The global warming debate has striking parallels to the evolution/intelligent design debate. James Lewis explores the pathological consequences when political correctness replaces the search for truth in science: “Trofimko Lysenko is not a household name; but it should be, because he was the model for all the Politically Correct “science” in the last hundred years. Lysenko was Stalin’s favorite agricultural “scientist,” peddling the myth that crops could be just trained into growing bigger and better. . . . Hundreds of thousands of peasants starved during Stalin’s famines, in good part because of fraudulent science. . . . The explosive spread of AIDS occurred when the known evidence about HIV transmission among Gay men was suppressed by the media. . . .” “. . . Rachel Carson’s screed against DDT caused malaria to re-emerge in Africa, killing hundreds of thousands of human beings. . . .”
How and why do we allow theories to control public policies and resource allocation?
Bjorn Lomborg launched the Copenhagen Consensus with the question “How to spend $50 billion to make the World a Better Place” (2006, ISBN-13: 978-0521685719). The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus published “Global Crises, Global Solutions” (2004, ISBN 0 521 60614 4) where eight distinguished economists ranked global challenges by cost effectiveness. The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus results were:
- Control of HIV/AIDS
- Providing micronutrients
- Trade liberalisation
- Control of malaria
- Develop new agricultural technologies
- Community-managed water supply and sanitation
- Small-scale water technology for livelihoods
- Research on water productivity in food production
- Lowering the cost of starting a business
- Lowering barriers to migration for skilled workers
- Improving infant and child nutrition
- Scaled-up basic health services
- Reducing the prevalence of LBW
- Guest worker programmes for the unskilled
- Optimal carbon tax
- The Kyoto Protocol
- Value-at-risk carbon tax
Why was controlling disease and health the most cost effective, while controlling climate change ranked dead last? Yet high profile global warming advocates dominate the news, research funding and resources – at the expense of far more cost effective applications benefiting millions of lives.
Consider the parallels to the moral and philosophical consequences of Darwinism versus Intelligent Design. What if some randomly “fitter” Homo sapiens dominated others? What if they controlled resources resulting in millions dieing with little consequence. Compare intelligent beings having value as the product of Intelligent Design. In the 20th century, totalitarian regimes appealing to Darwinian evolution caused the deaths of 125 million people. They especially targeted those holding to Intelligent Design and opposing Darwinism. Advocates of both theories claim they are founded on scientific principles. Yet both theories have far reaching consequences and moral implications.
Will Darwinian policies again cause over 100 million deaths by diverting funds from the greatest needs of human suffering to ineffectual efforts to control climate change?