4 ms·

Every prediction in “The Population Bomb” turned out to be wildly incorrect. Simon was consistently right that the human standard of living would increase even

Every prediction in “The Population Bomb” turned out to be wildly incorrect. Simon was consistently right that the human standard of living would increase even as population increased. The arguments Erlichman made were like: not everyone can have a telephone because there is not enough copper in the Earth’s crust.

specialist 4y ago
Warning: Dangerous curve ahead. At your speed, you will lose control, jump the guard rail, fail down the chasm, impact, blow up, and ultimately die. Slows down. Safely navigates turn. Ergo, warning was wrong. Stupid warnings. -- There's a name for this phenomenon. Like how identifying ozone depletion beget policies to prevent said depletion. Doesn't mean the initial warning was wrong. Regardless, this is exactly how (we hope) policy making is supposed to work.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Or, the warnings were irrelevant to the avoidance of the problem. A fable: http://englishaesop.blogspot.com/2010/07/fly-and-chariot.html http://englishaesop.blogspot.com/2010/07/fly-and-chariot.htm...
- jdminhbg 4y ago
  You’re just completely wrong about whether we heeded the warnings in the Population Bomb. We are billions of people over the mark he set for total systemic collapse, and living standards are higher than ever. This isn’t like the ozone hole, where we identified a problem and fixed it. He was just wrong.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Predicting the future is notoriously difficult. Why were the Ehrlichs wrong? Now that's an interesting question. (a la "All models are wrong. Some are useful.") Per Hans Rosling, didn't take into account innovation, obviously. But also ignored sociology; eg urbanization and the resulting steep decline in birthrate. With the climate crisis as context, Ehrlichs' biggest mistakes were: - too soon. - too combative, negative. - making any kind of policy prescriptions. which were also utterly morally bankrupt. The end result is the Ehrlichs (and others) poisoned the well for constructive discourse. But, hey, that was the dominate rhetorical style until very recently.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Belated followup: I'm wrong. Coincidently, If Books Can Kill reviewed The Population Bomb. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/if-books-could-kill/id1651876897 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/if-books-could-kill/id... I still think the Ehlrichs are moral cripples, and that they should not have made policy prescriptions. Like the '20s era Progressives (and others), early leftist environmentalists advocated terrible policies for "those people" while minimizing their own inconvenience. Eugenics, notably. However, I was not aware of the zeitgeist about "overpopulation" at the time, nor how that meme came to support the reactionary project. For instance, morphing into today's rabid anti-Muslim organizations. So my updated position is, on the balance, The Population Bomb did far more wrong and probably very little good. My issue is that anti-Malthusian rhetoric, just like anti-anti-racism, often serves to concern troll and minimize actual pressing problems. "Ya, ya, ya. Climate crisis. Big deal. Y'all were wrong about overpopulation too. Calm down." But two wrongs don't make a right. So I now agree with you wrt this book.

specialist 4y ago

Warning: Dangerous curve ahead. At your speed, you will lose control, jump the guard rail, fail down the chasm, impact, blow up, and ultimately die. Slows down. Safely navigates turn. Ergo, warning was wrong. Stupid warnings. -- There's a name for this phenomenon. Like how identifying ozone depletion beget policies to prevent said depletion. Doesn't mean the initial warning was wrong. Regardless, this is exactly how (we hope) policy making is supposed to work.

pfdietz 4y ago
Or, the warnings were irrelevant to the avoidance of the problem. A fable: http://englishaesop.blogspot.com/2010/07/fly-and-chariot.html http://englishaesop.blogspot.com/2010/07/fly-and-chariot.htm...
jdminhbg 4y ago
You’re just completely wrong about whether we heeded the warnings in the Population Bomb. We are billions of people over the mark he set for total systemic collapse, and living standards are higher than ever. This isn’t like the ozone hole, where we identified a problem and fixed it. He was just wrong.
- specialist 4y ago
  Predicting the future is notoriously difficult. Why were the Ehrlichs wrong? Now that's an interesting question. (a la "All models are wrong. Some are useful.") Per Hans Rosling, didn't take into account innovation, obviously. But also ignored sociology; eg urbanization and the resulting steep decline in birthrate. With the climate crisis as context, Ehrlichs' biggest mistakes were: - too soon. - too combative, negative. - making any kind of policy prescriptions. which were also utterly morally bankrupt. The end result is the Ehrlichs (and others) poisoned the well for constructive discourse. But, hey, that was the dominate rhetorical style until very recently.
- specialist 4y ago
  Belated followup: I'm wrong. Coincidently, If Books Can Kill reviewed The Population Bomb. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/if-books-could-kill/id1651876897 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/if-books-could-kill/id... I still think the Ehlrichs are moral cripples, and that they should not have made policy prescriptions. Like the '20s era Progressives (and others), early leftist environmentalists advocated terrible policies for "those people" while minimizing their own inconvenience. Eugenics, notably. However, I was not aware of the zeitgeist about "overpopulation" at the time, nor how that meme came to support the reactionary project. For instance, morphing into today's rabid anti-Muslim organizations. So my updated position is, on the balance, The Population Bomb did far more wrong and probably very little good. My issue is that anti-Malthusian rhetoric, just like anti-anti-racism, often serves to concern troll and minimize actual pressing problems. "Ya, ya, ya. Climate crisis. Big deal. Y'all were wrong about overpopulation too. Calm down." But two wrongs don't make a right. So I now agree with you wrt this book.