Summary The establishment is divided between overpopulation crusaders, energy techs, and environmental chicken-littles on one side and the idiots known as free-market economists on the other. So far the economists have the upper hand because they are backed by the mathematicians of relativity and by the politicians. The economist of today is a total moron. He has to be. He is a follower of Adam Smith, Julian Simon, and Milton Friedman. So what can you expect? The economist has been brainwashed to believe that:
1. Expansions and recessions, deflation and inflation are perfectly normal
and unavoidable economic cycles, and that that's just a fact of life.
2. Technology advances exponentially and solves all our problems. Man can handle any problem thrown his way because we have the ability to foresee events before they happen and make corrections. 3. Exponential population growth is not a problem! We will produce as much
food as necessary to feed everyone. Demand is just a pricing issue.
4. The fact that energy sources are drying is also not a problem. We will invent
new sources in the future as we have in the past. Man's inventiveness and resourcefulness has no limits. This is also just a pricing issue.
In the mind of the idiot of relativistic economics, every obstacle is just a matter of money. Therefore, the mathematician is always optimistic, much like the members of Heaven's Gate before they went on their one-way trip. (Sometimes I really envy their ignorance!) Friedman's disciples believe that we are going to live forever. Perhaps we will evolve into post-humans. Certainly, we will travel to the stars and terraform and colonize other planets. Who knows what wonders the future may bring. The catastrophists don't see it so rosy. They have much better intuition and common sense. They feel that something is not right. Yet the problem is that they invoke the wrong arguments in their eagerness to debunk the idiotic theories of the relativistic economists and philosophers: energy, overpopulation, climate change, environment, and loss of biological diversity. None of these have direct bearing on the issue of extinction. Here, I review some of the most common philosophical arguments and theories on both sides of this dispute and show that none of them are even in the ball park.