Ehrlich and Malthus are basically death cult leaders. There will always be people who have an extremely pessimistic outlook on life, for whatever reason, and there will always be grifters who exploit this weakness.
Ehrlich isn’t the founder of climate change hysteria, but it fits nicely with his world view and it pays well. In fact, he has received more than $2.6 million in climate science awards given out by a dizzying number of NGOs. Add this to speaking fees and he has a very lucrative grift going on.
I understand why 60 Minutes features him. The legacy media is broken and chumps like Ehrlich drive ratings. Afterall, no one cares about good news – that the Great Barrier Reef has the most coral growth since records started 36 years ago, or that 80% of Pacific islands have grown larger since aerial records began after WWII.
What baffles me is that political leaders pay attention to him, or even the general public. It honestly takes five minutes to fact check this guy’s utterly rancid track record.
Not really familiar with the work of Ehrlich and Malthus, but based on this no need to learn more. They seem to be dangerous quacks.
But I do sense a bit of agenda behind this article, associating certain issue with people like these to disqualify the issue itself.
I may be wrong but I think our wonderful planet and humanity has major, urgent issue with sustainability.
Yes, we can feed ten billion people and seems likely that population will plateau around there. But problem were never the poor but the wealthy. I mean wealthy in the global context, probably everyone reading and commenting here, so myself included.
Farmers in India, China or Africa are not the issue. The problem is that western middle class lifestyle cannot be sustained for 10 billion people. Energy and resource intensive existence, like I enjoy myself, is attractive and comfortable, nice heated home, big car in front, devices and stuff from all over the world. Avocado from Chile, New Zealand lamb, Spanish tomatoes…
Study following wildlife from 1970 to 2020 found that on average 70% of wildlife populations is gone. 70% of all wildlife on planet Earth gone in 50 years! Some species have gone completely some are fairing better, but how can one not be shocked by this. Damage in the preceding period e.g. 1800-1970 is difficult to quantify but certainly equally disastrous.
Data on global warming is increasingly clear, plastic is on track to be more prevalent in worlds oceans than fish, we keep claiming any resource we can get hold of from Artic to Patagonia.
All these issues are cumulative, certainly accelerated since Industrial Revolution, and this cumulative impact of Western developed countries is far, far higher than the developing world. But they are following our lead and we need to find strength and leadership to change something. Head in the sand is not going to help, and let’s not pretend we are concerned for the poor. We are concerned for our lifestyles and are happy to sacrifice the poor to keep it, this is as far from humanity as it gets.
I think it’s more fundamental issue, and Capitalism is not a sole reason for the situation nor the sole solution to poverty.
Fundamentally, we have developed science, technology and industry allowing is to master the resources around us and create wealth, this is happening everywhere regardless of formal social preferences. Unreasonable and irresponsible use of this technology seems to be leading us down some paths that are not sustainable. E.g. we can easily destroy most fish stocks with big boats equipped with sonars, GPS etc. But how do we understand, agree and honour sustainable level of use, so we can create wealth, but not leave desert for generations that will follow?
“Unreasonable and irresponsible use of this technology seems to be leading us down some paths that are not sustainable.”
That’s very true. In the past technology in its embryonic form had a very limited impact on resources and the environment. But technology doesn’t have a mind of its own, not yet anyway. It’s a tool and it’s a tool of Capitalism. If it’s not Capitalism behind our problem then what? Maybe you might say human nature, but then Capitalism is an aspect of human nature. Out of interest what else besides Capitalism might pull people out of overtly?
Not sure how you define Capitalism, e.g. I guess in some ways China today is formally Communist, but in economy more Capitalist.
Soviet Union use of technology was not any less brutal for environment, then in its western counterparts, although probably less effective in creating wealth.
I have no ideological preference. For me it’s the content, not the form of governance that matters.
How do you pull people out of poverty? Well that’s slightly loaded question, with obviously no simple answer. Again, for me it’s not about ideology, it comes down to education (not just degrees, but skills), rule of law, reduced corruption, rewarding active value creation and not just passive leveraging of assets, etc.
“How do you pull people out of poverty?”
Whatever way we look at pulling people out of poverty it still requires an economic element. In a socialist system the government still needs money for whatever objectives we think important. Only Capitalism produces a surplus that can be taxed. I cannot think of another way. We can be nicer to each other, help the unfortunate or the vulnerable, but without that surplus it’s all sitting around a table coming up with good ideas.
Talking in terms of capitalism vs socialism misses the point. There are no socialist societies anyway. The issue is endless growth and continuing increase in consumption. We just need an economic system which doesn’t require this endless grow. Some sort of tamed or seriously regulated capitalism might fit the bill. But of course nothing is suppose to get in the way of our God-given right to the ‘free market’
Talking in terms of capitalism vs socialism misses the point. There are no socialist societies anyway. The issue is endless growth and continuing increase in consumption. We just need an economic system which doesn’t require this endless grow. Some sort of tamed or seriously regulated capitalism might fit the bill. But of course nothing is suppose to get in the way of our God-given right to the ‘free market’
“How do you pull people out of poverty?”
Whatever way we look at pulling people out of poverty it still requires an economic element. In a socialist system the government still needs money for whatever objectives we think important. Only Capitalism produces a surplus that can be taxed. I cannot think of another way. We can be nicer to each other, help the unfortunate or the vulnerable, but without that surplus it’s all sitting around a table coming up with good ideas.
At a national leve we can see examples of Keynesian “mixed economies” where a safety net stops the worst instincts of the left getting traction and rule of law stops the Hayekian survival of the meanest brigade from extracting all wealth. There aren’t many though and when you factor in the global every nation for themselves set up you are back to “tooth and claw” capitalism. Whatever happens next will be new paradigms for this – steps back as well as forward and capatalism will exist but will be as different from the present as the 1700s is from now.
Hayek believed in social welfare, his gripe was that planned economies were foolish and, apart from very small aspects of life, we were better off letting market forces deliver or needs.
Not really survival of the meanest
Overall i am a fan of his work up to a point which is: his thinking is such that on balance he didn’t mind if the meanest prevailed – there is a point where liberty for one is certain to be misery for another. Apply his thinking to today’s issues about consensual sex and drug use and he’s pretty out-there – more Anton LaVey than Milton Friedman.
Fair point Mike. One difficulty in life is that those we think have good even great ideas have Achilles Heals. I really think liberal free markets are likely to be a better basis for running a society but ahh I can’t really come up with a way of supporting those who fall off the edge and monopolies are hard to deal with.
Fair point Mike. One difficulty in life is that those we think have good even great ideas have Achilles Heals. I really think liberal free markets are likely to be a better basis for running a society but ahh I can’t really come up with a way of supporting those who fall off the edge and monopolies are hard to deal with.
Overall i am a fan of his work up to a point which is: his thinking is such that on balance he didn’t mind if the meanest prevailed – there is a point where liberty for one is certain to be misery for another. Apply his thinking to today’s issues about consensual sex and drug use and he’s pretty out-there – more Anton LaVey than Milton Friedman.
Hayek believed in social welfare, his gripe was that planned economies were foolish and, apart from very small aspects of life, we were better off letting market forces deliver or needs.
Not really survival of the meanest
I think you’ve moved from the idea that Capitalism is “organic” (on another comments board) to the suggestion that it’s an innate human trait. Do I misunderstand you?
In the loose sense of the long history of trading items within and between tribes, perhaps it is. Tribalism and Communism (in the sense of “communal”) would also qualify by such broad definitional standards.
Are you using “capital” as a synonym for private ownership or human greed? I’d genuinely like to know as I agree with a portion of what I understand you to be claiming.
“I think you’ve moved from the idea that Capitalism is “organic” … to the suggestion that it’s an innate human trait. Do I misunderstand you?”
I think it’s more likely that I’m all over the place.
By organic I mean that it’s something that’s evolved with us, or through us, or by us. Feedback loops are a way of looking at it. Capitalism doesn’t exist in wild nature. It’s something similar to the way language has developed. It’s not like someone said “I think Capitalism sounds like a good idea, let’s work it up a bit.” Which is the case with Communism and also why it doesn’t work.
Some are going to jump in and suggest that I’m saying Capitalism is natural, which it is, but in the same sense that language is, not in the sense of the balance of nature, which is probably why my use of “organic” seems a little off.
Its interesting that the CCP has found a way to use it. Even if so much business is government controlled the principles still apply.
Tribalism, communal, you could find an analogy in that with the early development of language.
“Are you using “capital” as a synonym for private ownership or human greed?”
I notice you use the word “Capital”, presumably instead of Capitalism. I don’t usually break it up that much. To me that’s like using the word syntax instead of language. When I’m in a good mood it means private ownership. When I’m in a bad mood it means greed. But as I hoped to make clear earlier, we have to take the good with the bad because that’s who we are. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and wrestle it into better shape. But too much fiddling with things nearly always breaks it.
Fine man. Organic means man-made when your in a certain mood and my use of the root word capital instead of the derived word Capitalism is…what, highfalutin or fancy? (Cavemen had modern political isms?).
All that explanation in service of a philosophy of “What can you really do about it, any of it?”
That does seem a bit all over the place but I’ll take a page out of your book as printed and look for the upside in the mixed bag.
“Organic means man-made when your in a certain mood”
Nope, not what I meant. I thought you were genuinely interested. I guess I was wrong. What satisfaction does it give you to twist what I said?
“my use of the root word capital instead of the derived word Capitalism is…what, highfalutin or fancy?”
I made no comment on your use of “capital”, I just mentioned how I use Capitalism.
“All that explanation in service of a philosophy of “What can you really do about it, any of it?”
And that’s a weak attempt at trivialising what I said,
I don’t want to trivialize or oversimplify your views as I perceive them. I admit I’ve done a little of that, and think you have with some of my remarks too–but I’d rather not just trade accusations.
When you declared yourself to be “all over the place” I thought that to be, in part, a convenient catch-all excuse: fiercely opinionated one minute, mood-dependent and exploratory the next. But in another way it was refreshing that you admitted some inconsistency and perhaps open-mindedness; I admit and claim as much too.
Though I’m not ready to trade it for anything else on a a national scale, I don’t agree with your notion of the organic nature or inevitability of capitalism as a evolutionary stage (let alone some fully realized state of affairs). I also take your collected comments to suggest that major things can’t change much for the better in the real world. Maybe I’m misreading you?
I’m not fervently attached to my impressions and opinions, or at least try not to be. See you around the boards.
I don’t want to trivialize or oversimplify your views as I perceive them. I admit I’ve done a little of that, and think you have with some of my remarks too–but I’d rather not just trade accusations.
When you declared yourself to be “all over the place” I thought that to be, in part, a convenient catch-all excuse: fiercely opinionated one minute, mood-dependent and exploratory the next. But in another way it was refreshing that you admitted some inconsistency and perhaps open-mindedness; I admit and claim as much too.
Though I’m not ready to trade it for anything else on a a national scale, I don’t agree with your notion of the organic nature or inevitability of capitalism as a evolutionary stage (let alone some fully realized state of affairs). I also take your collected comments to suggest that major things can’t change much for the better in the real world. Maybe I’m misreading you?
I’m not fervently attached to my impressions and opinions, or at least try not to be. See you around the boards.
“Organic means man-made when your in a certain mood”
Nope, not what I meant. I thought you were genuinely interested. I guess I was wrong. What satisfaction does it give you to twist what I said?
“my use of the root word capital instead of the derived word Capitalism is…what, highfalutin or fancy?”
I made no comment on your use of “capital”, I just mentioned how I use Capitalism.
“All that explanation in service of a philosophy of “What can you really do about it, any of it?”
And that’s a weak attempt at trivialising what I said,
Fine man. Organic means man-made when your in a certain mood and my use of the root word capital instead of the derived word Capitalism is…what, highfalutin or fancy? (Cavemen had modern political isms?).
All that explanation in service of a philosophy of “What can you really do about it, any of it?”
That does seem a bit all over the place but I’ll take a page out of your book as printed and look for the upside in the mixed bag.
“I think you’ve moved from the idea that Capitalism is “organic” … to the suggestion that it’s an innate human trait. Do I misunderstand you?”
I think it’s more likely that I’m all over the place.
By organic I mean that it’s something that’s evolved with us, or through us, or by us. Feedback loops are a way of looking at it. Capitalism doesn’t exist in wild nature. It’s something similar to the way language has developed. It’s not like someone said “I think Capitalism sounds like a good idea, let’s work it up a bit.” Which is the case with Communism and also why it doesn’t work.
Some are going to jump in and suggest that I’m saying Capitalism is natural, which it is, but in the same sense that language is, not in the sense of the balance of nature, which is probably why my use of “organic” seems a little off.
Its interesting that the CCP has found a way to use it. Even if so much business is government controlled the principles still apply.
Tribalism, communal, you could find an analogy in that with the early development of language.
“Are you using “capital” as a synonym for private ownership or human greed?”
I notice you use the word “Capital”, presumably instead of Capitalism. I don’t usually break it up that much. To me that’s like using the word syntax instead of language. When I’m in a good mood it means private ownership. When I’m in a bad mood it means greed. But as I hoped to make clear earlier, we have to take the good with the bad because that’s who we are. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and wrestle it into better shape. But too much fiddling with things nearly always breaks it.
Technology is good for the environment. We use less resources to produce even more products. Just look at ag production since the widespread adoption of fertilizer.
Fertilizer in its simple form has been used since the dawn of Neolithic times, if not earlier. But some hyper-engineered fertilizers have contributed to poisoning of groundwater, greenhouse gases, and habitat destruction in many places.
More balance, less technological utopianism please! Quality of life–for all life , but even for humankind–is not correctly reduced to quantity of product and material comforts alone.
