Skip to content

Previous post criticized Malthusian economics, but reading comprehension also may be a problem…

After our guest blogger and DRI post-doctoral fellow Adam Martin spoke out today against Malthusian population scares that lack economic credibility, he got the following invitation (abbreviated version):

Dear Adam

I am contacting you today to request your participation in the Population Institute’s Global Population Speak Out, February 2010.

I read your very thoughtful blog post.

And, I believe you are an important voice.

So, if you’re interested in supporting long term global sustainability, please click here:

I PLEDGE TO SPEAK OUT – FEBRUARY 2010

Sincerely,

The Global Population Speak Out Endorsers & Population Institute

Global Population Speak Out” calls on “scientists and scholars” to call attention to “the size and growth of the human population {that} are fundamental drivers of the ecological crisis we face…If we hope to avert worldwide catastrophe, {we must} “conduct a massive shift of attention and resources toward humane, progressive measures designed to stabilize and ultimately reduce world population to a sustainable level.”

There is preliminary evidence that the letter writer may have missed the part of Adam’s post, namely all of it, where Adam was arguing against the claims made by the  “Global Population Speak Out.”

  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Print
This entry was posted in Language, Meta, Satire and parodies. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Ronan L wrote:

    We could be generous and say they got the point entirely and wanted a different voice at their talk but forgot to tailor their mail merge…
    But it’s much more fun this way, though!

    Posted December 11, 2009 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
  2. William Easterly wrote:

    Ronan, I considered that possibility, but if you read the letter carefully, they just want Adam to sign a pre-prepared statement that is strongly pro-Malthusian.

    Posted December 11, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
  3. E Aboyeji wrote:

    LOL! Its funny they sent him that letter :)

    Posted December 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm | Permalink
  4. Adam Martin wrote:

    It’s funny that, in their response, they thought I was supporting GDP as a meaningful measure of well-being, when in fact I was criticizing the top-down (hypostatizing) view of it.

    It’s also strange and a little sad, though they have the best of intentions, that they feel the need to so tightly hitch the arguments for women’s rights to the threat of environmental disaster. All I’m saying is that neither rapists nor environmental alarmists should be allowed to make that decision for someone else.

    Posted December 11, 2009 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
  5. Joe Bish wrote:

    Adam,

    I think I follow you when you say ” …neither rapists nor environmental alarmists should be allowed to make that decision for someone else…”; I am assuming you mean the decision to conceive or carry to term. We certainly agree there.

    And, as we make clear on our site, there have been draconian and unacceptable abuses against men and women in the name of top down population control.

    That’s where population justice comes in.

    I am surprised you can’t look holistically at the complex dynamic earth systems and see the node where women’s liberation and planetary stewardship overlap.

    That is of course, unless you believe that the 6th great extinction event on Earth is a fantasy or that anyone considering the human influence on our rapidly changing climate and dwindling biodiversity is always-already an environmental alarmist?

    I hope not.

    Thanks.

    Posted December 11, 2009 at 8:14 pm | Permalink
  6. John Feeney wrote:

    “if you read the letter carefully, they just want Adam to sign a pre-prepared statement that is strongly pro-Malthusian”

    What sentence(s) gave you that impression??

    Posted December 11, 2009 at 9:07 pm | Permalink
  7. Dave Gardner wrote:

    I believe the invitation from Joe Bish and Global Population Speak Out reflected an open mind and a hope, maybe even belief, that Adam isn’t as narrow-minded as his post might suggest. A hope that Adam truly does want what is best for mothers and their children around the world – the freedom and the knowledge to make voluntary decisions about family size that will enable them to have better lives.

    Dave Gardner
    Producer/Director
    Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity

    Posted December 12, 2009 at 10:40 am | Permalink
  8. John Feeney wrote:

    Still wondering where the author got the strange idea Adam was being asked just to “sign a pre-prepared statement” of any sort. Snide comments about “reading comprehension” start looking kind of ironic in that light.

    Posted December 12, 2009 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

One Trackback

  1. [...] over a Friday lunch in that bastion of sustainable living – midtown Manhattan. You can hear the cackles of delight in this blog post that went up on AID Watch (a project of DRI and principally written by Dr. [...]