Interesting speech. There may be something to much of it.

However, the thing about Michael Crichton is, he's a nut. Did you ever read "Travels"? He believes in bending spoons, chakras, ESP, and a lot of other nonsense.

Doesn't mean the speech is wrong. But the source is a fruitcake.

Hmmm. No, I'd never heard that. Are you sure this is the same Michael Crichton?

The only thing I've ever heard Michael Crichton say he believes in is whats called "six-sigma" information, data accurate to six decimal places.
I think before I accept that this same guy believes something nutty (as opposed to writing about it) is when I see substantial and verifiable evidence.

It's definitely the same Michael Crichton. Until I got bogged down in "Timeline" I was an avid fan who had read everything of his (excluding "Eaters of the Dead").

The book I am referring to is Travels, and it is a very interesting account of his background as a writer, his travels throughout the world, and his exploration of psychic phenomena.

He is scornful of those who are (in his mind) overly skeptical of psychic phenomena, and claims to have seen his own aura. I attribute his nutty beliefs to all the drugs he admits having done. He did the "take peyote and wander in the desert" thing. Etc.

Read the book. If nothing else, it'll give you ideas for out-of-the-way places to go in the world. If memory serves, the psychic discussions are at the end, in a separate section.

All I'm saying is, the guy isn't quite all there, in my opinion. Good writer, though.

I must admit, before I read the speech I had an "uh-oh" feeling, but I agree with everything Michael says here. He's spot on with things like

'One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven't the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; '

Remember the idiot who would walk up to bears in Alaska and tell them he loved them? He finally got mauled to death, and his girlfriend too.

He's right about DDT too. We almost had malaria wiped out, and now it kills millions of people every year. Hell, the guy who invented the stuff eats a teaspoon of it every year and he's still kicking.

The flipflops on the predictions are obvious as well, anybody here remember what the first Earth Day was supposed to be about? Wasn't global warming, but the prediction of a new ice age. Then all of a sudden they changed their minds and said it was getting warmer instead of colder.

Yeah, taken point by point, it all falls into line with things I've observed on my own, and gives new perspective as well. A good read, thanks!

So what are the reasons you're scared for the future, Dean?

(I could probably read through the archives and pick them out, but I only started being a frequent reader recently, so I'm curious)

For some direct evidence of Crichton's wacky ideas, read this bit about spoonbending. You can find it here, at the same official Crichton website that contains the speech linked to in Dean's post.

Wow. Whata speech.

Yours,
Wince

I have to ask: Patterico, WTF is your point, anyway? Really? What does Crichton's belief in spoon-bending, etc., have to do with his speech on how many (self-styled) environmentalists treat the subject as religion instead of science?

Patterico: I read the Crichton piece on spoon bending. Thanks for the link! I must say, unless there's more than this in the book, I'm a bit surprised that you are criticizing him this sharply.

We've known for years that you can bend spoons just by rubbing them. I've seen James Randi do it. I've seen him walk on fire, too.

This strikes me as a lot like acpuncture: for years skeptics said they it was utter nonsense, especially because the mystical theories behind it were so, well, mystical. But, once Western medicine decided to simply accept the emprical fact that it seemed to work, they were able to start investigating it further, and to start quantifying what about the phenomenon made sense, and what was probably bogus.

Chakras? I doubt the spiritual/mystical reality of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could make the case that some of the things the chakra-believers claim have some basis in reality.

So it may be with the spoon benders. Do you think maybe you're just being harsh with Crichton?

Dave: Well Dave, I fear for the future when I see us implementing destructive policies that don't actually help the environment. Crichton is right: we've known for years now that DDT does not cause cancer, and did not cause bird egg shells to thin or any of that. Yet we banned it anyway and, as a result, tens of millions of people in the third world have died.

Many of our environmental policies have caused massive destruction in many of our great forests. They were well-intentioned policies, and they were disasters.

If we care about the environment--and believe me, I care a lot--we cannot afford to let emotion and irrationality be our guide. We need to be able to talk common sense, but also to be using real science. We need to stop demonizing businesses and others, and we need to stop treating any group that calls itself "environmentalist" as if they are axiomatically good and pure and noble.

This planet's got problems, many of which aren't even being addressed because they aren't glamorous or sexy or scary-sounding. This is a real tragedy.

