3 ms·

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 coll

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

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.