I’d agree that our technological advancements constitute a net positive by far, but that doesn’t mean everything is good and safe to the point where we ought to just pipe down and trust the experts, plus whichever interests they serve.
I totally agree that Ehrlich was and remains mistaken and deserves to be ignored unless he changes his tune.
I’m trying to push back against a strain of inverse extremism I detect in some comments, call it Technological Utopianism or Climate Contrarianism: “Relax, the geniuses are on the job and it’s impossible for us destroy the Earth (and if we do, Mars awaits)”.
I totally agree that Ehrlich was and remains mistaken and deserves to be ignored unless he changes his tune.
I’m trying to push back against a strain of inverse extremism I detect in some comments, call it Technological Utopianism or Climate Contrarianism: “Relax, the geniuses are on the job and it’s impossible for us destroy the Earth (and if we do, Mars awaits)”.
Fertilizer in its simple form has been used since the dawn of Neolithic times, if not earlier. But some hyper-engineered fertilizers have contributed to poisoning of groundwater, greenhouse gases, and habitat destruction in many places.
More balance, less technological utopianism please! Quality of life–for all life , but even for humankind–is not correctly reduced to quantity of product and material comforts alone.
I’d agree that our technological advancements constitute a net positive by far, but that doesn’t mean everything is good and safe to the point where we ought to just pipe down and trust the experts, plus whichever interests they serve.
Not sure how you define Capitalism, e.g. I guess in some ways China today is formally Communist, but in economy more Capitalist.
Soviet Union use of technology was not any less brutal for environment, then in its western counterparts, although probably less effective in creating wealth.
I have no ideological preference. For me it’s the content, not the form of governance that matters.
How do you pull people out of poverty? Well that’s slightly loaded question, with obviously no simple answer. Again, for me it’s not about ideology, it comes down to education (not just degrees, but skills), rule of law, reduced corruption, rewarding active value creation and not just passive leveraging of assets, etc.
At a national leve we can see examples of Keynesian “mixed economies” where a safety net stops the worst instincts of the left getting traction and rule of law stops the Hayekian survival of the meanest brigade from extracting all wealth. There aren’t many though and when you factor in the global every nation for themselves set up you are back to “tooth and claw” capitalism. Whatever happens next will be new paradigms for this – steps back as well as forward and capatalism will exist but will be as different from the present as the 1700s is from now.
I think you’ve moved from the idea that Capitalism is “organic” (on another comments board) to the suggestion that it’s an innate human trait. Do I misunderstand you?
In the loose sense of the long history of trading items within and between tribes, perhaps it is. Tribalism and Communism (in the sense of “communal”) would also qualify by such broad definitional standards.
Are you using “capital” as a synonym for private ownership or human greed? I’d genuinely like to know as I agree with a portion of what I understand you to be claiming.
Technology is good for the environment. We use less resources to produce even more products. Just look at ag production since the widespread adoption of fertilizer.
“Unreasonable and irresponsible use of this technology seems to be leading us down some paths that are not sustainable.”
That’s very true. In the past technology in its embryonic form had a very limited impact on resources and the environment. But technology doesn’t have a mind of its own, not yet anyway. It’s a tool and it’s a tool of Capitalism. If it’s not Capitalism behind our problem then what? Maybe you might say human nature, but then Capitalism is an aspect of human nature. Out of interest what else besides Capitalism might pull people out of overtly?
I think it’s more fundamental issue, and Capitalism is not a sole reason for the situation nor the sole solution to poverty.
Fundamentally, we have developed science, technology and industry allowing is to master the resources around us and create wealth, this is happening everywhere regardless of formal social preferences. Unreasonable and irresponsible use of this technology seems to be leading us down some paths that are not sustainable. E.g. we can easily destroy most fish stocks with big boats equipped with sonars, GPS etc. But how do we understand, agree and honour sustainable level of use, so we can create wealth, but not leave desert for generations that will follow?
Study following wildlife from 1970 to 2020 found that on average 70% of wildlife populations is gone. 70% of all wildlife on planet Earth gone in 50 years!
Bull-roar. We have more deer, wolves, polar bears, coyotes, etc. than we have had for 100 years in the US.
Nevertheless, I agree that we should continue to protect wild habitats and species. I see species as an irreplaceable resource of genetic information that will likely benefit the world as we learn to use DNA better every year.
https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/2022/10/13/almost-70-of-earths-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals/
Report is not perfect, doesn’t cover all species, but does follow thousands of populations across all continents.
Some of the species you mentioned were almost extinct in 1800s, now we have few more, which is great, a lot of other have been completely extinct, none left. There were millions of Buffalos, then went to almost zero, saved in last minute, now there are some thousands, still 1-3% of what they were, just a 200-300 years ago.
The fact that some of the visible species have a bit of protected space is great, but most are in steep decline as we left them little space to leave and not much to eat, or we are hunting them, poisoning as pest etc.
We are taking more and more space for farming, housing, mining etc.
I suspect that the Irish Times article is full of gently cooked numbers. The use of the phrase “wiped out” and the fact that the article never specifies whether it’s referring to individual organisms or local populations or entire species is suspicous. It seems to be derived entirely from a press-release related to the recent bio-diversity conference in Canada. It’s advertising, not science.
I’m all for preserving and re-wilding the planet’s flora and fauna. In fact I feel strongly that people should get serious on a local level and stop going on about climate change or the most recent meeting of our feckless rulers.
We could all start planting trees. Today. Bringing back some of the tree cover that’s been lost since the Neo-lithic Age would have a positive effect on an untold number of species.
I would also be skeptical of where the report comes from. The World Wildlife Fund has a vested interest in creating alarm. If there is no crisis, there is no WWF. Funding disappears. This is not to say it’s inaccurate, but it should raise some red flags.
I would also note there is more forested areas in North America today than there was 100 years ago.
That has a lot of truth. Inside forests on the east coast I saw a lot of old stone fences — the sole reminders of farms once cleared and run but abandoned later to forest growth. You can see the same process at work on the west coast, although usually without the stone fences. I don’t know if that’s due to a smaller local supply of stones, or because those farmers had lost that British compulsion to build stone fences. In any case, yes, there’s a lot more tree cover, all over the country.
That has a lot of truth. Inside forests on the east coast I saw a lot of old stone fences — the sole reminders of farms once cleared and run but abandoned later to forest growth. You can see the same process at work on the west coast, although usually without the stone fences. I don’t know if that’s due to a smaller local supply of stones, or because those farmers had lost that British compulsion to build stone fences. In any case, yes, there’s a lot more tree cover, all over the country.
This is based on report from database managed by Institut for Zoology in London. Not saying all numbers are perfect, but it is serious institution working with local universities providing numbers for individual populations. You can find full report online, based on 30,000+ local populations of 5,000+ vertebrate species. They are looking at the change in population numbers.
When you think about it it’s not unexpected, animals need to live somewhere, and eat something. Decline in Europe and NA is slower, but as you say we have cut down our forests sooner and these declines were before.
Yes, please, let’s plant trees – a lot of them.
I would also be skeptical of where the report comes from. The World Wildlife Fund has a vested interest in creating alarm. If there is no crisis, there is no WWF. Funding disappears. This is not to say it’s inaccurate, but it should raise some red flags.
I would also note there is more forested areas in North America today than there was 100 years ago.
This is based on report from database managed by Institut for Zoology in London. Not saying all numbers are perfect, but it is serious institution working with local universities providing numbers for individual populations. You can find full report online, based on 30,000+ local populations of 5,000+ vertebrate species. They are looking at the change in population numbers.
When you think about it it’s not unexpected, animals need to live somewhere, and eat something. Decline in Europe and NA is slower, but as you say we have cut down our forests sooner and these declines were before.
Yes, please, let’s plant trees – a lot of them.
Although I agree we should all be worried about the future of wildlife species and biodiversity, we should also be a bit skeptical of reports like this issued by the World Wildlife Fund.
My initial question is what species are actually declining and how do they actually count the number? Seems like a daunting challenge to me. The article also fails to actually name even one of these species. Lots of questions IMO. Are there species increasing in numbers?
I would also note that the poorest regions of the world seem to be suffering the most when it comes to species decline. If we raise people out of poverty, and promote human flourishing, that will benefit all species.
Not saying we should take any report as ultimate truth. Of course, there can be bias and agenda behind. But also, there are serious institutions behind this, local universities monitoring populations. The headline number (69% decline) is average change in population size between some
32,000 populations monitored. You can find full report online, with some specific species, references with detailed statistics etc. Some have indeed increased, usually where there is focused conservation effort e.g. loggerhead turtles in Cyprus, Mountain Gorillas etc., but also for freshwater species reported decline is 83%.
Decline is indeed faster in poorer regions, but I think this is more because they are catching up with us, not because we are shining example of sustainability.
We should certainly help them get out of poverty, and also create incentives to do it the right way. Bulldozing through rainforest to make palm oil plantation creates wealth, but most of it is not going to the local population, and certainly has impact on the biodiversity.
Not saying we should take any report as ultimate truth. Of course, there can be bias and agenda behind. But also, there are serious institutions behind this, local universities monitoring populations. The headline number (69% decline) is average change in population size between some
32,000 populations monitored. You can find full report online, with some specific species, references with detailed statistics etc. Some have indeed increased, usually where there is focused conservation effort e.g. loggerhead turtles in Cyprus, Mountain Gorillas etc., but also for freshwater species reported decline is 83%.
Decline is indeed faster in poorer regions, but I think this is more because they are catching up with us, not because we are shining example of sustainability.
We should certainly help them get out of poverty, and also create incentives to do it the right way. Bulldozing through rainforest to make palm oil plantation creates wealth, but most of it is not going to the local population, and certainly has impact on the biodiversity.
I suspect that the Irish Times article is full of gently cooked numbers. The use of the phrase “wiped out” and the fact that the article never specifies whether it’s referring to individual organisms or local populations or entire species is suspicous. It seems to be derived entirely from a press-release related to the recent bio-diversity conference in Canada. It’s advertising, not science.
I’m all for preserving and re-wilding the planet’s flora and fauna. In fact I feel strongly that people should get serious on a local level and stop going on about climate change or the most recent meeting of our feckless rulers.
We could all start planting trees. Today. Bringing back some of the tree cover that’s been lost since the Neo-lithic Age would have a positive effect on an untold number of species.
Although I agree we should all be worried about the future of wildlife species and biodiversity, we should also be a bit skeptical of reports like this issued by the World Wildlife Fund.
My initial question is what species are actually declining and how do they actually count the number? Seems like a daunting challenge to me. The article also fails to actually name even one of these species. Lots of questions IMO. Are there species increasing in numbers?
I would also note that the poorest regions of the world seem to be suffering the most when it comes to species decline. If we raise people out of poverty, and promote human flourishing, that will benefit all species.
https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/2022/10/13/almost-70-of-earths-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals/
Report is not perfect, doesn’t cover all species, but does follow thousands of populations across all continents.
Some of the species you mentioned were almost extinct in 1800s, now we have few more, which is great, a lot of other have been completely extinct, none left. There were millions of Buffalos, then went to almost zero, saved in last minute, now there are some thousands, still 1-3% of what they were, just a 200-300 years ago.
The fact that some of the visible species have a bit of protected space is great, but most are in steep decline as we left them little space to leave and not much to eat, or we are hunting them, poisoning as pest etc.
We are taking more and more space for farming, housing, mining etc.
I agree we cannot have “growth forever” as something will have to give. Overall global population if forecasted to start falling as more societies reproduction factors go negative – AFAIK less than 1.5 babies per couple = negative? However that doesn’t mean we let people like Ehrlich or the WEF decides who lives and who dies – that will only lead to war at all points of the compass. Nowadays the “wretched of the earth” match the white man on the field of combat- Castro, Viet Cong, Taliban are proof. Sure battles can be won with tactical nuclear weapons, phosphorous bombs etc but that won’t win a war, only prolong it and worsten the rules of engagement.
To answer your question directly, I’m not shocked by all those statistics you named because I’m aware of geological history and the millions of species that thrived and went extinct long before humanity appeared, and I’m not particularly inclined to mourn for them. Whether human activity or asteroid impact, life will find a way. Imagining ourselves to be above and separate from nature is the problem. We’re not, and that cuts both directions. The extinction of one species, or many species, because of other species, is not new. See how invasive species can decimate native species. There is no moral imperative here. Nature doesn’t care how many species, or which ones, survive. Why should we?
It not question of being nice and caring it’s question of sustainability of the ecosystems on which we depend. We are completely dependent on other species for food, even air if you like. We know that once these ecosystems are disrupted whole domino effect can be triggered. Erosion destroys fertile land when we remove vegetation, also impacts water supply, pollinators are needed for plants, even humble earthworms are needed for soil… Those invasive species are almost always introduced by us, sometimes with devastating effect. If we empty oceans of fish and replace them with plastic, that has no effect on us? We are changing so much and so fast in our environment without understanding what will it do in the long term. I hope you agree that we cannot survive in the desert, even if we could I don’t think it would be much fun.
Yes, well said. There is deep interdependence across species and bioregions, aside from any ethical, let alone “tree-hugging” concerns.
Though I’m not against tree planting–bold stance I know–doing that for a seasonal job as a young man in western Canada help to show me that biodiversity, a true forest, cannot be restored on a human rather than geological timeline. Especially when logging companies devastate a huge swath of old-growth woods and plug one cash-crop species such as spruce of pine back in, then declare it “re-forested”. It’s important to preserve a robust percentage of what remains.
Great minds are not neutral. They can move in any direction, it doesn’t necessarily have to be positive. Or do great minds only create good, subject to definition of course?
