Slashdot links to news about some study predicting doom and gloom. The discussion is interesting. Someone writes:
It’s the old “Limits To Growth” bullshit back again. The same people who predicted mass starvation in the 70s are now predicting massive climate change. The whole concept that new technology means you can’t just extrapolate seems to be lost on them.
Someone else agrees:
And this kind of hysterics has been around a long time. Hobbes had his “nasty, brutish, and short” predictions for mankind in Leviathan. According to experts 30 years ago, the was simply no way we could produce enough food for 5 billion people. Now we’re doing it for 7. These professional pessimists have always underestimated mankind’s ability to change, adapt, and solve problems. They’ve always underestimated our capacity to make things happen.
An example is provided:
In 1898, delegates from across the globe gathered in New York City for the world’s first international urban planning conference. One topic dominated the discussion. It was not housing, land use, economic development, or infrastructure. The delegates were driven to desperation by horse manure.
[...]
The situation seemed dire. In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story windows. A public health and sanitation crisis of almost unimaginable dimensions loomed.And no possible solution could be devised. After all, the horse had been the dominant mode of transportation for thousands of years. Horses were absolutely essential for the functioning of the nineteenth-century city — for personal transportation, freight haulage, and even mechanical power. Without horses, cities would quite literally starve.
All efforts to mitigate the problem were proving woefully inadequate. Stumped by the crisis, the urban planning conference declared its work fruitless and broke up in three days instead of the scheduled ten.
Someone else objects:
And just how did they get out of this horseshit disaster?
By recognizing the problem and finding a solution. Street cars, subways and eventually motor vehicles.
You can recognize the foresight of the New York administration of the late 19th century for recognizing that their current path was not a sustainable one and began planning and investing in solutions to the problem.
But no. I’m sure you’re right. If we just completely avoid the problem then the inevitability of progress will happen without any research. Without any change and without any effort.
Which is almost a fair point, but fails to recognise the real actors and motivations. Fortunately another slashdotter doesn’t let him get away with it:
“The New York administration of the late 19th century” did not invent or popularise the automobile, or the train. They did nothing to solve the problem. They threw up their hands and gave up because the problem was entirely beyond them – and the world today would be a better place if more governments would follow their lead in that.
The problem was solved by new technologies invented, developed, an popularised by private individuals looking to either make a buck or solve a problem that they faced personally. Not by any committee of busybodies trying to save the world.
All subways built in New York prior to 1932 were built and owned by private companies, of course. They were eventually nationalised, but that was only after they had been starved of investment for decades as a consequence of government imposed fare controls. No fare increases at all were permitted between 1904 and 1948.
Why am I not surprised by any of that?