Of course, the flip side of the religion argument is the "watermelon" debate, the green on the outside, red on the inside type of environmentalist that sees environmental policy as a way of controlling people and economies. Socialists have hijacked a great number of environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club.

Dean,

I was probably being a touch harsh. I just pulled my copy of "Travels" off the shelf, and looked through some of the paranormal stuff again. Just like when I first read it, I again feel torn between wanting to be open-minded, and feeling that perhaps Crichton took too many drugs.

I like Crichton. I certainly tried to be open-minded when I first read Travels. I tried to see my aura, and to bend spoons. But I decided that the "auras" he was describing were just an optical illusion. And I couldn't bend spoons. And I didn't want to take peyote and wander in the desert.

I am not an expert in spoon-bending, but Crichton is not relying on some trick. He describes young children easily bending large metal bars, through the power of will. I think it's a little wacky-sounding.

So, "WTF is my point?" Casey wants to know. Well, much of Crichton's speech consists of assertions about things I don't know a lot about. So, I find myself having to trust him on a lot of it. He's a hell of a smart guy, and I am *tempted* to trust him -- but then I remember the stuff about halos and various paranormal phenomena, and I am reminded that I don't entirely trust this man's judgment.

He has a speech at the end of the book about intellectual prejudice against the examination of paranormal phenomena. It's pretty convincing, until you take a step back. Why not take Randi's challenge and, say, have the nine-year olds bend metal bars on video, under controlled conditions? Just to take one example of a reason to be skeptical.

Look, I said, it doesn't mean it's a bad speech. I just think the guy's a bit off in the head, and it makes me a little suspicious of the things he says. That's all.

Just for the record, Scientific American did try to crucify that scientist - it was pretty embarrassing for those like myself who have grown up reading S.A. and trusted them to be impartial. My degree is in zoology and I know enough to recognise bad science when I encounter it. There is plenty of it around and Crichton's examples are spot on. Aloha, Hunt

Whoops, My note above refers to the previous lecture on the Crichton site - also way worth reading.

Patterico: fair enough. But, do you think it neccessarily follows that if Crichton is goofy about one thing, he must be goofy about everything?

If it makes you feel any better, hard-SF writer Jerry Pournelle (I swiped the link from a letter on his site, check it out: www.jerrypournelle.com) had this to say about the man: "I knew Crichton when I was President of SFWA and he always seemed quite sensible."

Crichton identifies more the result of the problem rather than the problem itself - the problem is the rejection what can be short-handed as "the West". A desperate desire on the part of some to find in the West everything that is wrong and then create utopia's which will be places where everything is right. This desperate desire often becomes religious-like in some of its aspects, but its at heart a political, economic and philosophical thing.

Crichton is correct when he sort-of identifies Rousseau as the original problem - he should have made his bit more spot-on by directly tying everything wrong with our society to Rousseau, and those who through the 19th and 20th centuries followed Rousseau's monumentally idiotic lead.

Anyways, we do need to have a complete re-thinking of our environmental practices...it might be an insurmountable problem because the relentless Big Lie about the environment over the past 40 years has entirely screwed up people's perceptions of reality. After all, we're dealing with a population which automatically presumes that anything stopping the development of wild areas is good, and anything which might change wild areas is bad - this is a tough row to hoe.

Back to the topic, you can call this an irrational religious-style belief if you like, but I live in L.A., where the air quality is shit. All the yakking about the inconclusive nature of a link between global warming and emissions is fine, but emissions are without a doubt making our civilization disgustingly ugly, at a bare minimum.

Patterico: Two unrelated things.

1) On spoon bending, I begin to wonder if you aren't correct after all. I had the impression that spoon-bending was generally recognized as a real phenomenon that, like firewalking, anybody could do, and for which there were several rational theories but no absolute consensus. I thought, with the spoons, it basically involving manipulation of heat from the hand and minor pressure applied certain ways.

I've looked more into it and that doesn't appear to be the case. So maybe you're right on the flake-factor. If Crichton could bend spoons the say he says he did, then he could go pick up a cool million from the JREF.

2) Regarding air qualitiy in Los Angeles, if you look into it you will find that air quality has been steadily getting better and better in Los Angeles for the last 25 or so years at least. It is dramatically better than it once was--and yes I can prove that to you if you like.

Which is not to say that there is no air quality problem in LA, just that it's been addressed, and is still being addressed. That is a good thing, and worth celebrating, even if more work needs to be done.