It could be that today’s great minds don’t like poor people and,having got ALL the money no longer need them to either provide labour or to rook from them what little money they have with shiny objects of desire. Maybe enough “great minds” now think poor people are a real nuisance.
It could be that today’s great minds don’t like poor people and,having got ALL the money no longer need them to either provide labour or to rook from them what little money they have with shiny objects of desire. Maybe enough “great minds” now think poor people are a real nuisance.
“Relax: The Committee for Life-Problem Solutions is watching over all of you and our great minds shall deliver all lesser lights. Why wouldn’t we take you to Mars with us after our techno-utopia has flatlined here on Earth?”
I understand that we aren’t conclusively doomed and that despair isn’t useful, but I don’t think Muad expressed a sky-is-falling or hysterical view at all.
Your optimism sounds facile to me, like something on a mass-produced bumper sticker. But I hope we can all get along with one another anyway! (Sincerely, but it’s not quite that easy is it?).
Great minds are not neutral. They can move in any direction, it doesn’t necessarily have to be positive. Or do great minds only create good, subject to definition of course?
“Relax: The Committee for Life-Problem Solutions is watching over all of you and our great minds shall deliver all lesser lights. Why wouldn’t we take you to Mars with us after our techno-utopia has flatlined here on Earth?”
I understand that we aren’t conclusively doomed and that despair isn’t useful, but I don’t think Muad expressed a sky-is-falling or hysterical view at all.
Your optimism sounds facile to me, like something on a mass-produced bumper sticker. But I hope we can all get along with one another anyway! (Sincerely, but it’s not quite that easy is it?).
Well, at least you’ve conceded that what we’re really talking about is human needs and human welfare. If you’re making the argument that we should have some limitations placed on exploitation of resources and give thought to sustainability, I agree. Reasonable people can disagree about what limits should be placed on industry or farming or mining or w/e else, and the proper way to decide on such issues is through open and democratic processes not by handing the decision making authority to a self-selected group of environmental advocates, nor to a bunch of profit driven corporations nor any combination of the two. I’m certainly not advocating that we place no limits on companies and individuals to do whatever they like with shared resources like air and water. I’m simply saying that we should look at issues, such as the ones you mention, plastic pollution, erosion, etc. as problems to be addressed through better technology or more efficient farming/fishing practices or whatever else. Reasonable people can debate these issues and arrive at some sort of policy, within their own countries at least. I’m fine with advocating for conservation, clean air laws, farming regulations that preserve land, and reducing all forms of pollution. Yes, I know we need earthworms for soil, so if there’s something we are doing that’s killing earthworms, that’s a problem that should be addressed. If plastic is killing fish, that’s a problem, albeit a difficult and maybe impossible one given the realities of international politics. We can debate real solutions to real problems. I cannot, however, intelligently argue against ‘human bad’, ‘nature good’. Furthermore, the notion that there’s some catastrophe lurking just around the bend for all of us unless we change our ways and upend our civilization sounds a lot like the religious proselytizing of the fundamentalist evangelical crowd that I have heard since I was five and quickly learned to ignore. I realize you think that think your position is ‘science’, but I say if it quacks like a duck…
You say I conceded that we talk about human needs and welfare, but if you read my original comment I say that I think our planet and humanity has serious issue with sustainability. I also say I may be wrong, and would love to be wrong, but I also give some reasons/ examples behind this opinion.
You agree with issues I mention but disagree with what you assume I’m thinking? You shouldn’t let your prejudices lead you to conclusions. I never wrote these things ‘nature good’ ‘human bad’, my concern is more selfish indeed. If you assume I’m some vegan, tree hugging eco-warrior, I’m nothing like that. I do admire nature in all its incarnations, and see no future where humans can be thriving if nature is diminishing at current rate.
Instead any arguments to help me change my mind you finish with some kind of insult, that’s very scientific from your side. Thank you
In my opinion, you provide an important contribution to this website, with your well-informed thoughtfulness and civil manner. Instead of qualifying that with individual phrases I dispute or cross-referencing my favorite posts of yours elsewhere, I’ll just leave it there for now.
In my opinion, you provide an important contribution to this website, with your well-informed thoughtfulness and civil manner. Instead of qualifying that with individual phrases I dispute or cross-referencing my favorite posts of yours elsewhere, I’ll just leave it there for now.
You say I conceded that we talk about human needs and welfare, but if you read my original comment I say that I think our planet and humanity has serious issue with sustainability. I also say I may be wrong, and would love to be wrong, but I also give some reasons/ examples behind this opinion.
You agree with issues I mention but disagree with what you assume I’m thinking? You shouldn’t let your prejudices lead you to conclusions. I never wrote these things ‘nature good’ ‘human bad’, my concern is more selfish indeed. If you assume I’m some vegan, tree hugging eco-warrior, I’m nothing like that. I do admire nature in all its incarnations, and see no future where humans can be thriving if nature is diminishing at current rate.
Instead any arguments to help me change my mind you finish with some kind of insult, that’s very scientific from your side. Thank you
Yes, well said. There is deep interdependence across species and bioregions, aside from any ethical, let alone “tree-hugging” concerns.
Though I’m not against tree planting–bold stance I know–doing that for a seasonal job as a young man in western Canada help to show me that biodiversity, a true forest, cannot be restored on a human rather than geological timeline. Especially when logging companies devastate a huge swath of old-growth woods and plug one cash-crop species such as spruce of pine back in, then declare it “re-forested”. It’s important to preserve a robust percentage of what remains.
Well, at least you’ve conceded that what we’re really talking about is human needs and human welfare. If you’re making the argument that we should have some limitations placed on exploitation of resources and give thought to sustainability, I agree. Reasonable people can disagree about what limits should be placed on industry or farming or mining or w/e else, and the proper way to decide on such issues is through open and democratic processes not by handing the decision making authority to a self-selected group of environmental advocates, nor to a bunch of profit driven corporations nor any combination of the two. I’m certainly not advocating that we place no limits on companies and individuals to do whatever they like with shared resources like air and water. I’m simply saying that we should look at issues, such as the ones you mention, plastic pollution, erosion, etc. as problems to be addressed through better technology or more efficient farming/fishing practices or whatever else. Reasonable people can debate these issues and arrive at some sort of policy, within their own countries at least. I’m fine with advocating for conservation, clean air laws, farming regulations that preserve land, and reducing all forms of pollution. Yes, I know we need earthworms for soil, so if there’s something we are doing that’s killing earthworms, that’s a problem that should be addressed. If plastic is killing fish, that’s a problem, albeit a difficult and maybe impossible one given the realities of international politics. We can debate real solutions to real problems. I cannot, however, intelligently argue against ‘human bad’, ‘nature good’. Furthermore, the notion that there’s some catastrophe lurking just around the bend for all of us unless we change our ways and upend our civilization sounds a lot like the religious proselytizing of the fundamentalist evangelical crowd that I have heard since I was five and quickly learned to ignore. I realize you think that think your position is ‘science’, but I say if it quacks like a duck…
It not question of being nice and caring it’s question of sustainability of the ecosystems on which we depend. We are completely dependent on other species for food, even air if you like. We know that once these ecosystems are disrupted whole domino effect can be triggered. Erosion destroys fertile land when we remove vegetation, also impacts water supply, pollinators are needed for plants, even humble earthworms are needed for soil… Those invasive species are almost always introduced by us, sometimes with devastating effect. If we empty oceans of fish and replace them with plastic, that has no effect on us? We are changing so much and so fast in our environment without understanding what will it do in the long term. I hope you agree that we cannot survive in the desert, even if we could I don’t think it would be much fun.
Study following wildlife from 1970 to 2020 found that on average 70% of wildlife populations is gone. 70% of all wildlife on planet Earth gone in 50 years!
Bull-roar. We have more deer, wolves, polar bears, coyotes, etc. than we have had for 100 years in the US.
Nevertheless, I agree that we should continue to protect wild habitats and species. I see species as an irreplaceable resource of genetic information that will likely benefit the world as we learn to use DNA better every year.
I agree we cannot have “growth forever” as something will have to give. Overall global population if forecasted to start falling as more societies reproduction factors go negative – AFAIK less than 1.5 babies per couple = negative? However that doesn’t mean we let people like Ehrlich or the WEF decides who lives and who dies – that will only lead to war at all points of the compass. Nowadays the “wretched of the earth” match the white man on the field of combat- Castro, Viet Cong, Taliban are proof. Sure battles can be won with tactical nuclear weapons, phosphorous bombs etc but that won’t win a war, only prolong it and worsten the rules of engagement.
To answer your question directly, I’m not shocked by all those statistics you named because I’m aware of geological history and the millions of species that thrived and went extinct long before humanity appeared, and I’m not particularly inclined to mourn for them. Whether human activity or asteroid impact, life will find a way. Imagining ourselves to be above and separate from nature is the problem. We’re not, and that cuts both directions. The extinction of one species, or many species, because of other species, is not new. See how invasive species can decimate native species. There is no moral imperative here. Nature doesn’t care how many species, or which ones, survive. Why should we?
“that the Great Barrier Reef has the most coral growth since records started 36 years ago, or that 80% of Pacific islands have grown larger since aerial records began after WWII.”
That’s heresy. You’ll burn in hell for that.
Whosoever angereth the planet must burn. Come brothers, let us put heretics to the stake and burn them for the glory of our Mother Earth. Let the blasphemer, the capitalist, the consumer, be purged from our midst that we might be spared from the wrath of an angry planet.
–Sorry, couldn’t resist. Living in the US Bible Belt, I can tell you that among the various types of humanity, environmentalist advocates most resemble bible thumping preachers in practically ever imaginable way. Environmentalism is religion for atheists.
Whosoever angereth the planet must burn. Come brothers, let us put heretics to the stake and burn them for the glory of our Mother Earth. Let the blasphemer, the capitalist, the consumer, be purged from our midst that we might be spared from the wrath of an angry planet.
–Sorry, couldn’t resist. Living in the US Bible Belt, I can tell you that among the various types of humanity, environmentalist advocates most resemble bible thumping preachers in practically ever imaginable way. Environmentalism is religion for atheists.
You’re right about the media. It’s about money. Politicians are, at the best of times, only casually acquainted with objective reality and good science, paying heed to them only when absolutely necessary, and distorting either to the greatest possible extent to suit their own ends, almost always some permutation of getting and keeping power for their political faction or themselves personally. The general public’s interest in silly nonsense is a consequence of the media’s misbehavior. There are, as ever, a lot of gullible people who default into believing whatever is told to them by anyone, especially what they see on TV, so the media drives a lot of it.
You left out Ehrlich’s revenues from 2 million of his books sold. But it’s established wisdom in publishing circles that books predicting the end of the world sell best.
Not really familiar with the work of Ehrlich and Malthus, but based on this no need to learn more. They seem to be dangerous quacks.
But I do sense a bit of agenda behind this article, associating certain issue with people like these to disqualify the issue itself.
I may be wrong but I think our wonderful planet and humanity has major, urgent issue with sustainability.
Yes, we can feed ten billion people and seems likely that population will plateau around there. But problem were never the poor but the wealthy. I mean wealthy in the global context, probably everyone reading and commenting here, so myself included.
Farmers in India, China or Africa are not the issue. The problem is that western middle class lifestyle cannot be sustained for 10 billion people. Energy and resource intensive existence, like I enjoy myself, is attractive and comfortable, nice heated home, big car in front, devices and stuff from all over the world. Avocado from Chile, New Zealand lamb, Spanish tomatoes…
Study following wildlife from 1970 to 2020 found that on average 70% of wildlife populations is gone. 70% of all wildlife on planet Earth gone in 50 years! Some species have gone completely some are fairing better, but how can one not be shocked by this. Damage in the preceding period e.g. 1800-1970 is difficult to quantify but certainly equally disastrous.
Data on global warming is increasingly clear, plastic is on track to be more prevalent in worlds oceans than fish, we keep claiming any resource we can get hold of from Artic to Patagonia.
All these issues are cumulative, certainly accelerated since Industrial Revolution, and this cumulative impact of Western developed countries is far, far higher than the developing world. But they are following our lead and we need to find strength and leadership to change something. Head in the sand is not going to help, and let’s not pretend we are concerned for the poor. We are concerned for our lifestyles and are happy to sacrifice the poor to keep it, this is as far from humanity as it gets.
“that the Great Barrier Reef has the most coral growth since records started 36 years ago, or that 80% of Pacific islands have grown larger since aerial records began after WWII.”
That’s heresy. You’ll burn in hell for that.
You’re right about the media. It’s about money. Politicians are, at the best of times, only casually acquainted with objective reality and good science, paying heed to them only when absolutely necessary, and distorting either to the greatest possible extent to suit their own ends, almost always some permutation of getting and keeping power for their political faction or themselves personally. The general public’s interest in silly nonsense is a consequence of the media’s misbehavior. There are, as ever, a lot of gullible people who default into believing whatever is told to them by anyone, especially what they see on TV, so the media drives a lot of it.
You left out Ehrlich’s revenues from 2 million of his books sold. But it’s established wisdom in publishing circles that books predicting the end of the world sell best.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
We live in very strange times.
Ehrlich and Malthus are basically death cult leaders. There will always be people who have an extremely pessimistic outlook on life, for whatever reason, and there will always be grifters who exploit this weakness.
Ehrlich isn’t the founder of climate change hysteria, but it fits nicely with his world view and it pays well. In fact, he has received more than $2.6 million in climate science awards given out by a dizzying number of NGOs. Add this to speaking fees and he has a very lucrative grift going on.
I understand why 60 Minutes features him. The legacy media is broken and chumps like Ehrlich drive ratings. Afterall, no one cares about good news – that the Great Barrier Reef has the most coral growth since records started 36 years ago, or that 80% of Pacific islands have grown larger since aerial records began after WWII.
