a minority of environmentalists want to
take over this land also.
The above paragraphs represent complete ignorance of the biodiversity
issue at stake. Everyone understands that the amount of lumber left
in old growth in the PNW is a purely local issue.
Population
McCarthy mainly sums up unobjectionable U.N. figures and claims that
overpopulation within certain countries is not a global problem because
other countries will enforce immigration barriers. Here is a representative
sample of his scientific backup for his views:
Present Population Trends
Here there will be statistics.
This is much like the old "here be dragons" in unknown areas of medieval maps.
McCarthy should really resist making scientific arguments before collecting
evidence. That makes it rather obvious that he is working from the conclusion
to the evidence rather than the other way around.
Ozone and UV-B
Q. What about the ozone layer and UV-B?
[...]
The theory has widespread acceptance, but there are many
scientifically respectable dissenters. Because ozone is regenerated
all the time, if chlorofluorocarbons are the problem, the situation
will return to normal.
[...]
Robert Parson has an FAQ about the causes of the ozone hole in the
South Polar Regions. However, ground level intensity of UV-B don't
seem to have increased appreciably anywhere.
This last statement is obviously incorrect, as any readers of the FAQ
would know. Although one can argue about what "appreciable" means,
any reasonable definition would state that ground level UV-B has
appreciably increased in the South Polar regions. McCarthy has here
maximized a vague feeling of "dissent" (just who are these many
scientifically respectable dissenters?) by throwing in a false statement.
In McCarthy's references section, he does his best to perpetuate the
long-debunked fallacies about Khalil and Rassmussen's results.
Khalil, M. A. K. and R. A. Rassmussen, "The Potential of Soils as a
Sink of Chlorofluorocarbons and other Man-made Chlorocarbons", ...
copyright 1989, American Geophysical Union, paper no. 89GL00809, (the
copy I have doesn't give the name of the journal).
Khalil, M. A. K. and R. A. Rassmussen, "The Environmental History and
Probable Future of Fluorocarbon 11" Journal of Geophysical Research,
vol. 98, No. D12, pp 23.091-23.106, December 20, 1993.
A significant result of these papers is that soils are an important
destroyer of chlorofluorocarbons. They estimate the amounts in various
reservoirs, their rates of flow between reservoirs and their rates of
destruction in the stratosphere and in soils. (Apparently soils are
but a minor destroyer of chlorofluorocarbons).
What does this mean? The first and last sentences in this paragraph
contradict each other; only the last is currently thought to be correct.
McCarthy is grasping at any straw that would cast doubt on the accepted
CFC model.
Many more examples could be found, for instance in McCarthy's treatment
of mineral resources, which relies implicitly on energy being too cheap
to meter. But that's a representative sample.
Conclusion: McCarthy's page has little scientific value
McCarthy's page is an evangelical document which uses selective
quotes and misreadings of scientific literature in order to support
his personal "progress" ideology. An as ideological document, the page
is acceptable, though it really needs an editor. As a document purporting
to represent scientific knowledge it is wholly unacceptable. McCarthy
should re-write it as an explicitly propagandistic document if he cares
about honesty of presentation.
Appendix: McCarthy's page considered as a propaganda document
I have placed these remarks in an appendix since this critique was
written in the context of sci.env discussion. McCarthy will no
doubt try to represent this section of the critique as the whole of
it and avoid any questions about his science. All the same, the
ideological nature of McCarthy's page meant that the page really
needed to be addressed as a propaganda document.
Problems with McCarthy's ideology
McCarthy has a progress ideology like many others, for instance the
Marxist historical progress ideology or the more vague liberal one that I
beleive in. I find his ideology to be counterproductive to real human
progress since it would concentrate human effort on sciences that are
of little value in the short term while disparaging sciences that are
currently critical. For instance, McCarthy is very hot on nuclear power.
We already know how to build good nuclear power plants and could do so
if it was decided that this was desirable. What we really need to put
effort into is understanding ecology, biology, climatology and more humanistic
sciences like sociology. McCarthy's perceptible disdain for these "soft"
sciences means that his progress ideology is counterproductive if real
progress is the goal. But is it?
Let's look at McCarthy's ideological goals (I've deleted the first since
it says what to do if progress isn't sustainable, which McCarthy rejects):
2. Since progress is sustainable, and there is no limiting resource
in the short term (next few hundred years and probably much
longer), the most important way to help the poor countries is to
help them develop more or less along the path pioneered by the
richer countries.
3. The richer countries should continue their progress, both for the
sake of their own citizens and because the richer the country is,
the more it is likely to do to help others.
In other words; don't worry, be happy. This is, ironically enough, an
ideology of progress that worships the status quo.
4. Current campaigns to give reducing energy consumption a higher
priority than other economies are mistaken.
This counts as part of a major summation? I suspect this made it onto the
list only due to McCarthy's nuclear power boosterism.
5. Almost all people like progress - considering that most migration
is toward regions of greater progress.
A colonialist bromide.
McCarthy might claim "Back to the Future" as the motto for his page. His
policy prescriptions favor the status quo both socially and in terms of
which sciences are considered important. As such, a convincing argument
could be made that this is an ideology of conservatism that only masquerades
as being in favor of progress. McCarthy's rejection of the CFC ban, which
was in my opinion a stunning example of worldwide human progress and
cooperation, is instructive in this regard.
One last note: Ad hominem attacks
I was highly amused to read, on McCarthy's ideology page, the quote below
(reproduced in full)
Rich Puchalsky, a master of the ad hominem remark about people whose
opinions he dislikes.
-->
Listing my name in this way, followed by a missing pointer that
should lead to some remark of mine but doesn't, is a classic ad hominem
attack in itself. McCarthy favors the type of technique used above,
which is intended to let him make such attacks while appearing above the
fray; only rarely does he cut lose with a characterization such as
"environmentalist shitheads." Such ad hominem attacks are common in
propaganda documents; McCarthy's "missing quote" usage above does represent
a slight improvement in technique as applied to the Web.