5 ms·

The hard data will be more objectively assessed if coming from someone other than Paul Ehrlich: In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of mill

by vixen99 11y ago

The hard data will be more objectively assessed if coming from someone other than Paul Ehrlich: In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” and “[our children] will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960’s are dead.”

DanBC 11y ago
He was wrong, but about 21,000 people die each day from hunger or hunger related causes. That's 7.6m per year, about 115m in the 21st century. Nearly one in five children under the age of five dies from diarrhea related illnesses. And that's easilly and cheaply treated (50 US cents of oral rehydration salts).
- alphapapa 11y ago
  What does any of that have to do with the fact that he was wrong? That's the point: he was completely and absurdly wrong. "Chicken Little" doesn't begin to describe it. Yes, people suffer from hunger. That's been a problem for all of human history. Hopefully someday it will be "solved," but that's not likely to happen as long as some people are evil and want to control other people. If we can't stop shooting each other and beheading each other and blowing up each other, what makes us think we can stop each other from starving?
- pfortuny 11y ago
  Now try and compute the same ratio for the XIX, XVIII, XVII, etc. centuries. Really.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  Not because we can't grow enough food. Famine and hunger is a political problem, not a crop yield problem.
alphapapa 11y ago
It's way worse--or funnier--than that. From Wikipedia: """On the first Earth Day in 1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."[5] In a 1971 speech, he predicted that: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." "If I were a gambler" Professor Ehrlich concluded before boarding his plane, " I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."[5] When this scenario did not come to pass, he responded that "When you predict the future, you get things wrong. How wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else.""" That last bit is all he should have said: that people and places will be having problems, just like everyone else, just like has always been the case, just like always will be. Why are people still paying attention to anything he says? "...understand something...salary...depends on it...", you know how it goes.
- kls 11y ago
  He has long tied his work on coevolution, on racial, gender and economic justice, and on nuclear winter with the issue of wildlife populations and species loss. When I see the word economic justice in a piece about extinction, it is a key to me that the author may be more concerned with agendas over facts.
glogla 11y ago
Well, he was right on the second part, and theer were quite some famines in the second half of 20th century - though not in such a scale.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  "Everyone's going to starve!" "Well, some people starved. But he was right about people starving." Is there any time in history in which no one in the world suffered from hunger?
  - kamaal 11y ago
    >>Is there any time in history in which no one in the world suffered from hunger? Causes of mass hunger have changed. Population growth and increased life expectancy have been the problems. Add to this the mess created by our fellow humans by deforestation. Famines far more devastating and serious happen to day, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. Visit countries like India, countries in Africa and you can see for yourself what is happening there. To continue our way of life we are forced to under take big irrigations projects. But the point in the article is no effect is without a cause, and there are interdependent causes. And sometimes effects work like a chain reaction. Like for example- bees going extinct, you could say its just one species. But the collateral damage from their extinction can wreak havoc on so many other things in an ecosystem.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      > Causes of mass hunger have changed. Population growth and increased life expectancy have been the problems. Are those really the problems? That population growth and life expectancy has also helped result in increased crop yields through more workers and better technology. Since there is no global food shortage, I don't think those are the problems. > Add to this the mess created by our fellow humans by deforestation. In some places, forests are thicker than they were centuries ago. Some fellow humans are putting a lot of effort into reforestation. Sounds like a political/social/economic problem, not a "humans causing a mess" problem (the difference being that the latter sounds like it blames all humans, while not all humans are like that). > Visit countries like India, countries in Africa and you can see for yourself what is happening there. To continue our way of life we are forced to under take big irrigations projects. This is really a fascinating issue, why some parts of the world have developed and produce a surplus, while others have not and do not. Is the problem overpopulation in these places, or is the problem that they have not developed technologically and socially at the same rate they have increased in population? > But the point in the article is no effect is without a cause, and there are interdependent causes. I guess that's one point in the article. But when you consider the author's past, I think a strong point--implied, at least--is that we are killing the planet and need to reduce the population. And that's what I disagree with.

