5 ms·

The fact that Ehrlich is still highly regarded in many circles in spite of being almost perfectly wrong points to some underlying appeal behind his worldview. P

by api 3y ago

The fact that Ehrlich is still highly regarded in many circles in spite of being almost perfectly wrong points to some underlying appeal behind his worldview. People almost want it to be true, or think it must be true, because it confirms some underlying world view that isn't stated explicitly but is kind of implied. I personally think it's racism and eugenics. I remember watching a documentary in grade school about overpopulation. When they wanted to convey the problem they always showed the same sorts of shots: seething hordes of mostly black and brown people in places like India and Africa. Meanwhile the scientists and other experts interviewed to argue the Malthusian case were almost entirely white men. I recall even back then (9th or 10th grade probably) thinking this had a racist vibe, and I'm a white male who isn't particularly hypersensitive to such things. Strip off the intellectual veneer and it was literally a bunch of wealthy educated white men complaining about there being too many poor colored people. Wish I could remember the name of this doc, I bet it would come off even worse through today's eyes. Of course today the new hotness is to panic over underpopulation and demographic collapse. That's got a huge undercurrent of racism too. Desirable countries can easily compensate for any concerns over population decline by importing population, but the depopulation zealots seem to freak out even more over that. We can't just let people immigrate... because... they never quite seem to finish the sentence but you know the reason. Population panics just always seem racist. Overpopulation panics are about too many of the "wrong" people, while underpopulation panics are about not enough of the "right" people.

