The sea is much calmer today. The big waves have disappeared mostly, so all we have left now is the bouncing motion, with a small rocking as an overtone. We must be in the low 50s, upper 40s now (lattitudinally), or else we're just having super weather. The sky is thinly overcast: we can see the sun, but only through the thinner bands of clouds. It's on our side of the ship in the morning, of course, since we're heading almost due north. It seems a little strange to be going northward to get into warmer weather!
Bateman is full of quotes, full of statistics, but he doesn't have a sound model to fit it all into. I suppose it's significant that things are so bad now that it doesn't take a model to show the danger we're in, but it doesn't make me hysterical. I'm certain that nature has had to deal with worse scourges before (ones that were caused by unintelligent, non-sentient creatures, as opposed to creatures who could evaluate their problems and maybe do something about them). I suppose the danger is that we aren't intelligent enough to be competent at minimizing the problems when they become obvious to us, and instead we make them worse. Nature obviously has trouble dealing with organisms that change their behavior radically in response to natural equalization techniques.
In any case, Bateman brought up problems that everyone should already know about, and he had some interesting insights into those problems and what may be causing them. But I don't feel that his lecture was terribly worthwhile, since I don't think he has any new ideas on what to do about the situation, or any ammunition against the educated skeptics.
The arguments that Bateman used included the idea that modern technology, with liquid money and digital communication, was responsible for the international exploitation of natural resources because it extends the range of the exploiters, who don't have any personal stake in the areas they exploit. While the latter point is true, I don't think that the former is a direct consequence of that one fact. He talked a lot about the "buy now, let your grandchildren pay for it" economic policies of the governments and corporations, and how little thought goes in to the environmental costs of a project, as opposed to the short term costs. He said several times that there will be no space travel, no ultrahigh technology, because the problems we've created for ourselves already will overtake those concerns and will require all of our effort to bring under control. I'm not so sure that this is entirely true. I think that he may be missing the fact that many people are applying modern technology and advances in technology to the problems of the environment, and that the technology has the potential to make this work much more effective. Just because we aren't using it effectively right now, doesn't mean that we will never use it effectively, or that we can't use it effectively, or even that we don't want to.
In every new age, there is a period of chaos and ineptness. The question is not, "is this situation right or wrong?" but rather, "can we get it back under control in time?" We don't have much control over the demand for change that grips humanity. Unless, of course, we choose to take humanity into our own hands by creating a totalitarian regime. But we can, hopefully, guide that desire to good ends. And if we can't, we'll be weeded out of existence by the same natural laws that every other species that's gone extinct has succumbed to, and that will be a natural end also.
I was glad that Bob Bateman based his arguments on the idea that our problems are not technological but rather philosophical. He used population control as an example, and, while I think that his reasoning was simplistic, it was basically accurate: if we can change our philosophy about birth control, we will stop the human population explosion. Of course, I see many many subproblems here, of economic, political, and philosophical natures.
Bateman seems to be following the Malthusian philosophy of balancing birth with death for maintaining a given population size. Gerald Piel, in an essay in Scientific American in February 1994, suggests that we are beginning to complete a demographic transition, from a steady state population based on high birth and death rates, and low life expectancy, to another steady state population based on low birth and death rates and high life expectancy. This transition was brought on by the industrial revolution, which increased production levels to the point where more people could share the benefits of production. Of course, the population size has changed dramtically, and the longer it takes before we complete the transition, the larger the ultimate steady state population will be.
Piel's model lacks on thing that Bateman has well in mind: the fact that we have limited resources. Even if we do stop population growth, we still need to figure out how to supply the production processes that make that population sustainable with adequate resources without running out of those resources.
This problem is well illustrated by a conflict in Bateman's talk. At one point, he argued that science and technology were causing the problems, because they make it easier for people to screw things up and aren't being guided properly. Later, he argues that if we stopped population growth, we could all live like pre-industrial aristocrats because modern technology would allow it. I think the resolution of these statements is that technology needs to be directed. Which, of course, I know very well from my work at SILS.
After the lecture, Grandma and I finished our packing for the trip back home. I left out three outfits, including my suit, and everything else was packed. I'll have to carry both my PowerBook case and my regular carryon bag on the plane this time, or else I won't have room for everything I brought plus the extras from the ship and McMurdo.
Tonight is the Captain's farewell champaigne reception and banquet. I really hate the receptions. I just don't mix well in situations like that, when I don't have common subjects of interest to discuss with people. I'll try to go later, so I only have to spend fifteen minutes or so there. I can handle that...
Our schedule for tomorrow is up in the air still. We're supposed to get to Christchurch around 1:00pm. (The ship's been moving along at about 19 knots on average since yesterday, covering over 450 nautical miles per day.) I'm hoping that we'll be in time for the tour of Christchurch, and I expect that we'll probably have a banquet that evening in the city somewhere. We'll be briefed on all that tomorrow morning before we reach New Zealand.
The weather outside is now much warmer and more humid. I can go outside in my USAP sweatshirt without feeling cold for at least half an hour. It's still very windy, and it's still overcast and slightly foggy, but it's pleasant compared to McMurdo, for example!