Pielke the younger has a strong if not-very-coherent message for anti-growth advocates (such a huge problem these days.) He is on to their tricks:
So, is it mathematically impossible to be against growth in rich countries and for it in poor countries? Let's consider an analogous argument:
Some try to sugar-coat their anti-growth arguments by focusing their attention on the rich world. But with most of the world’s expected growth to occur in the poor parts of the world, such arguments are simply mathematical non sequiturs. The reality is that to be anti-growth today is actually to be anti-growth with respect to poor countries. The fact that very few, if any, anti-growth activists are openly demanding that poor countries remain poor tells us how powerful a force growth is in today’s global politics.So in other words, people who see limits to growth typically focus on rich countries -- countries which are presumably running up against those limits. They do not focus on poor countries, whom everyone realizes need a significant amount of growth (growth which hopefully, in contradistinction to America's recent experience, will not send 95% of its benefits to the richest 1% of the population.)
So, is it mathematically impossible to be against growth in rich countries and for it in poor countries? Let's consider an analogous argument:
Anti-obesity campaigners disguise their anti-nutrition agenda by claiming to focus on people who are unhealthily overweight. Yet the hard fact remains that the majority of rapid weight gain occurs in babies. So the reality of being anti-weight gain today is to favor malnourished babies. The fact that very few, if any anti-obesity campaigners openly advocate starving young children tells us how politically weak (not to mention dishonest) they are.
I'm not convinced your analogy stands, because you conflate weight gain with obesity, but the, latter doesn't necessarily follow from the other. I would parse it thus:
ReplyDelete"Some try to sugar-coat their anti-obesity arguments by focusing their attention on the rich world. But with most of the world’s expected obesity to occur in the poor parts of the world, such arguments are simply mathematical non sequiturs. The reality is that to be anti-obesity today is actually to be anti-obesity with respect to poor countries. The fact that very few, if any, anti-obesity activists are openly demanding that poor countries remain hungry tells us how powerful a force obesity is in today’s global politics."
I think the confusion in the analogy is a confusion -- perhaps deliberate -- in Pielke's original argument. His straw men believe all growth is bad, and inconsistently fail to apply their position to the poor. Is that plausible? I do not think it is plausible. In my experience, growth skeptics(*) most feel like the rich world has gotten about as rich as it can get, safely, or perhaps a little more so.
ReplyDeletePielke oversimplifies the argument against endless economic growth by treating it as opposition to all economic growth, everywhere. If you are against growth, you must be against growth everywhere and in all circumstances.
That is analogous to treating a critique of obesity as opposition to all weight gain, everywhere. He oversimplifies and then vilifies.
* Who I do not happen to agree with, but that is neither here nor there.