What baffles me is that political leaders pay attention to him, or even the general public. It honestly takes five minutes to fact check this guy’s utterly rancid track record.
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago
There are objective facts, and there are subjective beliefs, and then there are beliefs that you think almost define you – that you need so badly to believe in that they become unassailable facts to you.
We can all be guilty of this, to some degree or other.
But imagine the writer, academic or other public figure who has nailed their colours to the mast on a topic, to the extent that they are forever associated with that idea. No amount of contrary evidence will ever dissuade them.
Ehrlich could no more be convinced to row back on his earlier pronouncements than a fundamentalist could be persuaded to disavow his faith.
US psychologist Leon Festinger wrote a book, “When Prophecy Fails”, detailing his experience of studying a cult, whilst their predicted deadline for the end of the world came and went, without cataclysm. Rather than accept they had been demonstrably proved wrong, the cult members kept arbitrarily shifting the date of their impending doom. Never questioning that they were right.
Festinger noted, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change, tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point … Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
A bit like Sinclair saying that it’s hard to convince a man not to believe something when his salary depends on his believing it
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago
There are objective facts, and there are subjective beliefs, and then there are beliefs that you think almost define you – that you need so badly to believe in that they become unassailable facts to you.
We can all be guilty of this, to some degree or other.
But imagine the writer, academic or other public figure who has nailed their colours to the mast on a topic, to the extent that they are forever associated with that idea. No amount of contrary evidence will ever dissuade them.
Ehrlich could no more be convinced to row back on his earlier pronouncements than a fundamentalist could be persuaded to disavow his faith.
US psychologist Leon Festinger wrote a book, “When Prophecy Fails”, detailing his experience of studying a cult, whilst their predicted deadline for the end of the world came and went, without cataclysm. Rather than accept they had been demonstrably proved wrong, the cult members kept arbitrarily shifting the date of their impending doom. Never questioning that they were right.
Festinger noted, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change, tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point … Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
While on a local basis the inexorable pressure of population on local food resources remains valid in Nigeria for example food imports relieve the position.
Jordan Peterson regards the rhetoric of global warming as a death cult that considers mankind as a kind of cancer. In contrast he believes that the path to be pursued is the path of free enterprise that has lifted millions out of poverty throughout the globe in the last 60 years and resulted in a demographic transition in the developed and developing world whereby the birth of children no longer outruns food resources and the destruction of the local environment that can be seen in places like Sudan and Ethiopia.
Jordan Peterson is great on many philosophical and psychological aspects of humanity today, imo, but when it comes to science not so much. He is not a scientist and has apparently made at least two mistakes, involving scientific judgement, in his life with serious consequences. Firstly he refused to even consider that his daughter’s health problems as a child might be the result of intolerance to certain foods. Secondly he became addicted to benzodiazepams.
I have a lot of respect for his moral courage, his area of expertise and his ability to communicate his ideas effectively but when it comes to the science of climate change, or whatever you want to call it, I don’t think he is the man to listen to.
As I understand Peterson has no particular “belief” in Climate Change and admits that he doesn’t know one way or the other. He just follows the ideas of Bjorn Lomborg, who wants resources and money to be used in adaptation to the Climate Change, meaning investment in technology and resources that prevents people suffering from increasing temperatures. Instead what is happening right now in most Western countries is spending huge amounts of money on technology, which isn’t working, doesn’t really reduce CO2 and actually produces misery for the population.
I agree on the daughter bit but many better (and worse) people than Petersen have got into trouble with drugs. Lets hope he continues in recovery. He could do with mugging up scientific methods, conjecture and refutation, Mertonian norms etc . Not just the better to understand science but also when its being misused eg Warmism or Covid – i mean Kraken FGS….? Why not call it “Reaper” or “Widowmaker” or some such
You claim that Peterson’s views can be disregarded on the basis of his personal lack of expertise (despite the fact that his views accord with the evidence and a selection of climate science expert opinion), but then offer no more than a judgement about his personal life and family to back this up?
Are you actually serious?
If you are, I suggest you at least read his book where the struggles faced by his daughter are described at length. It is moving, and it is not possible to imagine that as a loving father he would have deliberately maintained an ideologically-rooted aversion to any prospect of improving his daughter’s life.
In an interview with his wife, she recounted how she tried to persuade him to look into the possibility that their daughter was suffering as a result of food intolerances. According to her he refused, saying that “it was not scientific”, which would be ironic if it was’nt so sad.
I did not say his views should be “disregarded”, don’t put words into my mouth. I said “I don’t think he is the man to listen to”, making clear that is my opinion, nothing more.
I admire Jordan Peterson very much but he is not perfect, or necessarily right about everything, that’s all.
I didn’t claim Peterson was right about everything, I do say that he is right about climate change though because his views are based upon the evidence and upon expert advice. His personal life cannot possibly have any bearing on this, and I stand by my rejection of your previous comment.
I didn’t claim Peterson was right about everything, I do say that he is right about climate change though because his views are based upon the evidence and upon expert advice. His personal life cannot possibly have any bearing on this, and I stand by my rejection of your previous comment.
In an interview with his wife, she recounted how she tried to persuade him to look into the possibility that their daughter was suffering as a result of food intolerances. According to her he refused, saying that “it was not scientific”, which would be ironic if it was’nt so sad.
I did not say his views should be “disregarded”, don’t put words into my mouth. I said “I don’t think he is the man to listen to”, making clear that is my opinion, nothing more.
I admire Jordan Peterson very much but he is not perfect, or necessarily right about everything, that’s all.
As I understand Peterson has no particular “belief” in Climate Change and admits that he doesn’t know one way or the other. He just follows the ideas of Bjorn Lomborg, who wants resources and money to be used in adaptation to the Climate Change, meaning investment in technology and resources that prevents people suffering from increasing temperatures. Instead what is happening right now in most Western countries is spending huge amounts of money on technology, which isn’t working, doesn’t really reduce CO2 and actually produces misery for the population.
I agree on the daughter bit but many better (and worse) people than Petersen have got into trouble with drugs. Lets hope he continues in recovery. He could do with mugging up scientific methods, conjecture and refutation, Mertonian norms etc . Not just the better to understand science but also when its being misused eg Warmism or Covid – i mean Kraken FGS….? Why not call it “Reaper” or “Widowmaker” or some such
You claim that Peterson’s views can be disregarded on the basis of his personal lack of expertise (despite the fact that his views accord with the evidence and a selection of climate science expert opinion), but then offer no more than a judgement about his personal life and family to back this up?
Are you actually serious?
If you are, I suggest you at least read his book where the struggles faced by his daughter are described at length. It is moving, and it is not possible to imagine that as a loving father he would have deliberately maintained an ideologically-rooted aversion to any prospect of improving his daughter’s life.
Jordan Peterson is great on many philosophical and psychological aspects of humanity today, imo, but when it comes to science not so much. He is not a scientist and has apparently made at least two mistakes, involving scientific judgement, in his life with serious consequences. Firstly he refused to even consider that his daughter’s health problems as a child might be the result of intolerance to certain foods. Secondly he became addicted to benzodiazepams.
I have a lot of respect for his moral courage, his area of expertise and his ability to communicate his ideas effectively but when it comes to the science of climate change, or whatever you want to call it, I don’t think he is the man to listen to.
Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
While on a local basis the inexorable pressure of population on local food resources remains valid in Nigeria for example food imports relieve the position.
Jordan Peterson regards the rhetoric of global warming as a death cult that considers mankind as a kind of cancer. In contrast he believes that the path to be pursued is the path of free enterprise that has lifted millions out of poverty throughout the globe in the last 60 years and resulted in a demographic transition in the developed and developing world whereby the birth of children no longer outruns food resources and the destruction of the local environment that can be seen in places like Sudan and Ethiopia.
John Riordan
1 year ago
The great thing about Paul Ehrlich is that he is reliably wrong on any subject of importance, and while it is true that his policy agenda is indeed hostile to humans, especially poor ones, we can be confident that he will once again be proved wrong.
As for this: “We now live in the Anthropocene era — and with its consequent focus on the impact humanity has on the planet, Malthus is back on the agenda.”
There is no Anthropocene Era. It was made up by a bunch of climate alarmists and then an attempt was made, in 2018, to persuade the International Commission on Stratigraphy to formally adopt this name for the period from 1950 to date, which would have required deeming the existing Holocene epoch to have ended in 1950.
The attempt failed, for the very good reason that there is no evidence, anywhere, that would justify such a fundamental change in the basis for assessing these things. The evidence would need to prove that we have changed the geological dynamics of the Pleistocene era and stopped the glacial/interglacial periodic shifts that have applied in the Northern Hemisphere for about 2.8million years. There is no evidence that suggests this is true, likely or even possible.
“The great thing about Paul Ehrlich is that he is reliably wrong on any subject of importance,”
People forget that in the fable, the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the wolf does eventually appear and the moral is not the one you draw — that past predictions of doom have failed and that therefore we have nothing to worry about, the moral is if we let failed predictions of doom lull us into complacency, the day will come when the doom is real and we are likely to ignore the warnings.
There’s no parallel. Erlich is consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects, not the same one time and again.
However it would in any be be ludicrous to somehow conclude that he had been right all along on the basis of finally achieving a stopped-clock-right-twice-a-day correct prediction. The rational conclusion is that he is simply a bad scientist who can’t do his job properly.
And there’s a further point that even if there comes a time in the future where humanity really does run into hard resource limits, Ehrlich still isn’t vindicated even then, because humanity is already past the point where the originally-predicted resource limitations are supposed to have led to disaster. So the argument becomes an existential one in which we accept that in the long run we can’t last forever, all we can control is how we live before we die. Ehrlich’s manifesto for the human race is for us all to shuffle in rags across that particular finish line, not to save us from having to do so at all.
“The rational conclusion is that he is simply a bad scientist who can’t do his job properly.”
Even more rational to conclude that worrying to much about one particular individual is a red herring. That this or that doom-sayer has been wrong in the past is not solid grounds for concluding that we have no worries and that infinite growth is the way to go. One can play Russian Roulette all night with no ill effects yet I’d still advise against it.
I don’t care about Ehrlich very much one way or the other but I’m skeptical that he want’s us all in rags. It seems to me that the infinite growth globalists want us all in rags — or at least the fact is that standards of living for working people have been going down for 30 years. More people trying to live on rapidly exhausting resources. Here in BC, the forests are almost gone, the fish are almost gone, the mines are running out, and we mostly get by selling our own country out from under our own feet to Chinese landlords. But the plutocracy is doing very well and naturally wants more of the same.
You’re assuming a whole host of problems relating to corporatism and corruption must be somehow the result of environmental decline, but give no explanation for how.
Either way though, global trends do seem to contradict your position – certainly on forest cover, which is increasing globally, and the problem of overfishing is one that has been solved some time ago technically, it just hasn’t been implemented yet in many regions requiring the solution. As for mines, they do get exhausted if you keep digging them out, yes, but mines have been closing for that reason for hundreds of years, yet we have not run out of new places to dig, have we, because there are not global scarcities of the things being mined for.
In other words you can’t advance any of these arguments in defence of the nonsense spouted by Paul Ehrlich.
You’re assuming a whole host of problems relating to corporatism and corruption must be somehow the result of environmental decline, but give no explanation for how.
Either way though, global trends do seem to contradict your position – certainly on forest cover, which is increasing globally, and the problem of overfishing is one that has been solved some time ago technically, it just hasn’t been implemented yet in many regions requiring the solution. As for mines, they do get exhausted if you keep digging them out, yes, but mines have been closing for that reason for hundreds of years, yet we have not run out of new places to dig, have we, because there are not global scarcities of the things being mined for.
In other words you can’t advance any of these arguments in defence of the nonsense spouted by Paul Ehrlich.
“The rational conclusion is that he is simply a bad scientist who can’t do his job properly.”
Even more rational to conclude that worrying to much about one particular individual is a red herring. That this or that doom-sayer has been wrong in the past is not solid grounds for concluding that we have no worries and that infinite growth is the way to go. One can play Russian Roulette all night with no ill effects yet I’d still advise against it.
I don’t care about Ehrlich very much one way or the other but I’m skeptical that he want’s us all in rags. It seems to me that the infinite growth globalists want us all in rags — or at least the fact is that standards of living for working people have been going down for 30 years. More people trying to live on rapidly exhausting resources. Here in BC, the forests are almost gone, the fish are almost gone, the mines are running out, and we mostly get by selling our own country out from under our own feet to Chinese landlords. But the plutocracy is doing very well and naturally wants more of the same.
There’s no parallel. Erlich is consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects, not the same one time and again.
However it would in any be be ludicrous to somehow conclude that he had been right all along on the basis of finally achieving a stopped-clock-right-twice-a-day correct prediction. The rational conclusion is that he is simply a bad scientist who can’t do his job properly.
And there’s a further point that even if there comes a time in the future where humanity really does run into hard resource limits, Ehrlich still isn’t vindicated even then, because humanity is already past the point where the originally-predicted resource limitations are supposed to have led to disaster. So the argument becomes an existential one in which we accept that in the long run we can’t last forever, all we can control is how we live before we die. Ehrlich’s manifesto for the human race is for us all to shuffle in rags across that particular finish line, not to save us from having to do so at all.
“The great thing about Paul Ehrlich is that he is reliably wrong on any subject of importance,”
People forget that in the fable, the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the wolf does eventually appear and the moral is not the one you draw — that past predictions of doom have failed and that therefore we have nothing to worry about, the moral is if we let failed predictions of doom lull us into complacency, the day will come when the doom is real and we are likely to ignore the warnings.
