
I'm reading "Apocalypse Never," whose author makes much the same point about the best approach to what he considers to be serious environmental risks: we'd do better to increase prosperity and increase resilience across a number of possible fronts, than to tie ourselves down to cripplingly expensive solutions to badly understood risks that may never ripen into real problems. Prosperous societies do less environmental damage than poor ones, despite the "Noble Savage" fantasies of limousine liberals, and the Noble Savages don't have the same ambitions for their children that Hollywood wishes they did.