Which just underscores my earlier point: we need rational science, verifiable standards, and hard-headed analysis, not spirituality or emotion. We need to look at what works, what doesn't work, what's real and what's hysterical nonsense. I'm very frightened of the irrational. The average flake sitting around thinking she's discovered how to astrally project herself isn't hurting anybody, but the flake who advocates policies which do massive environmental damage, or which cause us to spend billions on a minor problem while much bigger problems go unaddressed, is a threat to us all.

I'll go along with that. However, while things may have improved in the last 25 years, they are still way worse than they were 100 years ago.

Not to worry. We'll all be nuked long before the air quality kills us. But that's another thread.

However, while things may have improved in the last 25 years, they are still way worse than they were 100 years ago.

Well. Yes, but only because Los Angeles was a tiny town until Mulholland stole that river. Before that, LA was a pretty small place, with not much more than sand and dirt and scrub and a few thousand people.

We have every reason to believe that air quality in cities like London, Chicago, New York, Paris, and so on is massively better today than it was 100 years ago, however. In many such areas, air quality has been improving steadily for well over a century.

There's more clean and drinkable water today in most of the world than there was 100 years ago, too. Just FYI.

Patterico,

I think this selection from the speech speaks at this point,

"There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. "

The air may have been clearer in the LA area, but overall humanity wasn't better off for it.

You can go to National Parks in Utah, Wyoming, or Montana -- all far away from urban areas -- and you can see photographic evidence that the visibility on a clear day has deteriorated markedly over 100 years.

I agree with John (and Crichton) that there were many aspects of human life that were worse, back in the "good ol' days." Still, one has to wonder if all the trends are good. The continuing overpopulation of the world, while perhaps overstated at times, can't go on this way. I often think that if aliens visited this planet, they would go back home and say that their dominant impression of Earth is that it is plagued by one species that has gotten out of control.

My sense is that nature will rein in this growth somehow -- likely in catastrophic ways. I think humanity is headed for real problems, whether by nuclear war, disease, famine, etc. I am no historian, but has there ever been genocide such as was seen in the 1900s? In the last century, millions upon millions upon millions of people were murdered systematically by governments. Is this possibly symptomatic of a general insanity connected in some way to rampant population growth -- nature's way of curbing the human plague?

yes, air quality OUTSIDE of cities has worsened, whereas INSIDE cities it has improved. This is partially because smokestacks are supposed to spread pollution around away from people. More pollution in Wyoming in return for less in LA is a good thing which saves lives.

Regarding air quality: by the measures we have available, most of the air in most of the country is cleaner than it once was. Furthermore, some of the most dramatic improvements have been caused by things that more or less fixed themselves. To whit:

During the 18th and 19th centuries, coal and wood were the primary form of fuel people used to cook food, to keep warm in the winter, and to run industrial machinery and locomotives. This caused both widespread devastation of forestland and polluted the air massively. Both indoor and outdoor air quality were generally much worse in most of the country in 1900.

The large scale transition away from coal and wood to petroleum was a positive development since, while these are still pollutants, they are not as dirty as raw wood and coal exhaust. Furthermore, natural gas and propane, which are hugely popular in most of the country, burn even cleaner still. All of these, combined with factory machinery that uses cleaner energy sources, and the fact that most of our manufacturing has moved offshore, has led to air that, while not perfect, is measurably better than it was in centuries past.

Obviously, clean air standards have had their impact, with things like the elimination of leaded gasoline and stricter emissions standards for automobiles. This too should be added to the equation, although they're only one contributor.

---

As for overpopulation: it's a complete myth. We could easily support ten times the current world, feed that entire population to the point of obesity, and still be nowhere near to running out of natural resources. However, that's a silly example, because even the most pessimistic figures available showing that the world population will probably peak at below 15 billion by the middle of this century, and will probably start falling significantly after that, to the point where we have to start finding ways to talk women into having more children.

There is no population bomb. None. We are not out of room, we are not out of food, and we are not out of resources. It's a myth. The amount of forested lands has been steadily increasing for the last 100 years. We have used up barely 5% of the space in the United States to "urban sprawl," and if we quadruple our population (unlikely) it's doubtful that we'll wind up using even 10%. We're not running out of land at all.

In other words, like I said, there are things people believe which I no longer believe. I can demonstrate to you that everything I said above is true. The funny thing is, in my experience, the odds are fairly good that you won't believe me, no matter how much evidence I show you.