John Riordan
1 year ago
The great thing about Paul Ehrlich is that he is reliably wrong on any subject of importance, and while it is true that his policy agenda is indeed hostile to humans, especially poor ones, we can be confident that he will once again be proved wrong.
As for this: “We now live in the Anthropocene era — and with its consequent focus on the impact humanity has on the planet, Malthus is back on the agenda.”
There is no Anthropocene Era. It was made up by a bunch of climate alarmists and then an attempt was made, in 2018, to persuade the International Commission on Stratigraphy to formally adopt this name for the period from 1950 to date, which would have required deeming the existing Holocene epoch to have ended in 1950.
The attempt failed, for the very good reason that there is no evidence, anywhere, that would justify such a fundamental change in the basis for assessing these things. The evidence would need to prove that we have changed the geological dynamics of the Pleistocene era and stopped the glacial/interglacial periodic shifts that have applied in the Northern Hemisphere for about 2.8million years. There is no evidence that suggests this is true, likely or even possible.
Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Phil Mitchell
1 year ago
I use to give a guest lecture every semester to a university class called, “Critical Concerns in the Environment.” It was a collection of seniors taking the capstone class in their major before going out into the world to declare it was about to end. A group of Greta Thunbergs. They were the richest, most entitled, privileged group of human beings who have ever lived. And they never made a single personal sacrifice to achieve their goals. They lived lavish, pampered lifestyles. They were calling on African villagers to make the sacrifices. The author asks, “Will humanity eat itself?” There is absolutely no reason on earth or heaven to believe that. The growth economies of the West have made billions fabulously rich. In the words of Julian Simon: “Every trend is positive.” But the handwringing continues for psychological/spiritual reasons. None of this has anything to do with science or reality.
Phil Mitchell
1 year ago
I use to give a guest lecture every semester to a university class called, “Critical Concerns in the Environment.” It was a collection of seniors taking the capstone class in their major before going out into the world to declare it was about to end. A group of Greta Thunbergs. They were the richest, most entitled, privileged group of human beings who have ever lived. And they never made a single personal sacrifice to achieve their goals. They lived lavish, pampered lifestyles. They were calling on African villagers to make the sacrifices. The author asks, “Will humanity eat itself?” There is absolutely no reason on earth or heaven to believe that. The growth economies of the West have made billions fabulously rich. In the words of Julian Simon: “Every trend is positive.” But the handwringing continues for psychological/spiritual reasons. None of this has anything to do with science or reality.
Brett H
1 year ago
“One way of avoiding this is to take preventative measures to reduce the population, including cutting support for the poor so that they are encouraged to have fewer children.”
These theories; does anyone follow up on them? Don’t help the poor and they’ll have fewer children, thus saving resources, Presumably the theory is that eventually they’ll disappear, or reach such small numbers we won’t even notice them, not only saving money but also saving us the discomfort of living with them. In the favelas of Brazil Mothers can have up to five or six children. These are poor people and yet it hasn’t stopped them from having children. It’s also possible, if not likely, that the number of children in a family offer some security in them bringing in whatever is needed to survive. Of course the obvious question is why is there even such a thing as poor people?
There is plenty of evidence from Europe and Asia that birth rates fall when there are educational opportunities for girls and employment opportunities for young women; no coercion, just women making up their own minds. As far as I can see, sub-Saharan Africa does not seem to be following this pattern.
The women may indeed want fewer, but it’s a sad fact that the men often have a macho attitude, imagining that they are more “potent” if they sire lots of offspring, preferably boys, and often with various mothers.
“Sub Saharan Africa” is not a useful designation in this context. There are individual nations, such as Botswana, that are doing well at advancing towards first nation status, and the correlation between female emancipation and birthrates holds true there just the same as everywhere else.
Why did Shamima Begum,a highly intelligent young woman,in the top percent in her school, definitely going to university,no question there,why did this highly intelligent,very educated,yawn,”child” decide she preferred the idea of being a “housewife”. Such an aim in life would have been cruelly derided by those 1979s feminists who were vociferously telling my generation that liking to cook meant you were a moronic drudge. (Then when men took up cooking they were tv stars. Amazing). Yes,I know there were other factors in this case. I’m not so sure that education is the answer really. Only I can’t explain why. And this idea that if the girls learn maths,physics,etc they will only have say,two or three babies rather then up to ten,I don’t know,it comes across to me as a bit white saviour patronising.
The women may indeed want fewer, but it’s a sad fact that the men often have a macho attitude, imagining that they are more “potent” if they sire lots of offspring, preferably boys, and often with various mothers.
“Sub Saharan Africa” is not a useful designation in this context. There are individual nations, such as Botswana, that are doing well at advancing towards first nation status, and the correlation between female emancipation and birthrates holds true there just the same as everywhere else.
Why did Shamima Begum,a highly intelligent young woman,in the top percent in her school, definitely going to university,no question there,why did this highly intelligent,very educated,yawn,”child” decide she preferred the idea of being a “housewife”. Such an aim in life would have been cruelly derided by those 1979s feminists who were vociferously telling my generation that liking to cook meant you were a moronic drudge. (Then when men took up cooking they were tv stars. Amazing). Yes,I know there were other factors in this case. I’m not so sure that education is the answer really. Only I can’t explain why. And this idea that if the girls learn maths,physics,etc they will only have say,two or three babies rather then up to ten,I don’t know,it comes across to me as a bit white saviour patronising.
I’ve often thought that the poor need to have enough children to insure their share of the population remains high enough that they can’t be ignored. if poverty ever drops too much, the poor will be ignored with disasterous consequences for those who remain poor.
I’ve often thought how funny it is that right-wing political parties are sometimes accused of hating the poor on the basis that they want to get rid of poor people by making them wealthy.
Has anyone asked the poor people themselves if they have any objection to this?
We are already there. It’s not about making more food etc available now,it’s about thinking up plausible and inventive ways to reduce and remove it. Interesting times.
I’ve often thought how funny it is that right-wing political parties are sometimes accused of hating the poor on the basis that they want to get rid of poor people by making them wealthy.
Has anyone asked the poor people themselves if they have any objection to this?
We are already there. It’s not about making more food etc available now,it’s about thinking up plausible and inventive ways to reduce and remove it. Interesting times.
The evidence, from all over the world, is that as people become more prosperous they will have fewer children. This is clearly at the root of Europe’s static or declining populations, and the US seems to be headed the same way.
But instead of creating a spacious environment where everybody lives comfortably it just acts like a magnet for people to come in and fill up the vacant space and claim or take their slice of cake.
But instead of creating a spacious environment where everybody lives comfortably it just acts like a magnet for people to come in and fill up the vacant space and claim or take their slice of cake.
I suspect that Bill Gates (I’ve got a new pandemic for you and I’ve got the corresponding vaccine for you too,bargain deal,just for you),he is asking that question only his idea for a solution is not to find better ways to feed them(us),and raise them out of poverty. Anyway,it’s a never ending cycle,no sooner do you raise one lot out of poverty than another tranche come along.
There is plenty of evidence from Europe and Asia that birth rates fall when there are educational opportunities for girls and employment opportunities for young women; no coercion, just women making up their own minds. As far as I can see, sub-Saharan Africa does not seem to be following this pattern.
I’ve often thought that the poor need to have enough children to insure their share of the population remains high enough that they can’t be ignored. if poverty ever drops too much, the poor will be ignored with disasterous consequences for those who remain poor.
The evidence, from all over the world, is that as people become more prosperous they will have fewer children. This is clearly at the root of Europe’s static or declining populations, and the US seems to be headed the same way.
I suspect that Bill Gates (I’ve got a new pandemic for you and I’ve got the corresponding vaccine for you too,bargain deal,just for you),he is asking that question only his idea for a solution is not to find better ways to feed them(us),and raise them out of poverty. Anyway,it’s a never ending cycle,no sooner do you raise one lot out of poverty than another tranche come along.
Brett H
1 year ago
“One way of avoiding this is to take preventative measures to reduce the population, including cutting support for the poor so that they are encouraged to have fewer children.”
These theories; does anyone follow up on them? Don’t help the poor and they’ll have fewer children, thus saving resources, Presumably the theory is that eventually they’ll disappear, or reach such small numbers we won’t even notice them, not only saving money but also saving us the discomfort of living with them. In the favelas of Brazil Mothers can have up to five or six children. These are poor people and yet it hasn’t stopped them from having children. It’s also possible, if not likely, that the number of children in a family offer some security in them bringing in whatever is needed to survive. Of course the obvious question is why is there even such a thing as poor people?
Gordon Arta
1 year ago
‘More than 146 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, can’t get enough to eat, putting them in serious danger from disease and starvation.’ Red Cross
India’s water table is falling, it’s major dams are at 27% of capacity, and water scarcity is pushing farming to crisis point. Hindustan Times. ‘Water resources are becoming increasingly scarce in the ME, especially for the millions there who already lack access to sanitary water. Some of these countries, including Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, are facing unique problems.’ The Water Project.
The head of the World Food Program warned the UN Security Council 2 years ago:
“I’d like to lay out for you very clearly what the world is facing at this very moment. At the same time while dealing with a COVID-19 pandemic, we are also on the brink of a hunger pandemic.”
More than 30% of the world’s fisheries are seriously depleted, and falling oceanic oxygen levels are adversely impacting the reproduction and survival rates for sealife.
But never mind the facts, if Malthus was wrong then, it can’t ever happen.
I am very skeptical that food shortages in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia are due to resource constraints. I would suggest political constraints are the real reason for any food shortages.
Agricultural production has exploded across the globe. India now exports agricultural products. 50 years ago it was starving, but stable govt and fertilizer have had a remarkable impact on food production.
Fisheries are definitely an issue, what I consider the biggest environment issue facing the world. Indiscriminate over fishing has seriously depleted fish stocks across the globe.
“But never mind the facts, if Malthus was wrong then, it can’t ever happen.”
None of the facts you cite are proxies for global trends, which contradict your general position on this. It is simply not plausible to cite the poorest regions of the planet as evidence that the technological progress that is still improving yields and logistics everywhere else is somehow failing: in fact the intellectual dishonesty involved stands out like a sore thumb.
As for the final line the reason we can be confident Malthus was wrong isn’t the inductive reasoning involved in observing that he has been up to now and therefore he will keep being wrong. The reason is that we understand why he was wrong, and the explanations as to why – namely technological progress that is still in place and still improving humanity’s ability to survive – provoke the rational conclusion that the Malthus fallacy isn’t something that can be rescued by the next disaster (no matter how much some people would evidently like to see that happen).
Wasn’t there a pre-Industrial Revolution thinker who, failing to foresee railways and motor cars, predicted the civilized world would be buried under horse manure?
I recall reading somewhere that someone had predicted New York would be buried under 10 feet of horse manure, yes. Can’t remember who, but he stands alongside a whole bunch of other people who knew how to add up numbers on the back of an envelope but don’t understand economics.
I recall reading somewhere that someone had predicted New York would be buried under 10 feet of horse manure, yes. Can’t remember who, but he stands alongside a whole bunch of other people who knew how to add up numbers on the back of an envelope but don’t understand economics.
Wasn’t there a pre-Industrial Revolution thinker who, failing to foresee railways and motor cars, predicted the civilized world would be buried under horse manure?
On mainstream media we are rarely shown places in Africa,Asia or South America as other than basket cases. It’s very misleading and it boosts our White Saviour idea and it’s actually very patronizing. I once saw a tv show about Ethiopia that totally changed the mental picture I had of that place. For a start Adis Ababa was full of Italian style coffee shops ( a legacy from the past) and they were well patronised by the city dwellers,it was just like Paris.
In fact in the city and the country there was a lot going on. But we only get shown people squatting in the dust covered in flies. Because that image suits someone’s agenda.
I am very skeptical that food shortages in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia are due to resource constraints. I would suggest political constraints are the real reason for any food shortages.
Agricultural production has exploded across the globe. India now exports agricultural products. 50 years ago it was starving, but stable govt and fertilizer have had a remarkable impact on food production.
Fisheries are definitely an issue, what I consider the biggest environment issue facing the world. Indiscriminate over fishing has seriously depleted fish stocks across the globe.
“But never mind the facts, if Malthus was wrong then, it can’t ever happen.”
None of the facts you cite are proxies for global trends, which contradict your general position on this. It is simply not plausible to cite the poorest regions of the planet as evidence that the technological progress that is still improving yields and logistics everywhere else is somehow failing: in fact the intellectual dishonesty involved stands out like a sore thumb.
As for the final line the reason we can be confident Malthus was wrong isn’t the inductive reasoning involved in observing that he has been up to now and therefore he will keep being wrong. The reason is that we understand why he was wrong, and the explanations as to why – namely technological progress that is still in place and still improving humanity’s ability to survive – provoke the rational conclusion that the Malthus fallacy isn’t something that can be rescued by the next disaster (no matter how much some people would evidently like to see that happen).
On mainstream media we are rarely shown places in Africa,Asia or South America as other than basket cases. It’s very misleading and it boosts our White Saviour idea and it’s actually very patronizing. I once saw a tv show about Ethiopia that totally changed the mental picture I had of that place. For a start Adis Ababa was full of Italian style coffee shops ( a legacy from the past) and they were well patronised by the city dwellers,it was just like Paris.
In fact in the city and the country there was a lot going on. But we only get shown people squatting in the dust covered in flies. Because that image suits someone’s agenda.
Gordon Arta
1 year ago
‘More than 146 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, can’t get enough to eat, putting them in serious danger from disease and starvation.’ Red Cross
India’s water table is falling, it’s major dams are at 27% of capacity, and water scarcity is pushing farming to crisis point. Hindustan Times. ‘Water resources are becoming increasingly scarce in the ME, especially for the millions there who already lack access to sanitary water. Some of these countries, including Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, are facing unique problems.’ The Water Project.
