Stewart Brand’s Environmental Heresies
Stewart Brand, author, founder of Whole Earth and co-founder of The WELL, and participant in The Long Now Foundation, writes convincingly about some paradigm-shifting ideas in environmentalism. He argues persuasively that population growth as a problem in diminishing, that genetically modified organisms are potential solutions to problems from hunger to invasive species, and that nuclear power will solve our reliance on fossil fuels.
While none of these arguments are particularly new, Mr. Brand has some caché in the environmental community and also presents some valid ideas. I think it’s tremendous that population growth is slowing and think that we’re far from a birthrate crisis. however the most interesting idea on page 1 of this article (which deals with the population question) is the argument for more urbanization. I find his reasoning, that putting more people into cities will lessen the burden on what natural world is left and will allow greater areas to return to a natural state, to be very compelling.
When it comes to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the topic of page 2 of the article, I’m a little more skeptical. In principle I buy into the value of GMed crop to produce more food cheaper, which could help the population burden and could lessen starvation and poverty. I also think that we know less than we think we do when it comes to how GMOs will interact with the enviroment and that this gap in knowledge is particularly subjectible to the law of unintended consequences. Brand speaks of a bioengineered microbe elminiating the zebra mussel population in the US waterways and then dying out. But what happens when it doesn’t die out until it’s decimated the entire zebra mussel population world-wide, or had changed its diet to also feed on another, more desireable, mussel? While there’s potential value in GMOs, I would much rather see us err on the side of caution.
Lastly Brand discusses the nuclear bugbear. I’ve read about this in several places recently, most popularly in Wired magazine’s February 2005 issue. The risks are great, both to waiting and to moving forward, and the toxic waste stays around for so long that I can’t help ut be a little afraid of it.
I really like the challenges Brand puts forth in this article. If true, my feelings about population growth and genetically modified organisms could change - I am willing to be convinced. My reservations about nuclear power are more entrenched, but I am at least willing to listen. However, I want to hear some folks that disagree respond directly to Mr. Brand. Discussion has been going on for a few days on the interwebs and I have to catch up to it. I hope it expands and am interested in seeing where it goes.
Well written, Mr. Brand!
RSS 2
September 27th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
Regarding Mr. Brand’s comments on nuclear power: I’ve corresponded with Mr. Brand, and one thing I think we agree upon is that the public needs to be better informed about nuclear energy - both its good and bad points. There are plenty of both, with I should know, having worked in the nuclear industry for 20 years.
Unfortunately, whether someone in the public likes or dislikes nuclear power, it’s generally safe to say that most of what they know about it is wrong. In an attempt to do my part to correct this in a relatively painless fashion, I’ve written a techno-thriller about an American nuclear power plant. This is the real world of nuclear power. See raddecision.blogspot.com. If you find it worthwhile, please pass the word along.
James Aach
October 19th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Mr. Brand has recently endorsed my novel, discussed above.
“I’d like to see Rad Decision widely read.â€
Stewart Brand
Co–founder of The Global Business Network,
Creator of The Whole Earth Catalog, noted Futurist
See http://RadDecision.blogspot.com
There’s no cost to readers.