Indeed, usually when I point these things out, sooner or later someone comes along and tells me I have my head in the sand, says I'm a "right winger," that I'm an "apologist for corporate America," etc.

It seems as if the need to believe the world's in incredible danger runs very deep in some people. I increasingly wonder if that isn't an evolutionary trait that's biting us now, because, I'm telling you man, I can prove to you rationally that everything I tell you above is true, but some people absolutely refuse to believe any of it.

Until I better research the facts, I won't debate those with you. But I am skeptical of some of the conclusions. Especially: "even the most pessimistic figures available show[] that the world population will probably peak at below 15 billion by the middle of this century."

I find it hard to credit such figures, unless they assume some catastrophe -- widespread genocide, war, terrorism on a huge scale, uncontrolled disease -- killing billions and thus acting as a counterweight to the increase in population caused by the natural tendency to have more and more kids.

I would be interested in the sourcing of these projections, and what the projections believe will cause the population to peak.

I think we suffer from major problems with game theory in the world -- problems that become more and more apparent the more people we have.

Here in this country we waste billions on pork, because it benefits individual Congressmen.

We make our air shitty by driving all the time, because it's convenient.

We overpopulate, because we want kids.

I see a brake to all of this -- especially overpopulation -- but the only brakes I see involve a lot of suffering, and unnatural deaths by the billions.

Very well. I'll write an article on overpopulation in the near future, with sources. It will surprise you. But the basic reality is that as people become richer, their birth rate declines. All the Western nations--all of them--have been experiencing sharp birth declines for the last few decades. Indeed, if we had cut off all immigration after 1950, today the American population would be lower than it was during or before World War II.

There appears to be a certain median income a nation must hit. Once it surpasses that, people stop desperately having babies. They just do. It's been seen over and over and over again.

And guess what else? The number of nations to hit that median income level goes up every decade and, at current trends, most of the world will have reached that within a few decades.

The worldwide birth rates have been going down almost annually for every one of teh last 30-40 years. Current UN projections show all population growth stopping within 50 years and probably turning backwards.

I'll write some more on it. I know it's surprising, but I assume you my sources are legitimate, and are the standard references everybody uses.

Dean Esmay,

The best place to go for the population stats is the UN - oddly enough. They aren't easy to pull out and they keep moving them about (as if they don't want too many people to know about them), but they clearly show that if we suddenly froze our birth and death rates, population would be 12 billion in 2150, while if our birth rate continues to decline at its current rate, it could be as low as 3 billion in 2150 (my guess is about 5 billion - given declining birth rates plus greater longevity).

Dean,

I am just exploring the issue. I have no committed point of view.

I sent an anonymous environmentalist friend part of your post for a response. Here are excerpts of what he said in response:

1. Yes, it's possible that air quality on particulates is better now in big cities (though not in rural areas, which the country mostly was) than when we burned more wood and coal. I personally don't believe the proper comparison is now vs. the worst we can find from more than 100 years ago. I believe it is what it is vs. what it could reasonably be. By the way, he equates "dirty" with pollution. Particulates (soot, etc.) are the least of our worries. (Just heard, for example, that Ky. has a very high level of mercury in the environment, primarily from current coal burning. If you're feeling too cheery someday, look up what mercury does to humans and other animals.) He also seems to be using a pollution per person measure (I create more of certain forms of air pollution by a fireplace than by driving a car), but what matters is the total stuff being put into the air. The population of the US is several times greater now than when wood was our primary fuel source. Wood does not create a long list of carcinogens that hydrocarbons do create. I certainly do not advocate a return to wood as a fuel source, but who does? BTW, I especially love the idea that moving our manufacturing offshore (so the pollution is somewhere else) makes it OK.

2. Forests. Again with the comparison to 100 years ago. I can always make things look their best by searching for the low point in the graph. Not sure why forests are supposed to be the only barometer of ecosystem health. Yes, there is more land covered by trees, including areas that were originally marshes and grasslands -- not "forests." The forests we do have are young, sick, sterile, and made of the wrong species compared to the original forests. A more reasoned approach would talk about all ecosystems, and as soon as you leave a mindless count that equates any trees with forest, you'll find unmitigated disaster for the various types of forests, wetlands, grasslands, deserts ... It's like saying we have no environmental problems because we have more birds in Kentucky right now than we did 100 years ago. (Which I would not be surprised to learn is true.) Of course, now those birds are starlings and blackbirds, with most other species in serious decline. It's diversity and ecological balance we're losing -- not total number of living things -- and any biologically knowledgeable person without an agenda knows that.

