The population bomb March 25, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,434 |
Quote
Paul Ehrlich
It is a near certainty in the next few decades, and the risk is increasing continually as long as perpetual growth of the human enterprise remains the goal of economic and political systems. As I’ve said many times, ‘perpetual growth is the creed of the cancer cell’.
Re: The population bomb March 25, 2018 | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 353 |
Re: The population bomb March 25, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,308 |
Quote
yurble
There was an article on the 50th anniversary of a book predicting the collapse of civilization due to high population and high consumption by the rich. For those people who claim we couldn't have known, we could and did. The original event was predicted for the '70s but improvements in agriculture postponed the impact of the issue he identified.
Re: The population bomb March 25, 2018 | Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 3,576 |
Re: The population bomb March 25, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,434 |
Quote
StudioFiftyFour
Those agricultural "improvements" were made possible mainly by advances in petrochemical fertilizers. In the long-term a future with more expensive petrochemicals, degrading topsoil, droughts, and aquifers that are drying up will lead to food that is significantly more expensive, and widespread famines in the third world.
In the short-term, these agricultural "improvements" have led to widespread diabetes and obesity in my corner of the globe.
Re: The population bomb March 25, 2018 | Registered: 9 years ago Posts: 3,712 |
Quote
craftyzits
Quote
yurble
(So why, I have to wonder, did he and his wife (also his co-author) have a child?)
For the usual breeder shithole reasons.
Re: The population bomb March 25, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 3,003 |
Quote
freya
Quote
craftyzits
Quote
yurble
(So why, I have to wonder, did he and his wife (also his co-author) have a child?)
For the usual breeder shithole reasons.
They're probably part of the one to replace smug club pat themselves on the back and brag about it, so two people can have two kids to replace themselves and avoid the dreaded social reproach or being referred to as "breeders" or contributing to overpopulation.
This funny math fails to take into account that by the time the original two people die at 85 (because these people are vegucated and can afford healthcare, etc.) they'll likely have two kids, four grand kids and eight great grand kids all littering the planet. That is assuming their entire family is all smug with their batty replacement ideas. Sixteen people (at minimum) are their true replacement rate!
Re: The population bomb March 25, 2018 | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 499 |
Re: The population bomb March 25, 2018 | Registered: 16 years ago Posts: 3,454 |
Re: The population bomb March 26, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,434 |
Quote
Techie
Today, a place that is considered 3rd world, was not always a 3rd world. If we go back as little as 2000 years, life on continents may not have differed as much as it does now. What has changed? I think population density had something to do with it.
Re: The population bomb March 26, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,308 |
Quote
Techie
Today, a place that is considered 3rd world, was not always a 3rd world. If we go back as little as 2000 years, life on continents may not have differed as much as it does now. What has changed? I think population density had something to do with it.
Re: The population bomb March 26, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,367 |
Quote
yurble
According to the author, optimum population is less than 2 billion people, and the increasing toxification of the environment means that the earth will be able to support fewer and fewer people.Quote
Paul Ehrlich
It is a near certainty in the next few decades, and the risk is increasing continually as long as perpetual growth of the human enterprise remains the goal of economic and political systems. As I’ve said many times, ‘perpetual growth is the creed of the cancer cell’.
(So why, I have to wonder, did he and his wife (also his co-author) have a child?)
Re: The population bomb April 02, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 2,308 |
Quote
kman
Not only did the Ehrlichs discredit their thesis by having a child, but many of their (Paul's in particular) comments criticized other countries with population pressures in ways that distinctly came across as racist. Here's Ehrlich's comment from The Population Bomb:
"I have understood the population explosion intellectually for a long time. I came to understand it emotionally one stinking hot night in Delhi a couple of years ago ... The (taxi) seats were hopping with fleas ... As we crawled through the city, we entered a crowded slum area ... The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. As we moved slowly through the mob, hand horn squawking, the dust, noise, heat, and cooking fires gave the scene a hellish aspect. Would we ever get to our hotel?"
P. J. O'Rourke later responded in his book All the Trouble in the World:
Fremont, California, had about the same population density as did Delhi;
Ehrlich didn't seem to be so worried about "people, people, people, people" when playing golf with lots of other whites on a busy course in that part of California;
then O'Rourke acidly noted, "Fretting about overpopulation is a perfectly guilt-free—indeed, sanctimonious—way for ‘progressives’ to be racists.’’
Ehrlich denied any racism, but after this appeared, he began to make more comments about the much greater amount of resources children use in the West compared with those in poorer countries...