3 ms·

> The speaker is Nobel Peace Laureate Norman Borlaug, in his acceptance speech for that award. For those unfamiliar, it was his work developing high-output agri

by rat87 2y ago

> The speaker is Nobel Peace Laureate Norman Borlaug, in his acceptance speech for that award. For those unfamiliar, it was his work developing high-output agricultural staple variants, the heart of the Green Revolution, which was the basis of that award. Right so he went out and improved things. > It's a depressingly common trope, and not only on HN, to deride such concerns as misguided and laughable, but the truth is that the trends at the time were quite dire I'd say its sadly not common enough. If anything I'd say that the reason it can't be written off as laughable is not because they had a point but because it helped cause a lot of violations of peoples rights with not fully informed consent sterilization and the one child policy. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-world... Sure they didnt have knowledge we have now but we do. We know that birth rates fall when poverty falls and more women get educated and that coercive methods are not necessary. We also know that the capacity to grow food was much larger. Ehrlichs predictions were wrong. He predicted > “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” And from my understanding hasn't admitted being wrong (and trying to be figure out how he became so sure of something that was incorrect) implying that it may still happen someday(when he predicted it would have happened long ago). Mass famine isn't exactly the same thing as expensive food although obviously it can lead to higher levels of starvation. Fundamentally famine and even high levels of starvation are due to bad government and or economic systems. Its no suprise the Arab spring started with a fruit seller who set himself on fire in response to corrupt policeman preventing him from making a living/stealing his wares.

dredmorbius 2y ago
My point in mentioning Borlaug specifically was that 1) he's the single person most responsible for the post-1950s population boom not ending in mass global famine and 2) he was scared fucking spitless himself. Which means that Ehrlich was far from the only person voicing such views and that the views were not some environmental fringe. I've spent quite a bit of time going through literature of the time, and strongly recommend William Ophuls book Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (1977) for, if nothing else, its bibliography which is an excellent and largely balanced selection of the literature of its time. <https://archive.org/details/ecologypoliticso0000ophu https://archive.org/details/ecologypoliticso0000ophu> (Ophuls bibliographies and biblographic notes are in general absolute gold mines.) Ehrlich himself rapidly learnt, and spent much of his career arguing, that coercive measures are hugely harmful and largely don't work. What does work best and foremost is women's education, along with social stability, medical and family planning services, and the like. Ehrlich wrote about 40 books as well as numerous papers and articles, he's remembered most for one of the earliest. A quite different thought process is evident in later ones, such as One With Niniveh (2004) <https://archive.org/details/onewithninevehpo0000ehrl_z0h7/page/n5/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/onewithninevehpo0000ehrl_z0h7/pa...> Or this 2013 release: "Equal rights, education for women key to avoiding civilization's collapse" [T]he Ehrlichs offer a roadmap for avoiding society's total collapse, emphasizing that giving women equal rights worldwide is a critical first step. <https://phys.org/news/2013-01-equal-rights-women-key-civilization.pdf https://phys.org/news/2013-01-equal-rights-women-key-civiliz...> Not a step, but a critical and first step. In 1968 the situation appeared absolutely calamitous, Borlaug's Nobel speech came two years later, and concerns over overpopulation continued in the mainstream well through the 1970s and 1980s. That's 40 and 50 years ago now, beyond the ken of most reading this no doubt, but very much the spirit of the times. Influenced in part by Ehrlich, but also by many others. Drastic measures, as one possible tool, and proposed with grave concern, were among the possible interventions. What ultimately did occur was that, despite several more famines (Sahel drought, 1968--1972, 1,000,000 dead; Ethiopia, 1972-1973, 60,000; Bangladesh, 1974, up to 1.5 million; Khmer Rouge, 1975--1979, 500,000; Ethiopia, 1983--1985, ~500,000; Sudan, 1988, 100,000; Somalia, 1991--1992, 300,000; North Korea, 1994--1998, up to 3.5 million, Congo, 1998--2004, 2.7 million; Somalia, 2011--2012, 285,000; Tigray, Ethiopia, 2020--present, up to 200,000; Gaza, 2023--present, 62,000, and many others <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines>), overall population growth has decreased markedly through much of the world, to the extent that low birth rates are a concern in Europe, Japan, and the United States, and most of the world, and quite notably the largest populations in India, China, and elsewhere aren't living with looming hunger. But that balance is delicate and precarious as we're constantly reminded. And for those scanning my or Wikipedia's larger list and objecting "but most of those were political, civil war, or other conflicts", I ask preëmptively what the hell do you think drives most such conflict and unrest? Food insecurity (or its near peer, water insecurity) is a primary driver of social unrest around the world and throughout history: See e.g., "Food Insecurity and Unrest: What You Need to Know" (2022) <https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2022/07/12/food-insecurity-and-unrest-what-you-need-to-know/ https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2022/07/12/food-insec...>

