Malthusian Angst

I am convinced that there is something buried deep in the human brain that just plain freaks out- collectively- when quarters get too close. It's the only way to explain the periodic panic (there's no better way to describe it) that grips human societies every so often, which I'm referring to here as Malthusian Angst. (Thomas Malthus, for those of you that may not know, was the classical English economist who famously posited that the earth had a finite capacity for human population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_malthus, among other things). The latest incarnation of this panic, in my opinion, is Global Warming Angst.

Now, global warming may or may not be a reality. I am no scientist and never even played one on TV, and thus would not venture into such territory (not like me, I know). Opinions are utterly useless in science- mine or anyone else's- which is what the sceptics have been saying all along. I would simply echo the late, great Micheal Crichton's position on the subject ( http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html), which should be required reading for anyone interested. To summarize, there is no scientific certainty of global warming; it is a theory, and anyone who tells you otherwise probably has a political agenda. It may very well turn out to BE a scientific fact- by which point it may be too late to do anything about it- but that's another matter. One thing's for sure, however: the level of anxiety collectively expressed by the educated Western world over the issue far outstrips any reasonable, rational response to the problem (real or imagined) and- in my mind- is simply the latest installment of Malthusian Angst. If you need proof of this theorem, ask yourself why people in dense urban areas are so much more prone to anxiety about this issue than people who live on farms. It's not surprising that most of the concern of this nature is from folks living cheek-to-jowl. Are people in London or New York City simply that much more prescient or intelligent than people in rural or suburban areas? Perhaps- but I doubt it.

There is some merit, I suppose, to the idea of retooling our entire industrial infrastructure to be green just for the Keynesian merit of doing so. Keynes (suddenly very popular again) once suggested that an entire self-sufficient economy could be comprised of people alternately burying and digging up bottles, and if you extend this to the current situation, it may be useful to go to all the trouble just for the churning effect it would have on the wider economy. If you are more of a zero-sum thinker, this won't make any sense to you at all. As far as I am concerned, the main issue is geo-political: I want to see Americans weaned from oil as an energy source simply to deny the almost uniformly distasteful regions that control most of it any more control over us than they already have. That this goal also happily coincides with the goals of those concerned with global warming is, I suppose, a pure coincidence.

Since I originally wrote this in December, the economy has gotten far worse, and in fact Obama has embarked on a number of Keynesian initiatives in regard to alternative energy sources. If nothing else, it will be fascinating to watch and may in fact relieve a great deal of this Malthusian angst.

In the last analysis, the answer is old news: nuclear power. It is the only rational alternative we have anywhere near the horizon, and is entirely practical. Put simply, if the French can do it (and they do, well and safely), we can do it. The old luddite brand of hippie is just going to have to grow up a bit and get over it. Investments in solar and other feel-good forms of alternative energy may get the headlines, but the reality is that nuclear will be the source getting the job done if we are ever going to wean ourselves off dirtier forms of energy.