3. As for population, I'm lost why it's important to disprove the idea of overpopulation. What does he want us to be able to do that he thinks a belief in overpopulation is hindering? Anyway. First the simple version: Answer honestly: Do you believe your life would be the same, better, or worse if 10,000 more people moved within 10 miles of you? Does anyone anywhere believe their life would be enhanced by more neighbors, more traffic, more trash ...? No. What a small number of people do believe is that there is money to be made by development. A more complicated answer: It ain't just about food and land to stand on. (First of all, all land isn't created equal from a human livability viewpoint.) It's about quality of life. It's about certain classes of resources (World Watch does a good job of cataloguing what minerals, etc., modern life needs vs. what the known supply is). It's about topsoil, arable land, the carbon cycle, the food chain. It's about not wanting to live in a world that consists entirely of poor people, pavement, high rises... It's about a collapse of every major commercial fish population within days of the US coastline. It's about a numbingly long list of plants and animals that are already extinct or will not survive into the next century, much less the next millennium. Here's a nifty fact that blows my mind: There are more than twice as many people living in the US as there were when I was born. Somebody tell me why my life is supposed to be better for that.

That's it for the response. I hope this is taken in the spirit in which it's offered (indeed, the stated spirit of your blog): exploration of ideas, without rancor, while searching for the truth.

A very interesting discussion.

Projections of Future World Population

Total fertility rates around the world have declined by 33 percent just since 1985, and both United Nations and US Census Bureau projections expect them to decline further. By 2025 the US Census Bureau estimates that the TFR of the less developed countries will have fallen to 2.4 -- very close to the replacement level.

Should the decrease in total fertility rates stop, however, the United Nations projects world population in 2040-50 could reach as high as 11.9 billion. On the other hand if the decline in total fertility rates should accelerate, world population could plateau at 7.9 billion by 2040-2050 (6).

One of the main consequences will be a shift in where the world's population lives. Eighty-eight percent of population growth from 1990-1995 occurred in Asia and Africa, and this trend will only continue. By 2050 Africa's population is expected to triple while Europe's is expected to decline by 7 percent by 2050 (7).

Check out
Rankings > Total fertility rate
India is currently just above the world average of 2.7 children/woman. Indonesia is the only other large country above the replacement rate of 2.1, though the US and Brazil are close. China is below replacement; the EU countries, Russia, and Japan are lower still. In the 21st Century the "population bomb" is going to take on a whole new meaning.

Addendum:
On checking further, I missed four large countries (meaning >100 million). Nigeria and Pakistan still do have very high fertility rates. The other two, Bangladesh and Mexico, are respectively at and just below, the world average.

Patterico: You're asking me too many questions at once, and changing subjects. You're also saying things I haven't said.

1) NO, most people DID NOT live in the countryside 100 years ago, and NO, I am not picking "the worst times" 100 years ago, and no, I am NOT picking "per person" measurements but direct measures, such that we have available, of what was in the air at the time.

The assertion that coal and wood exhaust (why did you leave out coal, by the way?) is somehow worse or more dangerous than petroleum emissions is, by the way, dangerous and careless.

Here's a simple fact for you: pick ANY emission in the air currently today. Pick it. Mercury? Okay. My prediction for you is that, for as long back as we have measurements of it, it will be lower overall today than it was in the past. Because practically ALL of them have been going down for DECADES.

2) Forests: The description of our current forests as sick and infertile is rather interesting, and I'd certainly like to see some sort of proof for it. Ditto that there are forests now where marshes used to be.

The simple fact is that we don't have a good guage on what used to be forest and what used to be plain, or what "natural" state existed and when. We have ample data that the Indians cut down far more forest and had far greater impact on the ecology than we ever thought. We know for a fact that in the 1800s we cut down a LOT more trees than we do today.

We also continue to have no clear definition of what an "old growth" forest is, exactly, from scientists or anyone else.

3) The point of not worrying about overpopulation is that for DECADES we have been told that overpopulation and overcrowding are going to cause mass die-offs and incredible ecological devastation. THIS HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY PROVEN TO BE ABSOLUTE BALONEY, yet you still come across people who are absolutely convinced that it's true.

