Fox News talking head Greg Gutfield attacked the Pope as a “Marxist” following the release of the Vatican’s message on climate change.
Gutfield then charged (at 2:20 above) that the Pope was a “Malthusian” – a follower of the 18th Century English scholar Thomas Malthus, whose predictions of doom due to over-population have been synonymous with the case for population control.
Immediately his Barbie-doll co-host protested that the word was “too big”. Greg should have taken her point.
Is the Pope a Malthusian?
From the Papal Climate encyclical, the Laudato Si Document:
50. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”.[28] To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption. Besides, we know that approximately a third of all food produced is discarded, and “whenever food is thrown out it is as if it were stolen from the table of the poor”.[29] Still, attention needs to be paid to imbalances in population density, on both national and global levels, since a rise in consumption would lead to complex regional situations, as a result of the interplay between problems linked to environmental pollution, transport, waste treatment, loss of resources and quality of life.
This graph from Common Ground The Papal Encyclical, Science and the Protection of Planet Earth –
by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany;
Santa Fe Institute for Complex Systems Research, USA
This paper was presented by Dr. Schellhuber as part of the Vatican’s rollout of the encyclical, in thursday’s press event.
The point it makes is that the climate crisis springs not from the poorest billion on the planet, where much of the population growth is occurring – but rather from the extravagant, uncaring consumption of the richest billion or so.
Common Ground The Papal Encyclical, Science and the Protection of Planet Earth:
The large-scale production of fossil fuel energy which was initiated by the Industrial Revolution and
accelerated in the 20th century has led to great human development – for a minority. For the very few, it has even generated extreme wealth. On the other side of this development stand the poor andthe poorest of the poor.
The structural violence of this development predetermines their lives.
Sources of fossil fuel energy are private goods, owned by corporations or controlled by governments.
Access to energy thus largely depends on the financial resources of the individual.
It follows that the deployment of fossil fuel energy and the connected technological advances have led to unprecedented disparities and to wasteful over-usage of resources.
The carbon history of humankind is one of exploitation.
The takeaway – Fox News presenters should indeed just read from their cue cards, and leave the big words to others.
A good example of where the west has gone completely wrong is that the moment we got equality between sexes and the rights of women to work instead of being at home taking care of kids and the house, the man still kept at it working full time – so instead of one income the norm is now two incomes. This in order has basically just increased the consumption rate and the will/power to lend more money (future exploitment of the planet) based on the assumption that both will keep up this set of living arrangements until they are in their grave. Instead, the added freedom of automation and equality could have instead have spurred less consumption, more time with the family and friends locally where you live – spreading the actual work necessary to bring food on the table between the household members. We somehow collectively subscribed immediately to the insane rat-race of consumerism and growth without a thought at the actual options at hand.
I doubt that any decent university today, anywhere in the world, teaches any course in any subject that denies or debates the effect of greenhouse gases on Earth’s climate . My son is studying economics and that certainly accepts the tragedy of the commons and the damage we are doing by venting CO2. So just who is holding us back ? Do we really have to wait until all the ignorant bigots pass away ? Lets go with the Pope – he’s the good guy. He’s the best.
Love the way this guy starts out slowly then reaches his crescendo, easy to see some crazed Fox Vewer at home rooting for him to cross the goal line, or round third and fall down in exasperation after it is all done and said. How Stupid are these people?
Is the Pope a Marxist? Wasn’t Jesus? I could have sworn there was something there about lending money at interest, how easily does a rich man get to heaven. Something about feeding the poor?
The Prosperity Gospel of the Republican party does not even have room for giving to the poor – that is, you see, a “Marxist” redistribution of wealth, and government should never be used for that.
Now, a redistribution of wealth upwards, ….
How do you suppose those ultra-rich so flagrantly consume more than the average American? It must be nearly an exothermic reaction. Do you think it might be because they travel by airplane about 10,000 times more often than the billions of poor who live along the floodplains of the world?
Nope – evidently it has something to do with wasting food or something.
Anyway, the Pope’s point is that these individuals should be blamed, you see. Not overpopulation – that’s NOT the problem, you see, because that would require birth control as a solution, and we mustn’t go there.
