A Chomsky quote caught my eye this morning, prompting a couple of quick thoughts. The quote:
“Let’s go to the environmental crisis. There’s nobody around to bail you out. The externalities in this case are the fate of the species. If that’s disregarded in the operations of the market system, there’s nobody around who is going to bail you out from that. So this is a lethal externality. And the fact that it’s proceeding with no significant action being taken to do anything about it does suggest that Ernst Mayr actually had a point. It seems that there is something about us, our intelligence, which entails that we’re capable of acting in ways that are rational within a narrow framework but are irrational in terms of other long-term goals, like do we care what kind of a world our grandchildren will live in.” — Noam Chomsky (via today’s “Noam Chomsky Quotes” on facebook, date and original source not provided).
- First, does anyone credibly dispute anything in this statement? One thing I find interesting about Chomsky is a generalized resistance among many to his assertions, regularly paired with a non-refutation of same. Seriously, is he right or not? If not, I’d be interested to hear about it.
- If he’s right, or if it’s even only possible that he’s right, is our response sufficient? Shouldn’t these concepts part of actual public debates now?
As you might’ve guessed, I agree with Chomsky, and see his assertions as immediately and specifically relevant, not distant or academic. Putting a finer point on it, these concepts — the lethal failure of the “market” to capture externalities, and our own failure as humans to fully grasp the future — should be a real part of public debate now, including around, for one ideal example, Polymet’s pending copper-sulfide mining proposal in Minnesota.
If you agree, a reminder that the public comment period for the Polymet proposal is currently open, and waiting for your thoughts: http://dnr.state.mn.us/input/environmentalreview/polymet/index.html