The head of the World Food Program warned the UN Security Council 2 years ago:
“I’d like to lay out for you very clearly what the world is facing at this very moment. At the same time while dealing with a COVID-19 pandemic, we are also on the brink of a hunger pandemic.”
More than 30% of the world’s fisheries are seriously depleted, and falling oceanic oxygen levels are adversely impacting the reproduction and survival rates for sealife.
But never mind the facts, if Malthus was wrong then, it can’t ever happen.
Henry Haslam
1 year ago
The future is unknown. Predictions should be treated with care. The case for looking after our environment and our planet better than we have been can be made by looking at the past and the present (as in my The Earth and Us). If the case is based on predictions, it is open to argument and disbelief.
Henry Haslam
1 year ago
The future is unknown. Predictions should be treated with care. The case for looking after our environment and our planet better than we have been can be made by looking at the past and the present (as in my The Earth and Us). If the case is based on predictions, it is open to argument and disbelief.
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
I think a largely ignored aspect of this issue is the extent to which Malthus and Ehrlich are appealing to deeply ingrained fears developed over millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of history. It doesn’t take much to push us in the directions our intuitions and instincts tell us to go, and in this case, our intuition and instinct tell us that there must be some limitation to how many people can be fed/housed/etc. because this has always been true before. Starvation and famine are familiar threats that have always existed and we fear them as much as our ancestors did Our history is littered with examples of mass starvation, plague, famine, wars over land and resources, and so on. Competition over scarce resources is practically hard-coded into our DNA. Relative abundance, where the fear of starvation is relegated to an afterthought through much of the world, is quite new, and the explanations for why we have such abundance are complicated, unintuitive, and far more difficult to grasp than the simple notion of X amount of food being divided between Y number of mouths to feed. We have ample, conclusive evidence that these simple calculations simply do not reflect our reality, indeed the author lists some of this, but that barely puts a dent in the fear we have. The author himself, despite all the evidence he himself cites, seems unwilling to entirely dismiss Malthusianism, turning to more modern, not yet thoroughly discredited environmental arguments. Moreover, no amount of evidence can ever erase the basic fears of human nature. People have little rational reason to fear wild animals of any kind, most especially predators like sharks/wolves/etc. but people still fear them because it’s instinct. We can pile on with mountains of evidence and studies and whatever else and people will still fear something like Malthusian collapse for the same reason we fear wolves, snakes, spiders, and other things that pose far less real risk to us than the foods and medicines we imbibe or the vehicles we drive. The point of emphasis is that this should not guide our rational thinking and policy making. The fact that Ehrlich and his ilk have a following is not at all surprising. The fact that they have a political following is also unsurprising. The problem only arises when they reach a democratic majority or come to power through some other means and begin to impose their dogma on everyone. Then they are no better than the Ayatollahs or the Communists or any other fundamentalist religion.
I think a largely ignored aspect of this issue is the extent to which Malthus and Ehrlich are appealing to deeply ingrained fears developed over millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of history. It doesn’t take much to push us in the directions our intuitions and instincts tell us to go, and in this case, our intuition and instinct tell us that there must be some limitation to how many people can be fed/housed/etc. because this has always been true before. Starvation and famine are familiar threats that have always existed and we fear them as much as our ancestors did Our history is littered with examples of mass starvation, plague, famine, wars over land and resources, and so on. Competition over scarce resources is practically hard-coded into our DNA. Relative abundance, where the fear of starvation is relegated to an afterthought through much of the world, is quite new, and the explanations for why we have such abundance are complicated, unintuitive, and far more difficult to grasp than the simple notion of X amount of food being divided between Y number of mouths to feed. We have ample, conclusive evidence that these simple calculations simply do not reflect our reality, indeed the author lists some of this, but that barely puts a dent in the fear we have. The author himself, despite all the evidence he himself cites, seems unwilling to entirely dismiss Malthusianism, turning to more modern, not yet thoroughly discredited environmental arguments. Moreover, no amount of evidence can ever erase the basic fears of human nature. People have little rational reason to fear wild animals of any kind, most especially predators like sharks/wolves/etc. but people still fear them because it’s instinct. We can pile on with mountains of evidence and studies and whatever else and people will still fear something like Malthusian collapse for the same reason we fear wolves, snakes, spiders, and other things that pose far less real risk to us than the foods and medicines we imbibe or the vehicles we drive. The point of emphasis is that this should not guide our rational thinking and policy making. The fact that Ehrlich and his ilk have a following is not at all surprising. The fact that they have a political following is also unsurprising. The problem only arises when they reach a democratic majority or come to power through some other means and begin to impose their dogma on everyone. Then they are no better than the Ayatollahs or the Communists or any other fundamentalist religion.
Terry M
1 year ago
Elon Musk replied: “His Population Bomb book might be the most damaging anti-human thing ever written.”
No, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is more damaging.
In terms of actual deaths directly attributable to policy choices resulting from the book, you’re probably correct. Silent Spring is usually directly credited as being the reason DDT is no longer used for mosquito control. DDT had a measurable effect on deaths from malaria and other mosquito borne diseases, thus it is fairly simple math to work out the numbers of excess deaths resulting from the ban of DDT. We in the global north basically prioritized birds over the lives of our fellow human beings in the global south.
Yes,it’s reckoned millions of Africans have died since then and it has kept Africa in poverty but I’ve read that there are USA state documents,in the archive somewhere, that it was post WW2 policy to keep Africa from developing and possibly challenging the USA dollar supremacy. That was why they had Gaddafi taken out. He was about to launch a pan African currency based on Gold. That is what this Ukraine war is about (as well as enriching the arms dealers). Freedom and Democracy I don’t think so.
Yes,it’s reckoned millions of Africans have died since then and it has kept Africa in poverty but I’ve read that there are USA state documents,in the archive somewhere, that it was post WW2 policy to keep Africa from developing and possibly challenging the USA dollar supremacy. That was why they had Gaddafi taken out. He was about to launch a pan African currency based on Gold. That is what this Ukraine war is about (as well as enriching the arms dealers). Freedom and Democracy I don’t think so.
Started it all off. We reached a point where a good compromise was in place. Some of the early green warnings were good. And once farmers got over an initial enthusiasm for these wonder substances they used them sparingly so as not to waste money. I’m not sure exactiy when THEY whoever THEY are cottoned on that Environmental Concern would be the ideal Front for their nasty aims.
In terms of actual deaths directly attributable to policy choices resulting from the book, you’re probably correct. Silent Spring is usually directly credited as being the reason DDT is no longer used for mosquito control. DDT had a measurable effect on deaths from malaria and other mosquito borne diseases, thus it is fairly simple math to work out the numbers of excess deaths resulting from the ban of DDT. We in the global north basically prioritized birds over the lives of our fellow human beings in the global south.
Started it all off. We reached a point where a good compromise was in place. Some of the early green warnings were good. And once farmers got over an initial enthusiasm for these wonder substances they used them sparingly so as not to waste money. I’m not sure exactiy when THEY whoever THEY are cottoned on that Environmental Concern would be the ideal Front for their nasty aims.
Terry M
1 year ago
Elon Musk replied: “His Population Bomb book might be the most damaging anti-human thing ever written.”
No, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is more damaging.
Valerie Taplin
1 year ago
Had contraception been invented at the time, I think Malthus would have promoted it, as the best way of ensuring no unwanted children were brought into the world. There is no doubt that this planet has finite resources and responsible self-restraint is preferable to being culled – by nature, or the result of our excesses.
The problem with that logic is that ‘finite’ is a rather broad target. Ten is a finite number. So is ten thousand. So is ten trillion. So is 10 raised to the hundredth power. Saying the earth’s resources are ‘finite’ is thus not particularly useful until one narrows down the range considerably. To date, all attempts to specify a range at which we will ‘run out’ of resources like food/water/etc. have been demonstrably, spectacularly wrong. That’s half the point of the article. The actual amount of any given resource humanity can produce at any given time is a complex calculation that includes known but very complex economic systems, methods of extraction, known sources, recycling potential, and so one, plus any number of unknown unknowns such as undiscovered sources, new extraction methods, better recycling techniques, or even technology that renders some resources obsolete while creating a need for others that are not currently considered important. In 1950, for example, nobody worried about the global supply of lithium or cobalt, but now we do. Who knows what will be considered a critical resource in the year 2100? Who can say we won’t be mining asteroids for unobtainium or building orbital farms two hundred years from now.
I agree that we don’t understand the true limits or resiliency of Earth and its inhabitants. Finding out conclusively would be a far worse environmental disaster than anything we’ve witnessed so far, and one very few of us, as a species, might remain here to reckon with. Outsourcing our runaway consumption to the galaxy and beyond might become possible and even necessary or wise (given the alternative), but I don’t see why we should flirt with extra-maximum resource extraction, to an often needless degree, as though we can be confident that unobtanium will be become obtainable when it’s needed.
The air is already very bad in many parts of India and China, and here on the Pacific Coast during our extended and exacerbated fire seasons. Once-cleaner waterways are poisoned. That mightn’t pose a primary threat to most people, who can filter what they drink and use waterways with care. But a major die-off of non-human river and ocean life would begin to pose an existential threat to us, even if we deny our deeper interdependency.
Even at our current pace, I tend to think it will take a very long time to end life on Earth through our own collective mismanagement. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be wary of hubris or technological overreach. Human posterity in a techno-engineered bubble, perhaps on some unearthly colony, would be better than extinction, but not human in any recognizable sense–leaving aside all the organisms who’d be rendered “obsolete”.
Are the melting polar icecaps threatening coastal cities and the rapid devastation of the Amazon rainforest something of little concern, something we shouldn’t try harder to mitigate?
I’m not claiming it’s entirely Anthropogenic or purely under our control–or even “all about us”–but we can do something more to limit and uplift ourselves. As with individual lives, our “later years” (eons) of existence as a a species could be pretty good ones or more of a grim march toward welcome death. We have group influence over how that hypothetical future might look. And some things about our air, water, soil, and weather are pretty bad already–not a scientific assessment, but hard to call untrue.
I admire the Chinese for coming straight out and saying they intend to mine on the moon for minerals and no garbage about we are doing it to expand the horizons of mankind. Of course once they get there,and they will,this is Chinese people,they are not losers,then the USA will get into a huge kefuffle,we was there first,we planted a flag,it’s ours. And the lawyers will start to get rich (er).
I agree that we don’t understand the true limits or resiliency of Earth and its inhabitants. Finding out conclusively would be a far worse environmental disaster than anything we’ve witnessed so far, and one very few of us, as a species, might remain here to reckon with. Outsourcing our runaway consumption to the galaxy and beyond might become possible and even necessary or wise (given the alternative), but I don’t see why we should flirt with extra-maximum resource extraction, to an often needless degree, as though we can be confident that unobtanium will be become obtainable when it’s needed.
The air is already very bad in many parts of India and China, and here on the Pacific Coast during our extended and exacerbated fire seasons. Once-cleaner waterways are poisoned. That mightn’t pose a primary threat to most people, who can filter what they drink and use waterways with care. But a major die-off of non-human river and ocean life would begin to pose an existential threat to us, even if we deny our deeper interdependency.
Even at our current pace, I tend to think it will take a very long time to end life on Earth through our own collective mismanagement. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be wary of hubris or technological overreach. Human posterity in a techno-engineered bubble, perhaps on some unearthly colony, would be better than extinction, but not human in any recognizable sense–leaving aside all the organisms who’d be rendered “obsolete”.
Are the melting polar icecaps threatening coastal cities and the rapid devastation of the Amazon rainforest something of little concern, something we shouldn’t try harder to mitigate?
I’m not claiming it’s entirely Anthropogenic or purely under our control–or even “all about us”–but we can do something more to limit and uplift ourselves. As with individual lives, our “later years” (eons) of existence as a a species could be pretty good ones or more of a grim march toward welcome death. We have group influence over how that hypothetical future might look. And some things about our air, water,
Main Edition
US
FR
We live in very strange times.
Ehrlich and Malthus are basically death cult leaders. There will always be people who have an extremely pessimistic outlook on life, for whatever reason, and there will always be grifters who exploit this weakness.
Ehrlich isn’t the founder of climate change hysteria, but it fits nicely with his world view and it pays well. In fact, he has received more than $2.6 million in climate science awards given out by a dizzying number of NGOs. Add this to speaking fees and he has a very lucrative grift going on.
I understand why 60 Minutes features him. The legacy media is broken and chumps like Ehrlich drive ratings. Afterall, no one cares about good news – that the Great Barrier Reef has the most coral growth since records started 36 years ago, or that 80% of Pacific islands have grown larger since aerial records began after WWII.
What baffles me is that political leaders pay attention to him, or even the general public. It honestly takes five minutes to fact check this guy’s utterly rancid track record.
Not really familiar with the work of Ehrlich and Malthus, but based on this no need to learn more. They seem to be dangerous quacks.
But I do sense a bit of agenda behind this article, associating certain issue with people like these to disqualify the issue itself.
I may be wrong but I think our wonderful planet and humanity has major, urgent issue with sustainability.
Yes, we can feed ten billion people and seems likely that population will plateau around there. But problem were never the poor but the wealthy. I mean wealthy in the global context, probably everyone reading and commenting here, so myself included.
Farmers in India, China or Africa are not the issue. The problem is that western middle class lifestyle cannot be sustained for 10 billion people. Energy and resource intensive existence, like I enjoy myself, is attractive and comfortable, nice heated home, big car in front, devices and stuff from all over the world. Avocado from Chile, New Zealand lamb, Spanish tomatoes…
Study following wildlife from 1970 to 2020 found that on average 70% of wildlife populations is gone. 70% of all wildlife on planet Earth gone in 50 years! Some species have gone completely some are fairing better, but how can one not be shocked by this. Damage in the preceding period e.g. 1800-1970 is difficult to quantify but certainly equally disastrous.