spencerflem 3y ago
Beautifully put
TeMPOraL 3y ago
I feel you might be a bit sensitive about racism here. Growing up far away from the US, but still around western-ish culture, my experience was that overpopulation fears were primarily about resource shortage and creation of large poverty class within the same society; more recently, in context of immigration, about culture shifting to something that's alien or hostile to people living today (that's the "${immigrant group} isn't assimilating" complaint), and about housing and unemployment issues. Underpopulation, in the meantime, I see primarily talked as risk of there being not enough young people to fund old people's retirement pensions. It's a major factor why people I know in my generation all assume we won't get government-run retirement when we get old; the system will collapse due to negative population growth. Might be a perspective of someone from the old continent, but those issues are rarely if at all viewed through a racial/ethnical perspective (immigration notwithstanding) - even the feared poverty class is just expanding within the same society.
- cupcakecommons 3y ago
  It's a good thing fear of racism and anti-racist signalling is strong. Sometimes it comes across is as naive and whinging though. Is the wish for South Koreans to reproduce the people in their high-functioning society racist? Do we really think the hereditary composition of said society has nothing to do with how highly-functional it is? I think we can see the reality of these things in a sober way, and still maintain our human dignity - even if we aren't South Korean.
  - api 3y ago
    > Do we really think the hereditary composition of said society has nothing to do with how highly-functional it is? https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/s3fs-public/imported/KoreanPeninsula_Night_18Jan2021_VIIRS_lg.jpeg https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/s3fs-public/imported/KoreanPe... That's North and South Korea from space. Those people are almost genetically identical. They're practically clones. Why is the South so much stronger economically and technologically? Could it have to do with different ideas? The North is a mixture of a monarchist family cult of personality and Marxism, while the South is closer to a Western liberal democracy. I'm sure you can find other cases of ethnically identical people have massively different outcomes, but this is probably the most obvious. You can see it from space. These are a problem for people who want to discount the importance of ideas and culture in favor of genetic determinism. If genes are the most important thing, North and South Korea should not have such a large gap in outcome. It's a lot easier to think of examples of over time. Europe went from being backward and poor compared to the Middle East and China to basically ruling the world in a few generations. That's too fast to explain with genetics. There are loads more examples like this: Japan's sudden industrialization, the rise of China in the last 50 years, etc. In all these cases you had people suddenly leaping forward in development without much genetic change. Why weren't they always so developed if it's genetic? I'm not arguing that genes have zero impact, but I think ideas are much more significant. Humans are thinking beings. Most of our efficacy comes from things that are not heritable. Genes only give you the base raw material.
    - cupcakecommons 3y ago
cupcakecommons 3y ago
so tiresome
codexb 3y ago
Your points have all been addressed before. See this presentation about the growth in population in 3rd world countries and how immigration is completely incapable of addressing it in any meaningful way -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE The growth rates and population amounts are simply too high for us to effectively solve the problems of population growth with massive, intercontinental migration. You also can't solve societal and cultural problems (of which the 3rd world and developing world has many) by massive migrations of those populations into first world countries. In effect, you end up simply importing those problems. There's plenty of history and evidence for this. There's never been a case in history where the population of a society is massively overtaken by foreigners and that society hasn't changed dramatically. Cultures and societies are not interchangeable. They aren't equal. It's not racist to say this. You can find undesirable beliefs and traditions among all races and cultures. You cannot fix problematic cultures and societies by trying to emigrate people out of those societies faster than they can produce them. It's far easier to import and export ideas and cultures than it is to migrate people.
- zoomy 3y ago
  You don't need to disavow racism. It's perfectly fine for a people to want and have a homeland .
  - codexb 3y ago
    Yes, but that would more appropriately be called cultural identity or nationalism, it isn't race-based. The English and the French and many other European countries each have very strong cultural identities. The French would equally oppose abandoning their own culture for English, or Japanese, or African cultures.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > but that would more appropriately be called cultural identity or nationalism, it isn't race-based Correct. Unfortunately, the modern Internet meaning of the world "racism" encompasses everything, from actual racism, through ethnic, cultural, national differences, all the way to differences of opinion. In their original comment, 'api seems to have been using this extended meaning. (My attempt at understanding this phenomenon: US is a boiling pot of nationalities, cultures and races from around the world; those distinctions end up blending together. In contrast, the rest of the world, and Europe in particular, had and has geographically-separated nations and cultures, and much less local population variety.) For example, the reason documentaries in the 80s or 90s would, "When they wanted to convey the problem they always showed the same sorts of shots: seething hordes of mostly black and brown people in places like India and Africa. Meanwhile the scientists and other experts interviewed to argue the Malthusian case were almost entirely white men." - that's, IMO, not because of some innate racist views. Rather, it was showing what was familiar and accurate - the academic world in the US was predominantly male and white, while India and Africa were where international aid went. Nothing to do with race, everything to do with what the audience recognizes as the major high population societies suffering from starvation-level poverty.
glitchc 3y ago
Ehrlich's theories is intuitive and intuitive hypotheses often sound true without being so. It actually requires scientific education to think critically and logically about a hypothesis to judge its veracity. Physics, after all, is replete with non-intuitive explanations of physical phenomena. > Of course today the new hotness is to panic over underpopulation and demographic collapse. That's got a huge undercurrent of racism too. Desirable countries can easily compensate for any concerns over population decline by importing population, but the depopulation zealots seem to freak out even more over that. We can't just let people immigrate... because... they never quite seem to finish the sentence but you know the reason. Agreed. Brexit is the first step in an anti-immigration wave that's poised to all sweep Western countries over the next decade.

by api 3y ago

spencerflem 3y ago

Beautifully put

TeMPOraL 3y ago

I feel you might be a bit sensitive about racism here. Growing up far away from the US, but still around western-ish culture, my experience was that overpopulation fears were primarily about resource shortage and creation of large poverty class within the same society; more recently, in context of immigration, about culture shifting to something that's alien or hostile to people living today (that's the "${immigrant group} isn't assimilating" complaint), and about housing and unemployment issues. Underpopulation, in the meantime, I see primarily talked as risk of there being not enough young people to fund old people's retirement pensions. It's a major factor why people I know in my generation all assume we won't get government-run retirement when we get old; the system will collapse due to negative population growth. Might be a perspective of someone from the old continent, but those issues are rarely if at all viewed through a racial/ethnical perspective (immigration notwithstanding) - even the feared poverty class is just expanding within the same society.

