Hi Erik,

Ouh, Là, Là… As we say on my side of the Atlantic… It seems to me that you actually did not bother reading the paper I invited you to read in my initial comments. In there are all the key references. Not having read it, your comments fall flat. That paper actually addresses the critiques you attempt to make in order to dismiss my analysis of Garrett et al. and of your views.

In calling “empty” my comments on Garrett et al., you only indicate a lack of familiarity with basic science discussions and lack of knowledge of scientific matters that have been established critically decades ago. In fact, the comments I made and my reference to my paper are sufficient, for those knowledgeable in the matter, to invalidate Garrett et al.

Yes, my comments were lengthier than what most people are used to and yet I explained that I did not want to make it any longer. It was not necessary given that enough detail was in my paper. So, instead I re-invited you to read that paper.

Now, in your new reply, you avoid again addressing the matters I raised, accusing me of “buying into hopium”, not realising that I was referring to the technological work and research I discuss in my paper. I am not “buying” into anything ;-))) I am presenting in lay language solid research and advances my colleagues and I have produced, based on over 50 years of well established research by a very large number of scientists and engineers, that you are not familar with and are apparently not willing to learn about. All of this work, not only invalidates Garrett et al., but also the way you discuss what you call “civilisation” and sustainability in a number of your posts.

Through this refusal to examine a paper and the references it contains, in my view, you move right out of the field of science and into belief, the belief that “civilisation is unsustainable”, which is a completely meaningless statement, not only wrong but meaningless. There is no such thing as a generic civilisation that would be unsustainable in unspecified ways. You also show a belief that attempts to pursue “civilisation” “dooms us to extinction”, which is also meaningless from a science point of view.

You see, you are actually interacting with someone who has been working as a scientist in that very field for over 50 years, who got a PhD in 1974 in matters of development and critiques of it, who has done contractual work on how to characterise sustainability and monitor efforts towards it, who has worked with Serge Latouche and in parallel with him developed critiques of economics. I have also worked for over 50 years as an engineer not only involved in technology development but also in developing sound critiques of technology and technology development processes. I have also worked extensively in ecological matters and global dynamics. It is from those bases that I offered to discuss with you matters that clearly are dear to both of us — Not in terms of beliefs but in scientific terms.

In my previous comments I stressed that my motivation in doing so is to assist everyone, you and our readers, to steer clear from belief and get more acquainted with the relevant scientific disciplnes. Scientific thinking and discussion is not something one can improvise. It takes decades for even the brightest minds to learn and become proficient at the scientific process. Just having a keen interest, having important concerns about the fate of humankind, and reading a lot of scientific literature, without the background to fully understand and assess what one is reading, is not sufficient. One has to first and foremost learn and practice the relevant disciplines. Failing this one easily falls into the trap of believing fantasies and one also becomes in danger of enticing others to believes matters that are false or meaningless. This is a difficult matter. It often happens to scientists as well, however well intended they may be, when they unwittingly venture outside their field of competencies, which is what I suspect happened with Garrett et al.

So, Erik, if you want to pursue in your strongly held beliefs, that’s fine by me. I just wanted to alert you that I can see numerous problems in the views that you are propounding, views that are invalidated by decades of science from a number of disciplines that apparently you are not familiar with. It was a invitation to pause, find out more, learn, ponder and perhaps arrive at some more solid views. It was also to alert you that in putting forward under the apparent cover of science what turns out to be beliefs you are in danger of misleading your readers.

Having clarified the above, I suggest we leave matters at this. Let’s leave readers do their own thinking ;-))

Cheers

Louis