Gordon and Suzuki continually bombard the reader with numerical statistics of almost unimaginable proportions in an attempt to quell the myth that nature is infinite, but I would argue that the reader perceives just the opposite. In addition, these vast figures are often coupled with concepts that vague, ambiguous or even misleading. Does this mean that there will be a five percent decrease in the production of grain due to nutrient deficiencies in that area or that it is completely unable to support vegetation of any kind. Also, they refer to the victimization of the Yanamami by 45000 miners who have flooded into the Brazilian rain forest. Perhaps Gordon and Suzuki's greatest failing is the inconsistencies and fallacies associated with their main argument, namely that the environmental crisis that faces human kind is a result of our attitude that nature is a free commodity that must be exploited and used to satisfy human needs, with little concern for the consequences.
Economists think the world works by magic.
This single quote sums up their basic argument and includes the Straw man fallacy as well as the Ad hominem fallacy. In addition, the latter part of the book describes plausible solutions to the environmental consequences of over-exploited resources being put into effect in many places around the globe which would seem to be inconsistent with their hypothesis. It's a Matter of Survival . Harvard University Press.