by rat87 2y ago

dredmorbius 2y ago

My point in mentioning Borlaug specifically was that 1) he's the single person most responsible for the post-1950s population boom not ending in mass global famine and 2) he was scared fucking spitless himself. Which means that Ehrlich was far from the only person voicing such views and that the views were not some environmental fringe. I've spent quite a bit of time going through literature of the time, and strongly recommend William Ophuls book Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (1977) for, if nothing else, its bibliography which is an excellent and largely balanced selection of the literature of its time. <https://archive.org/details/ecologypoliticso0000ophu https://archive.org/details/ecologypoliticso0000ophu> (Ophuls bibliographies and biblographic notes are in general absolute gold mines.) Ehrlich himself rapidly learnt, and spent much of his career arguing, that coercive measures are hugely harmful and largely don't work. What does work best and foremost is women's education, along with social stability, medical and family planning services, and the like. Ehrlich wrote about 40 books as well as numerous papers and articles, he's remembered most for one of the earliest. A quite different thought process is evident in later ones, such as One With Niniveh (2004) <https://archive.org/details/onewithninevehpo0000ehrl_z0h7/page/n5/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/onewithninevehpo0000ehrl_z0h7/pa...> Or this 2013 release: "Equal rights, education for women key to avoiding civilization's collapse" [T]he Ehrlichs offer a roadmap for avoiding society's total collapse, emphasizing that giving women equal rights worldwide is a critical first step. <https://phys.org/news/2013-01-equal-rights-women-key-civilization.pdf https://phys.org/news/2013-01-equal-rights-women-key-civiliz...> Not a step, but a critical and first step. In 1968 the situation appeared absolutely calamitous, Borlaug's Nobel speech came two years later, and concerns over overpopulation continued in the mainstream well through the 1970s and 1980s. That's 40 and 50 years ago now, beyond the ken of most reading this no doubt, but very much the spirit of the times. Influenced in part by Ehrlich, but also by many others. Drastic measures, as one possible tool, and proposed with grave concern, were among the possible interventions. What ultimately did occur was that, despite several more famines (Sahel drought, 1968--1972, 1,000,000 dead; Ethiopia, 1972-1973, 60,000; Bangladesh, 1974, up to 1.5 million; Khmer Rouge, 1975--1979, 500,000; Ethiopia, 1983--1985, ~500,000; Sudan, 1988, 100,000; Somalia, 1991--1992, 300,000; North Korea, 1994--1998, up to 3.5 million, Congo, 1998--2004, 2.7 million; Somalia, 2011--2012, 285,000; Tigray, Ethiopia, 2020--present, up to 200,000; Gaza, 2023--present, 62,000, and many others <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines>), overall population growth has decreased markedly through much of the world, to the extent that low birth rates are a concern in Europe, Japan, and the United States, and most of the world, and quite notably the largest populations in India, China, and elsewhere aren't living with looming hunger. But that balance is delicate and precarious as we're constantly reminded. And for those scanning my or Wikipedia's larger list and objecting "but most of those were political, civil war, or other conflicts", I ask preëmptively what the hell do you think drives most such conflict and unrest? Food insecurity (or its near peer, water insecurity) is a primary driver of social unrest around the world and throughout history: See e.g., "Food Insecurity and Unrest: What You Need to Know" (2022) <https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2022/07/12/food-insecurity-and-unrest-what-you-need-to-know/ https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2022/07/12/food-insec...>