And yes, in point of fact, I think that by most measures, most people's lives are considerably enhanced by living near tens of thousands of other people. By most (hell, probably all) statistically measurable tests, having more such people around creates greater wealth, opportunity, and leisure for all involved. This romanticization of isolation is mostly just that: romanticization. While some people like that, most people do not choose to live in isolation, and have clearly expressed a preference for the hustle and bustle of urban or suburban life. Else they'd go ahead and accept the lower standard of living and greater hardship that living in greater isolation and more sparsely poulated areas always brings.

Some claim better "spiritual happiness" living in areas with low populations. But that cannot be measured. Nor is it something we can safely assume that most people want, especially because so few of them make little to no effort to actually move to such areas.

Areas of low population density usually have one thing in common: they're poorer, there are less amenities, and you work harder to get by. This is true no matter what culture you look at, and no matter what time period you look at. The only exceptions are the super-wealthy who manage to isolate themselves from the riff-raff. Otherwise, I invite you: pick the culture, pick the time, pick the place, and you will find that the lower the population density, the greater the poverty and the greater the work necessary just to survive. Conversely, except for highly oppressive societies, you will find that the higher the population density is, the higher the average income will be, the higher the standard of living will be, and the more amenities, entertainments, and opportunities there will be.

You will also find that, at least in countries with free economies, the more people live there, the better the environmental conditions will generally be.

Once again, we need to lose the romanticism, and once again, we need to start looking at facts before we can draw conclusions.

Understand that all I did in my last post was pass along a response from someone I know, whom I consider smart and an environmentalist.

I am tempted to pass along your latest response to him for his retort, but it might get repetitive.

My two cents: "decades" is a short period of time. If mass die-offs haven't happened yet (arguable in light of the killing by Stalin, Hitler, et al.), they still may.

Again, an interesting discussion.

Timely USAToday post re: world population

Wow -- I'm much more impressed by Michael Crichton han I ever thought I owuld be. It makes me glad to know there is at least someone out there with half a clue.

As for his beliefs in paranormal crap... well.. that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about eveyrthing else. ;) One of the greatest chemists ever (Linus Pauling) was also the idiot who started the myth that megadoses of Vitamin C will cure your cold. (Oh, and look at that, he made money off of Vitamin C sales...). Doesn't mean that the work that he did to get his Nobel prizes was wrong. :)

For refutation of deaths caused by US ban on DDT, see: http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm.

For refutation of deaths caused by US ban on DDT, see: http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm.

Finding your posts at random, I am dismayed by the widespread acceptance of Chrichton's comments, but pleased by the tone of the discussion. I felt there was perspective missing that I might attempt to add...

Crichton is obviously a smart guy. He is a medical doctor, studied anthropology, a halfway decent novelist (certainly better than me, anyway), well-traveled and well read. That makes his opinions more well-received by others who consider themselves to be of the same ilk, who often tap their body of educated lay knowledge on a variety of subjects. But does that make him qualified to weigh in with noteworthy authority on the carcinogenic properties of DDT? On the scientific validity of global warming? I would say that assuming so is questionable. The point of whether or not he has endorsed ESP or spoon-bending is beside the point. Would you seek-out a certified mechanic to attempt to set your broken arm? Would you seek the insight of a world famous orchestral conductor when buying stock? I doubt it. We're skeptical of experts because we dislike that they have some power over us due to a body of knowledge that they've accumulated, but when push comes to shove, we seek them out, even when we know that they are sometimes wrong. We need common sense to balance out intellectualism, but we also need to retain the common sense to know when we're at point were we don't have the tools to cope with a problem, or more importantly, when someone is invoking common sense to pander to our fears and insecurities. Crichton is borrowing a mantle of authority to speak on issues that he does not know enough about to do so, and then criticizing people for applying the same standards of inquiry to him that he is applying to the "green fundamentalists" he disdains.

Folks on both sides of the environmental debate put too much stock in "experts", but more importantly, they aren't letting experts do their job, and keeping them to the limits of their job, and are allowing some people to weigh in with the authority of specialists on issues they don't know very much about.

For example, if you read the statements of climate scientists (not environmentalists) on the subject of global warming, they are very careful to talk about their findings in terms of probabilities, ranges, best-case and worst-case scenarios. They rarely weigh in on policy, and only do so in cases where they are determining whether or not a certain policy is feasible from a geophysical standpoint, not from a political or economic standpoint.