Jesus H. Christ This Pope’s encyclical is virtually incoherent. What a pathetic mish mosh of wandering blathering feel-goodisms all connected by two things – a dreadful appreciation of the science, and a skittering of the horses when Official Catholic Doctrine is making the whole situation worse.;
This is not to say he doesn’t get some stuff right. Caring more for the plight of those with less. Stewardship of the environment. The need to solve AGW. Good stuff.
But, sweet Zeus, he simply runs right off the rails when it comes cogent science. Not surprising from a guy who doesn’t accept scientific evolution.
Actually the Catholic Church has accepted scientific evolution for many years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/
There is “evolution” and there is “scientific evolution”. The former means whatever someone feels it means. The Pope believes that:
1) God injects a soul into the newborn human
2) God has directed evolution so as to produce man
3) Adam and Eve were real live humans and the sole progenitors of the human race
None of these views is consistent with scientific evolution. The CC has been very clear in its written published manifestos on the topic.
And none of that has anything much to do with what the Pope said about AGW. We should focus not on religion (aka myth, fairy tales, and fantasy) but on the science of what he said, and that’s where the pope is 100% right on target.
We have not made progress on AGW because of the ethical and moral lapses of humans in general as exemplified in the present economic model, and the Pope is right to speak out from that perspective. Add that to what the scientists, military, economists, and insurance companies have been saying and it may be enough to get things moving in the right direction.
You need to focus, or you’re going to miss the plane/train/boat when it leaves.
Right, the Catholic Church leans towards the ‘clockmaker’ version of creation and evolution – but it’s not an outright rejection of evolution like one would see in many Evangelical Christian denominations.
Any Christian denomination, though, will draw the line somewhere on matters of faith, and at that point it does become questionable, of course. But, your arguments on this matter seem to be that the CC is wrong about this, so we can’t accept this – when they’re really two separate topics that should be viewed separately.
On “scientific evolution”, this seems to be a term you have come up with, and it is unclear at best. Here’s the main reference I can find to it:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117388
The Pope is the leader of a branch of Christianity with longstanding dogmas. He’s not going to come out and say they’ve been wrong about it all, so don’t expect him to do that. But, he’s not addressing evolution is this document – he’s talking about climate change, humanity’s impact on the environment, issues of justice between the poor and wealthy, the wrongheadedness of a plunder economy, and linking morality with these issues. All of this aligns with most of our concerns here, so it’s hard to understand why you’re so deadset against anything he has to say.
The Pope’s message is really, really good news to me, and as you probably know, I’m not much of a ‘good news’ guy. The only rays of hope to me in this bleak world are when we have calls for action from unexpected sources that might potentially have some level impact on the intransigent. This fits the bill quite nicely.
” it’s hard to understand why you’re so deadset against anything he has to say.”
WTF? I praised him for saying the same things you praised him for. And I do hope his message will help our efforts to solve the AGW problem.
That said, I actually agree with Omno on this one – the Pope is a lousy scientific representative. And, s far as I am concerned, the RCC is about as far from a proper moral authority as can be found (sure, folks like ISIS are worse).
And that the Pope has blamed AGW in part on “lifestyle” and dismissed the RCC’s own contribution at worsening overpopulation is disgraceful. And I am happy to now see my opinion is in good company on that score:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/krauss-and-pinker-on-the-popes-miguided-climate-change-bicycle/
WEIT, btw, has had quite a few posts about evolution, scientific evolution, and the RCC which discuss exactly what we were talking about:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/?s=catholic+evolution&searchsubmit=Find+%C2%BB
Well, nobody’s perfect, not even the Pope – but still it’s good that the most important person within the Catholic Church has a clear message about the human footprint on the planets biodiversity and our planets ability to provide a habitat for both us and everything else. Lets at least agree with him about that and leave aside his faults, nobody’s perfect. Even though he might be aware that the fact that we as a species are so dominant in numbers, its a dangerous path to tread that we need to “slim down” the population. The problem being that past attempts at that are not based on birth control but rather ethnic cleansing – and I am very happy that at least that religion doesn’t fall back into that track. I believe he is very right that when it comes to poverty and hunger, its not the amount of food being produced that is the problem, but how the wealth is spread. Solving that might be a good step at understanding that we are all in this together. I have a feeling that many people that disregard the immense inequality we have today, are very defensive about their own well being which makes it incredibly hard to even talk about simple things like reducing the amount of flights. No doubt all very humane, at least as human beings has evolved – perhaps even a good survival strategy when the shit hits the fan. But at least the Pope is able to look beyond this in the hope there are those among us who think further than our own noses. And for speaking this clearly (even if he believes in a deity) about this he deserves credit and praise.