by vixen99 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

He was wrong, but about 21,000 people die each day from hunger or hunger related causes. That's 7.6m per year, about 115m in the 21st century. Nearly one in five children under the age of five dies from diarrhea related illnesses. And that's easilly and cheaply treated (50 US cents of oral rehydration salts).

alphapapa 11y ago
What does any of that have to do with the fact that he was wrong? That's the point: he was completely and absurdly wrong. "Chicken Little" doesn't begin to describe it. Yes, people suffer from hunger. That's been a problem for all of human history. Hopefully someday it will be "solved," but that's not likely to happen as long as some people are evil and want to control other people. If we can't stop shooting each other and beheading each other and blowing up each other, what makes us think we can stop each other from starving?
pfortuny 11y ago
Now try and compute the same ratio for the XIX, XVIII, XVII, etc. centuries. Really.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Not because we can't grow enough food. Famine and hunger is a political problem, not a crop yield problem.

alphapapa 11y ago

It's way worse--or funnier--than that. From Wikipedia: """On the first Earth Day in 1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."[5] In a 1971 speech, he predicted that: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." "If I were a gambler" Professor Ehrlich concluded before boarding his plane, " I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."[5] When this scenario did not come to pass, he responded that "When you predict the future, you get things wrong. How wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else.""" That last bit is all he should have said: that people and places will be having problems, just like everyone else, just like has always been the case, just like always will be. Why are people still paying attention to anything he says? "...understand something...salary...depends on it...", you know how it goes.

kls 11y ago
He has long tied his work on coevolution, on racial, gender and economic justice, and on nuclear winter with the issue of wildlife populations and species loss. When I see the word economic justice in a piece about extinction, it is a key to me that the author may be more concerned with agendas over facts.

glogla 11y ago

Well, he was right on the second part, and theer were quite some famines in the second half of 20th century - though not in such a scale.

alphapapa 11y ago
"Everyone's going to starve!" "Well, some people starved. But he was right about people starving." Is there any time in history in which no one in the world suffered from hunger?
- kamaal 11y ago
  >>Is there any time in history in which no one in the world suffered from hunger? Causes of mass hunger have changed. Population growth and increased life expectancy have been the problems. Add to this the mess created by our fellow humans by deforestation. Famines far more devastating and serious happen to day, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. Visit countries like India, countries in Africa and you can see for yourself what is happening there. To continue our way of life we are forced to under take big irrigations projects. But the point in the article is no effect is without a cause, and there are interdependent causes. And sometimes effects work like a chain reaction. Like for example- bees going extinct, you could say its just one species. But the collateral damage from their extinction can wreak havoc on so many other things in an ecosystem.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    > Causes of mass hunger have changed. Population growth and increased life expectancy have been the problems. Are those really the problems? That population growth and life expectancy has also helped result in increased crop yields through more workers and better technology. Since there is no global food shortage, I don't think those are the problems. > Add to this the mess created by our fellow humans by deforestation. In some places, forests are thicker than they were centuries ago. Some fellow humans are putting a lot of effort into reforestation. Sounds like a political/social/economic problem, not a "humans causing a mess" problem (the difference being that the latter sounds like it blames all humans, while not all humans are like that). > Visit countries like India, countries in Africa and you can see for yourself what is happening there. To continue our way of life we are forced to under take big irrigations projects. This is really a fascinating issue, why some parts of the world have developed and produce a surplus, while others have not and do not. Is the problem overpopulation in these places, or is the problem that they have not developed technologically and socially at the same rate they have increased in population? > But the point in the article is no effect is without a cause, and there are interdependent causes. I guess that's one point in the article. But when you consider the author's past, I think a strong point--implied, at least--is that we are killing the planet and need to reduce the population. And that's what I disagree with.