Most of us learn that uncompromising positions seldom work in the real world. We must bend, or risk breaking. As The Stones put it, you can’t always get what you want. The best place to witness such a lesson might be in the aisles of store where a toddler has a meltdown over the denial of something they really, really want. One is likely to even hear the “not fair” charge through tears and contorted facial muscles. It’s what we often say when not getting our way—from a highly-biased perspective.

While it’s true that ice cream might win hands-down against steamed cabbage in a taste test—even among adults—you won’t see (healthy) adults adopt a diet exclusively built on ice cream, or even ice cream plus cake for variety. The adults have figured out that there’s more to life than deliciousness. Narrowing one’s focus to a single quality—or even a few—is a recipe for unfortunate consequences, out of balance in a more holistic assessment.

Following the written conversation between myself and David Murphy, the Planetary Limits Academic Network hosted a seminar for the two of us to discuss our relative positions (some convergence, but dominated by divergence). We each gave an introductory statement of 5 minutes or so, and each shared two graphics. Mine were what I call the ecological cliff edge (or nosedive)—showing wild mammal mass per human plummeting—and the Likes/Dislikes mess (pictured again below). Dave showed infant mortality and poverty reduction, and also spoke admiringly of the demographic transition model waiting to usher the remaining poor toward arrival at “western” standards.

Here, I take on these attributes—mostly infant mortality—as aspects that would appear to be unassailably positive, yet amount to choosing a diet of ice cream and cake. In the end, it’s not even good for us, as humans! I know: the argument may not seem obvious, and even deemed reprehensible by avowed human supremacists. But here we go…

Views: 63