Many of the scientists, when stepping outside of their roles as scientists, disagree on which policies would work best to solve the problem.

But in the province where they are most informed, an overwhelming majority of these scientists are as sure as they can be at this point that the earth's atmosphere is warming, and that human activities are the primary cause. And, they haven't reached this through some religious revelation. They've reached it through an exhaustive 25 year process involving thousands of studies, peer-reviewed by hundreds of qualified scientific professionals, to come to this set of conclusions, and consistently reiterate that they cannot predict exactly what will happen, only what may or could happen. Check out the link here: http://www.ipcc.ch/

In essence, they are odds-makers. We're playing a game of craps with our climate. They are telling us the odds, and while they aren't saying whether or not we will win if we bet on the status quo, they are saying that the odds are bad, and that the House usually wins. The house in this case is the planet (in its coldest, geophysical sense), not us, or our civilization.

In contrast, you look at the handful of scientists who proclaim themselves to be climate skeptics, and most of them have very little background in the fields related to climate science; most have published very few peer-reviewed journals or publications, and often get their primary source of funding from special interests that have a direct stake in the outcome of scientific findings on global warming.

Now, I'm sure some folks would come back and say that some of these folks have been shut out by a "green zealot" politicized academic community; I'll bet that a few have been shut out. But, I think people who value rational discourse would agree that claiming that there is a broad conspiracy on the part of the established 'green academics' to close out all skeptics is about as valid as enviromentalists claiming that there is a dark cabal of moneyed fat-cats knowingly corrupting the process.

I think common sense would tell us that it is mostly a bunch of folks with different views and different interests, trying to get stuff done and cover their own behinds. I would argue, however, that the impact of a tenured academic at one university asserting his world view and the CEO of an Oil company asserting his does carry a different weight based the current dynamics of our political system, but that is far cry from screaming conspiracy.

I'd also say most folks would agree that there are two simple questions one can use to figure out if someone is on the level: Do they know (in a professional sense) what they are talking about? And, what's in it for them? or, follow the money.

So, on the one hand, I see an academic at a university, who's got a degree, who's done the work, who's been published, who's findings are reliable, who has followed the dictates of the scientific method, has not pre-supposed any particular set of hypotheses, and who in return gets some recognition for his work, a decent, but not extravagant salary, and the satisfaction of knowing he has made some small contribution to the body of knowledge we share.

On the other, I see somebody who hasn't been published, or if they are published, they usually are published in studies directly funded by industry interests; someone who doesn't have a degree in the area they are holding forth on; someone who, when speaking about climate science, tends to drift mightly into economics, politics, and discourses on the failings of certain ideologies; and someone who receives the bulk of their financial support from an entity that does not have broad public interests in mind, but their own specific interests.

I can imagine in response, one might invoke Crichton's assertion that the power of fundamentalism transcends mere "material" desires. This might be true for a few folks in academia, a few more for some tree-huggers. But c'mon; do your really think that the vast majority of academics working on this issue are doing it for glory and in the name of the green god? To assume that is as silly as to assume that all business men are in it for the greed, or for sheer power. The only difference I would say is that, while "religious glory" is very hard to track but always easy to attribute to others, cash is very easy to track and infinitely more useful and practical...which do you think is a more powerful motivator for folks in their day to day? Isn't that the basis of the market itself, in a narrow sense? Ironically, I would say that if anyone is embracing notions of grandeur by trumpeting their contribution to truth and knowledge, it is Crichton. If his goal is honestly to declare to the scientific community and their environmentalist cohorts that they are abusing the scientific method with their zealous activities, why not take it to the source? Why preach to a group of folks who are being told what they want to hear?

Yes, scientists can be and are wrong...that's the point; they are constantly updating our understanding of the world around us through a method that isn't perfect, but is the best we've got. And sometimes, because of this imperfection, what we think is right based upon one level of understanding turns out to be wrong on another.

But, I think most of the folks participating in this discussion would agree that as a society, we've got a few things down pretty well; otherwise, how would we have advanced to the level of technological sophistication we have now?

You have to make a choice: Do you think that, taken as a whole, the verdict on where the environment stands from Chrichton's standpoint is based on the fundamentals of science, or on convenient hindsight interpretations of an imperfect path of exploration and understanding?