Data on global warming is increasingly clear, plastic is on track to be more prevalent in worlds oceans than fish, we keep claiming any resource we can get hold of from Artic to Patagonia.
All these issues are cumulative, certainly accelerated since Industrial Revolution, and this cumulative impact of Western developed countries is far, far higher than the developing world. But they are following our lead and we need to find strength and leadership to change something. Head in the sand is not going to help, and let’s not pretend we are concerned for the poor. We are concerned for our lifestyles and are happy to sacrifice the poor to keep it, this is as far from humanity as it gets.
A tricky situation. Because it’s Capitalism that is supposedly behind our problems, but it’s Capitalism that lifts people out of poverty.
I think it’s more fundamental issue, and Capitalism is not a sole reason for the situation nor the sole solution to poverty.
Fundamentally, we have developed science, technology and industry allowing is to master the resources around us and create wealth, this is happening everywhere regardless of formal social preferences. Unreasonable and irresponsible use of this technology seems to be leading us down some paths that are not sustainable. E.g. we can easily destroy most fish stocks with big boats equipped with sonars, GPS etc. But how do we understand, agree and honour sustainable level of use, so we can create wealth, but not leave desert for generations that will follow?
“Unreasonable and irresponsible use of this technology seems to be leading us down some paths that are not sustainable.”
That’s very true. In the past technology in its embryonic form had a very limited impact on resources and the environment. But technology doesn’t have a mind of its own, not yet anyway. It’s a tool and it’s a tool of Capitalism. If it’s not Capitalism behind our problem then what? Maybe you might say human nature, but then Capitalism is an aspect of human nature. Out of interest what else besides Capitalism might pull people out of overtly?
Not sure how you define Capitalism, e.g. I guess in some ways China today is formally Communist, but in economy more Capitalist.
Soviet Union use of technology was not any less brutal for environment, then in its western counterparts, although probably less effective in creating wealth.
I have no ideological preference. For me it’s the content, not the form of governance that matters.
How do you pull people out of poverty? Well that’s slightly loaded question, with obviously no simple answer. Again, for me it’s not about ideology, it comes down to education (not just degrees, but skills), rule of law, reduced corruption, rewarding active value creation and not just passive leveraging of assets, etc.
“How do you pull people out of poverty?”
Whatever way we look at pulling people out of poverty it still requires an economic element. In a socialist system the government still needs money for whatever objectives we think important. Only Capitalism produces a surplus that can be taxed. I cannot think of another way. We can be nicer to each other, help the unfortunate or the vulnerable, but without that surplus it’s all sitting around a table coming up with good ideas.
Talking in terms of capitalism vs socialism misses the point. There are no socialist societies anyway. The issue is endless growth and continuing increase in consumption. We just need an economic system which doesn’t require this endless grow. Some sort of tamed or seriously regulated capitalism might fit the bill. But of course nothing is suppose to get in the way of our God-given right to the ‘free market’
Talking in terms of capitalism vs socialism misses the point. There are no socialist societies anyway. The issue is endless growth and continuing increase in consumption. We just need an economic system which doesn’t require this endless grow. Some sort of tamed or seriously regulated capitalism might fit the bill. But of course nothing is suppose to get in the way of our God-given right to the ‘free market’
“How do you pull people out of poverty?”
Whatever way we look at pulling people out of poverty it still requires an economic element. In a socialist system the government still needs money for whatever objectives we think important. Only Capitalism produces a surplus that can be taxed. I cannot think of another way. We can be nicer to each other, help the unfortunate or the vulnerable, but without that surplus it’s all sitting around a table coming up with good ideas.
At a national leve we can see examples of Keynesian “mixed economies” where a safety net stops the worst instincts of the left getting traction and rule of law stops the Hayekian survival of the meanest brigade from extracting all wealth. There aren’t many though and when you factor in the global every nation for themselves set up you are back to “tooth and claw” capitalism. Whatever happens next will be new paradigms for this – steps back as well as forward and capatalism will exist but will be as different from the present as the 1700s is from now.
Hayek believed in social welfare, his gripe was that planned economies were foolish and, apart from very small aspects of life, we were better off letting market forces deliver or needs.
Not really survival of the meanest
Overall i am a fan of his work up to a point which is: his thinking is such that on balance he didn’t mind if the meanest prevailed – there is a point where liberty for one is certain to be misery for another. Apply his thinking to today’s issues about consensual sex and drug use and he’s pretty out-there – more Anton LaVey than Milton Friedman.
Fair point Mike. One difficulty in life is that those we think have good even great ideas have Achilles Heals. I really think liberal free markets are likely to be a better basis for running a society but ahh I can’t really come up with a way of supporting those who fall off the edge and monopolies are hard to deal with.
Fair point Mike. One difficulty in life is that those we think have good even great ideas have Achilles Heals. I really think liberal free markets are likely to be a better basis for running a society but ahh I can’t really come up with a way of supporting those who fall off the edge and monopolies are hard to deal with.
Finally, the voice of reason
I only get called that after buying someone a pint.
I only get called that after buying someone a pint.
Overall i am a fan of his work up to a point which is: his thinking is such that on balance he didn’t mind if the meanest prevailed – there is a point where liberty for one is certain to be misery for another. Apply his thinking to today’s issues about consensual sex and drug use and he’s pretty out-there – more Anton LaVey than Milton Friedman.
Finally, the voice of reason
Hayek believed in social welfare, his gripe was that planned economies were foolish and, apart from very small aspects of life, we were better off letting market forces deliver or needs.
Not really survival of the meanest
I think you’ve moved from the idea that Capitalism is “organic” (on another comments board) to the suggestion that it’s an innate human trait. Do I misunderstand you?
In the loose sense of the long history of trading items within and between tribes, perhaps it is. Tribalism and Communism (in the sense of “communal”) would also qualify by such broad definitional standards.
Are you using “capital” as a synonym for private ownership or human greed? I’d genuinely like to know as I agree with a portion of what I understand you to be claiming.
“I think you’ve moved from the idea that Capitalism is “organic” … to the suggestion that it’s an innate human trait. Do I misunderstand you?”
I think it’s more likely that I’m all over the place.
By organic I mean that it’s something that’s evolved with us, or through us, or by us. Feedback loops are a way of looking at it. Capitalism doesn’t exist in wild nature. It’s something similar to the way language has developed. It’s not like someone said “I think Capitalism sounds like a good idea, let’s work it up a bit.” Which is the case with Communism and also why it doesn’t work.
Some are going to jump in and suggest that I’m saying Capitalism is natural, which it is, but in the same sense that language is, not in the sense of the balance of nature, which is probably why my use of “organic” seems a little off.
Its interesting that the CCP has found a way to use it. Even if so much business is government controlled the principles still apply.
Tribalism, communal, you could find an analogy in that with the early development of language.
“Are you using “capital” as a synonym for private ownership or human greed?”
I notice you use the word “Capital”, presumably instead of Capitalism. I don’t usually break it up that much. To me that’s like using the word syntax instead of language. When I’m in a good mood it means private ownership. When I’m in a bad mood it means greed. But as I hoped to make clear earlier, we have to take the good with the bad because that’s who we are. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and wrestle it into better shape. But too much fiddling with things nearly always breaks it.
Fine man. Organic means man-made when your in a certain mood and my use of the root word capital instead of the derived word Capitalism is…what, highfalutin or fancy? (Cavemen had modern political isms?).
All that explanation in service of a philosophy of “What can you really do about it, any of it?”
That does seem a bit all over the place but I’ll take a page out of your book as printed and look for the upside in the mixed bag.
“Organic means man-made when your in a certain mood”
Nope, not what I meant. I thought you were genuinely interested. I guess I was wrong. What satisfaction does it give you to twist what I said?
“my use of the root word capital instead of the derived word Capitalism is…what, highfalutin or fancy?”
I made no comment on your use of “capital”, I just mentioned how I use Capitalism.
“All that explanation in service of a philosophy of “What can you really do about it, any of it?”
And that’s a weak attempt at trivialising what I said,
I don’t want to trivialize or oversimplify your views as I perceive them. I admit I’ve done a little of that, and think you have with some of my remarks too–but I’d rather not just trade accusations.
When you declared yourself to be “all over the place” I thought that to be, in part, a convenient catch-all excuse: fiercely opinionated one minute, mood-dependent and exploratory the next. But in another way it was refreshing that you admitted some inconsistency and perhaps open-mindedness; I admit and claim as much too.
Though I’m not ready to trade it for anything else on a a national scale, I don’t agree with your notion of the organic nature or inevitability of capitalism as a evolutionary stage (let alone some fully realized state of affairs). I also take your collected comments to suggest that major things can’t change much for the better in the real world. Maybe I’m misreading you?
I’m not fervently attached to my impressions and opinions, or at least try not to be. See you around the boards.
All over the place means I can’t decide whether I like Capitalism or not.
Fair enough. That helps me understand your perspective better. I’m not all in or all out either.
The world is confusing, being all over the place is most honourable
Fair enough. That helps me understand your perspective better. I’m not all in or all out either.
The world is confusing, being all over the place is most honourable
All over the place means I can’t decide whether I like Capitalism or not.
I don’t want to trivialize or oversimplify your views as I perceive them. I admit I’ve done a little of that, and think you have with some of my remarks too–but I’d rather not just trade accusations.
When you declared yourself to be “all over the place” I thought that to be, in part, a convenient catch-all excuse: fiercely opinionated one minute, mood-dependent and exploratory the next. But in another way it was refreshing that you admitted some inconsistency and perhaps open-mindedness; I admit and claim as much too.
Though I’m not ready to trade it for anything else on a a national scale, I don’t agree with your notion of the organic nature or inevitability of capitalism as a evolutionary stage (let alone some fully realized state of affairs). I also take your collected comments to suggest that major things can’t change much for the better in the real world. Maybe I’m misreading you?
I’m not fervently attached to my impressions and opinions, or at least try not to be. See you around the boards.
“Organic means man-made when your in a certain mood”
Nope, not what I meant. I thought you were genuinely interested. I guess I was wrong. What satisfaction does it give you to twist what I said?
“my use of the root word capital instead of the derived word Capitalism is…what, highfalutin or fancy?”
I made no comment on your use of “capital”, I just mentioned how I use Capitalism.
“All that explanation in service of a philosophy of “What can you really do about it, any of it?”
And that’s a weak attempt at trivialising what I said,
Fine man. Organic means man-made when your in a certain mood and my use of the root word capital instead of the derived word Capitalism is…what, highfalutin or fancy? (Cavemen had modern political isms?).
All that explanation in service of a philosophy of “What can you really do about it, any of it?”
That does seem a bit all over the place but I’ll take a page out of your book as printed and look for the upside in the mixed bag.
“I think you’ve moved from the idea that Capitalism is “organic” … to the suggestion that it’s an innate human trait. Do I misunderstand you?”
I think it’s more likely that I’m all over the place.
By organic I mean that it’s something that’s evolved with us, or through us, or by us. Feedback loops are a way of looking at it. Capitalism doesn’t exist in wild nature. It’s something similar to the way language has developed. It’s not like someone said “I think Capitalism sounds like a good idea, let’s work it up a bit.” Which is the case with Communism and also why it doesn’t work.
Some are going to jump in and suggest that I’m saying Capitalism is natural, which it is, but in the same sense that language is, not in the sense of the balance of nature, which is probably why my use of “organic” seems a little off.
Its interesting that the CCP has found a way to use it. Even if so much business is government controlled the principles still apply.
Tribalism, communal, you could find an analogy in that with the early development of language.
“Are you using “capital” as a synonym for private ownership or human greed?”
I notice you use the word “Capital”, presumably instead of Capitalism. I don’t usually break it up that much. To me that’s like using the word syntax instead of language. When I’m in a good mood it means private ownership. When I’m in a bad mood it means greed. But as I hoped to make clear earlier, we have to take the good with the bad because that’s who we are. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and wrestle it into better shape. But too much fiddling with things nearly always breaks it.
Technology is good for the environment. We use less resources to produce even more products. Just look at ag production since the widespread adoption of fertilizer.
Technology is good for everything, used wisely.
That “used wisely” is such a huge qualification. Are we using our most powerful technologies wisely?
You want to argue about this?
Edit: let’s not.
Not at the moment Brett, no. I’d be willing to have a real argument or civil conversation but I don’t think that’s what you’re offering me.
Agreed. Let’s not. See you next time.
Not at the moment Brett, no. I’d be willing to have a real argument or civil conversation but I don’t think that’s what you’re offering me.
Agreed. Let’s not. See you next time.
You want to argue about this?
Edit: let’s not.
That “used wisely” is such a huge qualification. Are we using our most powerful technologies wisely?
Fertilizer in its simple form has been used since the dawn of Neolithic times, if not earlier. But some hyper-engineered fertilizers have contributed to poisoning of groundwater, greenhouse gases, and habitat destruction in many places.
More balance, less technological utopianism please! Quality of life–for all life , but even for humankind–is not correctly reduced to quantity of product and material comforts alone.
I’d agree that our technological advancements constitute a net positive by far, but that doesn’t mean everything is good and safe to the point where we ought to just pipe down and trust the experts, plus whichever interests they serve.
“our technological advancements constitute a net positive by far”
“That “net positive” is such a huge qualification.
Ok, I’ll take that. Got a chuckle if not a LOL from me.
Ok, I’ll take that. Got a chuckle if not a LOL from me.
