original sin and science

By letter to the editor

I believe that the theory of man made global warming has it genesis in Thomas Malthus and his predecessors and successors like Paul Erlich. What these folks are really looking for is a replacement for original sin, they cannot abide man not being bad. They, of course, in the scenario they would like to paint are the savior and the absolution for man's ultimate badness and sin.

While sin in a Christian context is usually used to mean separation from God, in the since of these spiritually unclear folks sin is a means to enhance the imposition of their solutions and their will. I note that while climate change may ultimately wane as an issue, the NYT just published an article about the worldwide grain shortage. It's thesis is that we will never be able to feed the world. Sound familiar, Paul Erlich redux. It appears to me that the definition of the agnostic sin of the moment is changing, never mind that Erlich has been wrong on the facts for half a century. He actually is at the heart of the collapse of the social contract in that maintenance of the social contract as it was designed requires small marginal increases in population, not significant decreases.

I doubt most journalists have a deep enough thought process to understand this.

Jeff Rogers

Sierra Vista, AZ