GB – the Pope is not claiming to be a “scientific representative”, but a moral leader, and that is how the document is framed.
It doesn’t matter one bit whether or not YOU think he’s a moral authority. As you obviously don’t think he is, the document is not for you but for those who might think he is, which is quite a few people, many of whom might be on the fence about climate change.
99% of Omno’s “comments” reflect an internal attempt to deflect the deeper meaning of items about climate change. He takes some little tangent and ridicules it as a way of blocking himself from acknowledging the main point. You seem to be doing the same thing here.
You and I fundamentally disagree about technology solving climate change. I happen to agree with the Pope completely that a lifestyle and moral change are our best answer. He never says in the document that renewables shouldn’t be used, and neither do I, just that by themselves, they do not address the massive problems we face. I think this is fully scientifically accurate. I agree that the deflection about population on the Pope’s part is unfortunate, but hey, as John says, no one is perfect.
Actually, this comment is what’s “virtually incoherent”.
A “dreadful appreciation of the science” and he “runs right off the rails when it comes to cogent science”you say? Really? I’ve got a decent science background, and I don’t see that at all. What “science” are you objecting to? Enlighten us. Tell us about YOUR “science” and how it trumps the Pope’s.
Read the document.
Note how his views on science, technology, abortion, stem cell experimentation, contraception, GM foods, lifestyle, population control, and his recommendations for addressing global warming are all informed (and warped) through the lens of Trinitarian theology.
When you come to the conclusion, as did the Pope, that technology and a lower population are not the answer to our ecological crisis, but a less technological society and a change in “lifestyle” is going to get the job done… well, the scientific boat has been left at the dock.
Sorry, but you are overdoing it more than a bit by implying that ALL his views on ALL those topics are “informed and warped”, and stating that he has a “dreadful appreciation of the science” and “runs right off the rails when it comes to cogent science”.
YOU have a dreadful appreciation of what he is saying and a show a lack of cogent analysis. and are the one who is looking through your lens, which is one of warped and biased anti-Catholicism.
I will repeat jimbills’ words. “All of this aligns with most of our concerns here, so it’s hard to understand why you’re so deadset against anything he has to say. The Pope’s message is really, really good news to me, and as you probably know, I’m not much of a ‘good news’ guy”. My exact thoughts.
I will repeat what I said earlier, and suggest that you don’t ever read what I say. “We have not made progress on AGW because of the ethical and moral lapses of humans in general as exemplified in the present economic model, and the Pope is right to speak out from that perspective…it may be enough to get things moving in the right direction”.
It is unreasonable of you to keep ignoring the fact that he IS the leader of the RCC and IS constrained from simply dumping two millennia of doctrine and practice and saying what we want him to say (and he probably wants to say in his chemist’s heart).
Finally, you have a problem with your perceptual screens (look up Johari Window). You overreach and misinterpret badly when you say he has “come to the conclusion that technology and a lower population are not the answer to our ecological crisis, but a less technological society and a change in “lifestyle” is going to get the job done”. Where exactly has he said that in the Encyclical?
“You overreach and misinterpret badly when you say he has “come to the conclusion that technology and a lower population are not the answer to our ecological crisis, but a less technological society and a change in “lifestyle” is going to get the job done”. Where exactly has he said that in the Encyclical?”
A lot of that is poorly worded to skew towards straw men, but it’s not completely unfair.
The Pope does say that populations aren’t so much the problem, but consumption is. In GB’s parallel universe, consumption isn’t a problem at all – so he has a major issue with that part. On population itself, the Pope does deflect the issue, obviously because he can’t touch birth control.
However, the Pope does have a point that GB won’t acknowledge, that a low consuming population isn’t as much of an environmental problem as a high consuming population of equal size.
Technology is GB’s totem (I’ll refrain from the stronger term). As you know, he thinks if we just convince government to build a bunch of public utility renewable hubs, we’ll solve our environmental problems. He thinks that no lifestyle change is needed – we just need to slap on a ton of renewables and other tech to solve the problem (while acknowledging that populations need to be lower).
That’s been his position from the first, and nothing has ever altered that position. I’ve tried over and over to get him to see the flaws in this belief, but every time I’ve heard it whoosh past him. I personally think this is complete “magical thinking” – a form of faith on its own. I’m not alone in thinking that, but then, GB is also not alone in thinking the way he does.