cupcakecommons 3y ago
It's a good thing fear of racism and anti-racist signalling is strong. Sometimes it comes across is as naive and whinging though. Is the wish for South Koreans to reproduce the people in their high-functioning society racist? Do we really think the hereditary composition of said society has nothing to do with how highly-functional it is? I think we can see the reality of these things in a sober way, and still maintain our human dignity - even if we aren't South Korean.
- api 3y ago
  > Do we really think the hereditary composition of said society has nothing to do with how highly-functional it is? https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/s3fs-public/imported/KoreanPeninsula_Night_18Jan2021_VIIRS_lg.jpeg https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/s3fs-public/imported/KoreanPe... That's North and South Korea from space. Those people are almost genetically identical. They're practically clones. Why is the South so much stronger economically and technologically? Could it have to do with different ideas? The North is a mixture of a monarchist family cult of personality and Marxism, while the South is closer to a Western liberal democracy. I'm sure you can find other cases of ethnically identical people have massively different outcomes, but this is probably the most obvious. You can see it from space. These are a problem for people who want to discount the importance of ideas and culture in favor of genetic determinism. If genes are the most important thing, North and South Korea should not have such a large gap in outcome. It's a lot easier to think of examples of over time. Europe went from being backward and poor compared to the Middle East and China to basically ruling the world in a few generations. That's too fast to explain with genetics. There are loads more examples like this: Japan's sudden industrialization, the rise of China in the last 50 years, etc. In all these cases you had people suddenly leaping forward in development without much genetic change. Why weren't they always so developed if it's genetic? I'm not arguing that genes have zero impact, but I think ideas are much more significant. Humans are thinking beings. Most of our efficacy comes from things that are not heritable. Genes only give you the base raw material.
  - cupcakecommons 3y ago

cupcakecommons 3y ago

so tiresome

codexb 3y ago

Your points have all been addressed before. See this presentation about the growth in population in 3rd world countries and how immigration is completely incapable of addressing it in any meaningful way -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE The growth rates and population amounts are simply too high for us to effectively solve the problems of population growth with massive, intercontinental migration. You also can't solve societal and cultural problems (of which the 3rd world and developing world has many) by massive migrations of those populations into first world countries. In effect, you end up simply importing those problems. There's plenty of history and evidence for this. There's never been a case in history where the population of a society is massively overtaken by foreigners and that society hasn't changed dramatically. Cultures and societies are not interchangeable. They aren't equal. It's not racist to say this. You can find undesirable beliefs and traditions among all races and cultures. You cannot fix problematic cultures and societies by trying to emigrate people out of those societies faster than they can produce them. It's far easier to import and export ideas and cultures than it is to migrate people.

zoomy 3y ago
You don't need to disavow racism. It's perfectly fine for a people to want and have a homeland .
- codexb 3y ago
  Yes, but that would more appropriately be called cultural identity or nationalism, it isn't race-based. The English and the French and many other European countries each have very strong cultural identities. The French would equally oppose abandoning their own culture for English, or Japanese, or African cultures.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > but that would more appropriately be called cultural identity or nationalism, it isn't race-based Correct. Unfortunately, the modern Internet meaning of the world "racism" encompasses everything, from actual racism, through ethnic, cultural, national differences, all the way to differences of opinion. In their original comment, 'api seems to have been using this extended meaning. (My attempt at understanding this phenomenon: US is a boiling pot of nationalities, cultures and races from around the world; those distinctions end up blending together. In contrast, the rest of the world, and Europe in particular, had and has geographically-separated nations and cultures, and much less local population variety.) For example, the reason documentaries in the 80s or 90s would, "When they wanted to convey the problem they always showed the same sorts of shots: seething hordes of mostly black and brown people in places like India and Africa. Meanwhile the scientists and other experts interviewed to argue the Malthusian case were almost entirely white men." - that's, IMO, not because of some innate racist views. Rather, it was showing what was familiar and accurate - the academic world in the US was predominantly male and white, while India and Africa were where international aid went. Nothing to do with race, everything to do with what the audience recognizes as the major high population societies suffering from starvation-level poverty.

glitchc 3y ago

Ehrlich's theories is intuitive and intuitive hypotheses often sound true without being so. It actually requires scientific education to think critically and logically about a hypothesis to judge its veracity. Physics, after all, is replete with non-intuitive explanations of physical phenomena. > Of course today the new hotness is to panic over underpopulation and demographic collapse. That's got a huge undercurrent of racism too. Desirable countries can easily compensate for any concerns over population decline by importing population, but the depopulation zealots seem to freak out even more over that. We can't just let people immigrate... because... they never quite seem to finish the sentence but you know the reason. Agreed. Brexit is the first step in an anti-immigration wave that's poised to all sweep Western countries over the next decade.