It seems to me that Chrichton is committing the very "sin" he is excoriating in his speech; using selective science to justify a pre-supposed axiom about where the world is at.

For example, he is patently inconsisent when he discusses the role science should play in our decision making about environmental policy. He deifies science on one side, talking about how far we've come, while invoking humility in the face of our ignorance on behalf of those foolish enough to have reached different conclusions about the state of our world using the same valid scientific processes.

He is magnifying the extremes of one aspect of a social movement, and attempting to assert that these instances of excess represent the entire worldview and set of goals shared by very broad and populous spectrum of folks, many of whom are very reasonable, practical people who don't view environmentalism as a religion, but do see it as an aspect of a broader set of western ethics, as an almost Yankee sense of thrift and pragmatism, steeped in rational inquiry.

These same people have been working hard for 30 years or more to achieve the successes we've seen happen over those past 30 years. Those sucesses were achieved through many different methods, including a lot of negotiation and compromise, not just "preaching."

So when you hear this large community of pragmatic environmentalists express dismay at the current state of things, it is not articulated as "the sky is still falling", but "we've spent thirty years cleaning up this room, and now you're going to let our son play footbal in the living room?" Or even worse, "we've fixed the wiring in the house, only to find out we've got dry rot and asbestos in the floors, and someone sold us lousy siding.."

Furthermore, most pepole working on environmental issues understand that the large majority of people relate to their environment from a human-based perspective. The issues they are working on are ones of human interest--clean water, clean air, livable communities, etc. The notion of an Eden once lost and attainable in the future is something most groups, even the so-called "radical" ones like the Sierra Club (as someone deemed them), don't think about for second.

What they dream of is world where "don't shit where you eat" (pardon my language) becomes the rule, rather than the exception; where "out of sight, out of mind" is a fallacy laughed at by most reasonable people, who embrace the notion that personal responsbility means picking up after your own messes on a personal and global scale. These are value judgements, true, encroaching upon the scientific realm, but they are values based on rationality and empiricism, not pie in the sky pipe dreams of either a 'green utopia' or an Objectivist's "one man is an island" ethos.

Still worse, either intentionally or unintentionally, Crichton is serving the interests of those who have just as little interest in truth through critical inquiry as those on the fringe of the environmental movement who do the same.

The difference is, the folks who are backing Crichton's assertions up have a lot more power and influence. C'mon, who do you really think has access to the decisions that are being made: regular working people and business folks, or the granola set? Do you really think that a cabal of crazy dread-locked tree-huggers are secretly pulling the strings? That they've gone undercover wearing business suits, and when no one is looking they pull out their mason rings and talk in code? If you believe this, why is it such a hard stretch for you to consider that the opposite is also a possibility; that there are those who make alot of money doing what we're doing now as a society, and they're going to see changes in what we're doing now happen over their dead stock portfolio.

I'm not going to so far as to rant about evil corporations and such. Business people are just people, doing what they need to do to make it through the day, and they are all different. But again, alluding to Crichton's comments, if you agree with him in saying that human history has a habit of tapping our more brutual natures, then it is arguably true to say that one of the driving forces of all modern people is their self-interest, whether they are the poorest of the poor or the richest of the rich. Again, isn't that an axiom of the market?

If one person is put in a position of power, and scientific inquiry informs them their business practices could have dire environmental consequences, what the odds they are going to face the music willingly?

There is a lot of discussion about environmentalism as a religion, but to assume that "faith" in a free-market systems cannot reach fundamentalist proportions is, in my opinion, naive. Climate science, while still a developing field, is more of a "hard" science than economics, yet economists seem to have free reign in dictating not only our economic response to environmental issues, but how we look at the core aspects of environmental issues. Why does this usurpation of econmics over geology and climatology seem logical to so many people who claim to base their world view on rational thinking?? Why do they rail against folks who suggest that from a mathematical standpoint, there may be such a thing as a finite amount of certain viable resources, claiming that this assertion is tantamount to treason or heresy? Why do they parade examples of where science has been wrong about the capacity of our physical world, when they are grossly overshadowed by examples where science has been right?

In the end, you really have to decide if, by accepting Crichton's critque of environmentalism as a fundamentalist strain of cultural and political thought, you are speaking truth to power, or serving the interests of power?
In other words, are you challenging The Inquisition, or maintaining that the Earth is flat...?