Accidental Bias of Academics

When Thomas Malthus indicated that population grows exponentially and that food acrage is more limited, he was
making what seems to be a logical observation.

In Practice, we see that technology grows exponentially as well and the food is not a problem after all.

Paul Erlich was concerned with running out of natural resources due to similar reasoning.  He made a bet that
commodity prices would go up over a period of time and he lost the bet.  Nevertheless, some people who follow the
original academic argument think of Paul Erlich as a hero.

The same thinking led to the concept of "running out of petroleum".  Peak Oil became a crying point amoung people
following the Malthus-Erlich arguments.  When it became obvious that we are finding new oil reserves faster than we
are pumping the current reserves, the argument seemed doomed.

Then those who didn't want to let go of this line of thinking went on to claim that humans are causing the globe to
warm and that warming is bad.  Of course, we know that the difficult periods for humans have been Ice Ages, not
warm periods.  Nevertheless, this idea has caught on with those academics who want to continue with the series of
arguments that seem logical but fail in practice.

At this point in time the US government is giving out grants totalling $2.5 billion to scientists who submit proposals that
intend to prove that Global Climate Change is happening and that it is human's fault.  No grants are given to the
opposing view.  It is difficult to oppose an idea which enhances your paycheck or the paycheck of your organization.









Next
The Concebot Concept Index