Here is what the Pope says about it: “At the same time, Bartholomew has drawn attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms.”
The Pope doesn’t say anywhere that technology must be abandoned. He says that it isn’t the full answer. This is 100% accurate to me, and to GB’s eyes it’s heresy to his particular beliefs.
Other quotes:
“Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.”
“At one extreme, we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change. ”
These are simply incredible quotes to me. I’m floored that the Pope would be so well grounded in the issues. (I think I hear GB spitting up some coffee.)
But, back to GB’s quote – the Pope doesn’t say we need to give up technology and be “less technological”, nor does he says that a lifestyle change “is going to get the job done”. He says that a lifestyle, and moral change are our best approach to the problems we face. He doesn’t say whether or not it is “going” to happen, or that it “will get the job done”.
Another bit of faith we have as a species is that we think we’ll always solve any problem we face. I think GB has much more of this faith than the Pope does.
Malthus and his theories need some upgrading. Back in the early 19th century, technological improvements meant that populations could grow and be fed with improved agricultural methods. Malthus didn’t take this into account. The problem here is when there’s a disruption to the system, and we had a great example in the mid 19th century with the Irish potato famine.
With the introduction of the potato to Ireland food production was substantially increased allowing for huge population growth, but when the potato blight hit, those levels plummeted, and the distribution and economic system of the time couldn’t fill in for the loss. Millions died or were forced to leave the country.
We’re now getting something similar in Syria with the drought and the breakdown of the food distribution and economic system. In this sense, Malthus was right. Geometric expansion of populations lead to potential strains on the system when there’s a breakdown (like the effects of global warming). unlimited population growth is a major problem no matter what the political or economic system does to ameliorate its effects.
Malthus is wrong, until he’s very, very right, and he’s been right plenty of times. We just think we have a magical pill against food shortages because of a faith in technology.
Malthus isn’t taking about anything other than food, though, whereas the problems we have are a sort of all of the above situation – food availability being just one issue amongst many.
On total consumption, it’s population times consumption. A low consuming population could theoretically have many more people than a highly consumptive population. The Pope is right in that an undeveloped country with a high birth rate isn’t at fault for climate change nearly as much as a developed nation with a low birth rate. That’s what he’s referring to there. Unfortunately, though, nations with a high birth rate and growing populations can become more affluent and more highly consumptive at a later stage.
The Pope can’t touch birth control for obvious reasons, and it is a blind spot, but maybe we should also look at what’s positive about his statement instead of only focusing on what might be wrong about it.
Or, an easy way to consider it, look at who is most vocal against it:
http://news.yahoo.com/inhofe-popes-climate-encyclical-could-harm-poor-145738437–politics.html
And ask, why?
The “green revolution” is after all about converting fossil fuels to food. That is the only reason why Malthus theories hasn’t materialized. Unless we figure out some way to replace fossil fuels in a way that also doesnt mean to deplete the soil of all nutrients (or indeed the soil itself) we have a major Malthus event around the corner.
The problem is even more complex than that, though – add water shortages, loss of wildlife (especially pollinators), rising temperatures, and on and on. We’re an inherently foolish species that thinks with every self-imposed problem that overcoming nature supplies the next answer, when our problems were caused by that thinking in the first place. It’s a repeating, and unfortunately escalating, pattern with us.
Using simple arithmetic, assuming that future annual population growth rate is 1%, the average human will weigh 70kG, and that the planet’s ratio of atoms is optimally equal to a humans (not even close) – then humanity’s mass will equal the planet’s mass in 2,960 years. That’s about how long ago somebody wrote “God blessed the humans by saying to them, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it!’”
Malthus’s science doesn’t need any “upgrading” since he understood population dynamics well. Populations cannot outgrow their resources and living space.
Malthus was an economist and what he said there is basically in line with what Francis has said regarding the failings of the present day free-market ideology. Or at least that’s what I remember learning in some “cultural elective” course about the ideas of John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith et al. Correct me if I’m wrong, someone.
You CAN call the Pope both a Marxist and a Malthusian, and within the context of the specifics of the AGW issue, that’s not an insult but a rather large compliment.
It was kind of surreal listening to these clowns while reading the litany of fire, flood, drought, hurricanes, etc. in the news crawl at the bottom of the screen.