Hmm. Isn’t that whet Ehrlich is telling us to do? Put trust in experts – even if they are repeatedly wrong.
I totally agree that Ehrlich was and remains mistaken and deserves to be ignored unless he changes his tune.
I’m trying to push back against a strain of inverse extremism I detect in some comments, call it Technological Utopianism or Climate Contrarianism: “Relax, the geniuses are on the job and it’s impossible for us destroy the Earth (and if we do, Mars awaits)”.
I totally agree that Ehrlich was and remains mistaken and deserves to be ignored unless he changes his tune.
I’m trying to push back against a strain of inverse extremism I detect in some comments, call it Technological Utopianism or Climate Contrarianism: “Relax, the geniuses are on the job and it’s impossible for us destroy the Earth (and if we do, Mars awaits)”.
“our technological advancements constitute a net positive by far”
“That “net positive” is such a huge qualification.
Hmm. Isn’t that whet Ehrlich is telling us to do? Put trust in experts – even if they are repeatedly wrong.
Technology is good for everything, used wisely.
Fertilizer in its simple form has been used since the dawn of Neolithic times, if not earlier. But some hyper-engineered fertilizers have contributed to poisoning of groundwater, greenhouse gases, and habitat destruction in many places.
More balance, less technological utopianism please! Quality of life–for all life , but even for humankind–is not correctly reduced to quantity of product and material comforts alone.
I’d agree that our technological advancements constitute a net positive by far, but that doesn’t mean everything is good and safe to the point where we ought to just pipe down and trust the experts, plus whichever interests they serve.
Not sure how you define Capitalism, e.g. I guess in some ways China today is formally Communist, but in economy more Capitalist.
Soviet Union use of technology was not any less brutal for environment, then in its western counterparts, although probably less effective in creating wealth.
I have no ideological preference. For me it’s the content, not the form of governance that matters.
How do you pull people out of poverty? Well that’s slightly loaded question, with obviously no simple answer. Again, for me it’s not about ideology, it comes down to education (not just degrees, but skills), rule of law, reduced corruption, rewarding active value creation and not just passive leveraging of assets, etc.
At a national leve we can see examples of Keynesian “mixed economies” where a safety net stops the worst instincts of the left getting traction and rule of law stops the Hayekian survival of the meanest brigade from extracting all wealth. There aren’t many though and when you factor in the global every nation for themselves set up you are back to “tooth and claw” capitalism. Whatever happens next will be new paradigms for this – steps back as well as forward and capatalism will exist but will be as different from the present as the 1700s is from now.
I think you’ve moved from the idea that Capitalism is “organic” (on another comments board) to the suggestion that it’s an innate human trait. Do I misunderstand you?
In the loose sense of the long history of trading items within and between tribes, perhaps it is. Tribalism and Communism (in the sense of “communal”) would also qualify by such broad definitional standards.
Are you using “capital” as a synonym for private ownership or human greed? I’d genuinely like to know as I agree with a portion of what I understand you to be claiming.
Technology is good for the environment. We use less resources to produce even more products. Just look at ag production since the widespread adoption of fertilizer.
“Unreasonable and irresponsible use of this technology seems to be leading us down some paths that are not sustainable.”
That’s very true. In the past technology in its embryonic form had a very limited impact on resources and the environment. But technology doesn’t have a mind of its own, not yet anyway. It’s a tool and it’s a tool of Capitalism. If it’s not Capitalism behind our problem then what? Maybe you might say human nature, but then Capitalism is an aspect of human nature. Out of interest what else besides Capitalism might pull people out of overtly?
I think it’s more fundamental issue, and Capitalism is not a sole reason for the situation nor the sole solution to poverty.
Fundamentally, we have developed science, technology and industry allowing is to master the resources around us and create wealth, this is happening everywhere regardless of formal social preferences. Unreasonable and irresponsible use of this technology seems to be leading us down some paths that are not sustainable. E.g. we can easily destroy most fish stocks with big boats equipped with sonars, GPS etc. But how do we understand, agree and honour sustainable level of use, so we can create wealth, but not leave desert for generations that will follow?
Study following wildlife from 1970 to 2020 found that on average 70% of wildlife populations is gone. 70% of all wildlife on planet Earth gone in 50 years!
Bull-roar. We have more deer, wolves, polar bears, coyotes, etc. than we have had for 100 years in the US.
Nevertheless, I agree that we should continue to protect wild habitats and species. I see species as an irreplaceable resource of genetic information that will likely benefit the world as we learn to use DNA better every year.
https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/2022/10/13/almost-70-of-earths-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals/
Report is not perfect, doesn’t cover all species, but does follow thousands of populations across all continents.
Some of the species you mentioned were almost extinct in 1800s, now we have few more, which is great, a lot of other have been completely extinct, none left. There were millions of Buffalos, then went to almost zero, saved in last minute, now there are some thousands, still 1-3% of what they were, just a 200-300 years ago.
The fact that some of the visible species have a bit of protected space is great, but most are in steep decline as we left them little space to leave and not much to eat, or we are hunting them, poisoning as pest etc.
We are taking more and more space for farming, housing, mining etc.
I suspect that the Irish Times article is full of gently cooked numbers. The use of the phrase “wiped out” and the fact that the article never specifies whether it’s referring to individual organisms or local populations or entire species is suspicous. It seems to be derived entirely from a press-release related to the recent bio-diversity conference in Canada. It’s advertising, not science.
I’m all for preserving and re-wilding the planet’s flora and fauna. In fact I feel strongly that people should get serious on a local level and stop going on about climate change or the most recent meeting of our feckless rulers.
We could all start planting trees. Today. Bringing back some of the tree cover that’s been lost since the Neo-lithic Age would have a positive effect on an untold number of species.
I would also be skeptical of where the report comes from. The World Wildlife Fund has a vested interest in creating alarm. If there is no crisis, there is no WWF. Funding disappears. This is not to say it’s inaccurate, but it should raise some red flags.
I would also note there is more forested areas in North America today than there was 100 years ago.
That has a lot of truth. Inside forests on the east coast I saw a lot of old stone fences — the sole reminders of farms once cleared and run but abandoned later to forest growth. You can see the same process at work on the west coast, although usually without the stone fences. I don’t know if that’s due to a smaller local supply of stones, or because those farmers had lost that British compulsion to build stone fences. In any case, yes, there’s a lot more tree cover, all over the country.
That has a lot of truth. Inside forests on the east coast I saw a lot of old stone fences — the sole reminders of farms once cleared and run but abandoned later to forest growth. You can see the same process at work on the west coast, although usually without the stone fences. I don’t know if that’s due to a smaller local supply of stones, or because those farmers had lost that British compulsion to build stone fences. In any case, yes, there’s a lot more tree cover, all over the country.
This is based on report from database managed by Institut for Zoology in London. Not saying all numbers are perfect, but it is serious institution working with local universities providing numbers for individual populations. You can find full report online, based on 30,000+ local populations of 5,000+ vertebrate species. They are looking at the change in population numbers.
When you think about it it’s not unexpected, animals need to live somewhere, and eat something. Decline in Europe and NA is slower, but as you say we have cut down our forests sooner and these declines were before.
Yes, please, let’s plant trees – a lot of them.
I would also be skeptical of where the report comes from. The World Wildlife Fund has a vested interest in creating alarm. If there is no crisis, there is no WWF. Funding disappears. This is not to say it’s inaccurate, but it should raise some red flags.
I would also note there is more forested areas in North America today than there was 100 years ago.
This is based on report from database managed by Institut for Zoology in London. Not saying all numbers are perfect, but it is serious institution working with local universities providing numbers for individual populations. You can find full report online, based on 30,000+ local populations of 5,000+ vertebrate species. They are looking at the change in population numbers.
When you think about it it’s not unexpected, animals need to live somewhere, and eat something. Decline in Europe and NA is slower, but as you say we have cut down our forests sooner and these declines were before.
Yes, please, let’s plant trees – a lot of them.
Although I agree we should all be worried about the future of wildlife species and biodiversity, we should also be a bit skeptical of reports like this issued by the World Wildlife Fund.
My initial question is what species are actually declining and how do they actually count the number? Seems like a daunting challenge to me. The article also fails to actually name even one of these species. Lots of questions IMO. Are there species increasing in numbers?
I would also note that the poorest regions of the world seem to be suffering the most when it comes to species decline. If we raise people out of poverty, and promote human flourishing, that will benefit all species.
Not saying we should take any report as ultimate truth. Of course, there can be bias and agenda behind. But also, there are serious institutions behind this, local universities monitoring populations. The headline number (69% decline) is average change in population size between some
32,000 populations monitored. You can find full report online, with some specific species, references with detailed statistics etc. Some have indeed increased, usually where there is focused conservation effort e.g. loggerhead turtles in Cyprus, Mountain Gorillas etc., but also for freshwater species reported decline is 83%.
Decline is indeed faster in poorer regions, but I think this is more because they are catching up with us, not because we are shining example of sustainability.
We should certainly help them get out of poverty, and also create incentives to do it the right way. Bulldozing through rainforest to make palm oil plantation creates wealth, but most of it is not going to the local population, and certainly has impact on the biodiversity.
Not saying we should take any report as ultimate truth. Of course, there can be bias and agenda behind. But also, there are serious institutions behind this, local universities monitoring populations. The headline number (69% decline) is average change in population size between some
32,000 populations monitored. You can find full report online, with some specific species, references with detailed statistics etc. Some have indeed increased, usually where there is focused conservation effort e.g. loggerhead turtles in Cyprus, Mountain Gorillas etc., but also for freshwater species reported decline is 83%.
Decline is indeed faster in poorer regions, but I think this is more because they are catching up with us, not because we are shining example of sustainability.
We should certainly help them get out of poverty, and also create incentives to do it the right way. Bulldozing through rainforest to make palm oil plantation creates wealth, but most of it is not going to the local population, and certainly has impact on the biodiversity.
I suspect that the Irish Times article is full of gently cooked numbers. The use of the phrase “wiped out” and the fact that the article never specifies whether it’s referring to individual organisms or local populations or entire species is suspicous. It seems to be derived entirely from a press-release related to the recent bio-diversity conference in Canada. It’s advertising, not science.
I’m all for preserving and re-wilding the planet’s flora and fauna. In fact I feel strongly that people should get serious on a local level and stop going on about climate change or the most recent meeting of our feckless rulers.
We could all start planting trees. Today. Bringing back some of the tree cover that’s been lost since the Neo-lithic Age would have a positive effect on an untold number of species.
Although I agree we should all be worried about the future of wildlife species and biodiversity, we should also be a bit skeptical of reports like this issued by the World Wildlife Fund.
My initial question is what species are actually declining and how do they actually count the number? Seems like a daunting challenge to me. The article also fails to actually name even one of these species. Lots of questions IMO. Are there species increasing in numbers?
I would also note that the poorest regions of the world seem to be suffering the most when it comes to species decline. If we raise people out of poverty, and promote human flourishing, that will benefit all species.
https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/2022/10/13/almost-70-of-earths-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals/
Report is not perfect, doesn’t cover all species, but does follow thousands of populations across all continents.
Some of the species you mentioned were almost extinct in 1800s, now we have few more, which is great, a lot of other have been completely extinct, none left. There were millions of Buffalos, then went to almost zero, saved in last minute, now there are some thousands, still 1-3% of what they were, just a 200-300 years ago.
The fact that some of the visible species have a bit of protected space is great, but most are in steep decline as we left them little space to leave and not much to eat, or we are hunting them, poisoning as pest etc.
We are taking more and more space for farming, housing, mining etc.
I agree we cannot have “growth forever” as something will have to give. Overall global population if forecasted to start falling as more societies reproduction factors go negative – AFAIK less than 1.5 babies per couple = negative? However that doesn’t mean we let people like Ehrlich or the WEF decides who lives and who dies – that will only lead to war at all points of the compass. Nowadays the “wretched of the earth” match the white man on the field of combat- Castro, Viet Cong, Taliban are proof. Sure battles can be won with tactical nuclear weapons, phosphorous bombs etc but that won’t win a war, only prolong it and worsten the rules of engagement.
To answer your question directly, I’m not shocked by all those statistics you named because I’m aware of geological history and the millions of species that thrived and went extinct long before humanity appeared, and I’m not particularly inclined to mourn for them. Whether human activity or asteroid impact, life will find a way. Imagining ourselves to be above and separate from nature is the problem. We’re not, and that cuts both directions. The extinction of one species, or many species, because of other species, is not new. See how invasive species can decimate native species. There is no moral imperative here. Nature doesn’t care how many species, or which ones, survive. Why should we?
It not question of being nice and caring it’s question of sustainability of the ecosystems on which we depend. We are completely dependent on other species for food, even air if you like. We know that once these ecosystems are disrupted whole domino effect can be triggered. Erosion destroys fertile land when we remove vegetation, also impacts water supply, pollinators are needed for plants, even humble earthworms are needed for soil… Those invasive species are almost always introduced by us, sometimes with devastating effect. If we empty oceans of fish and replace them with plastic, that has no effect on us? We are changing so much and so fast in our environment without understanding what will it do in the long term. I hope you agree that we cannot survive in the desert, even if we could I don’t think it would be much fun.
Yes, well said. There is deep interdependence across species and bioregions, aside from any ethical, let alone “tree-hugging” concerns.
Though I’m not against tree planting–bold stance I know–doing that for a seasonal job as a young man in western Canada help to show me that biodiversity, a true forest, cannot be restored on a human rather than geological timeline. Especially when logging companies devastate a huge swath of old-growth woods and plug one cash-crop species such as spruce of pine back in, then declare it “re-forested”. It’s important to preserve a robust percentage of what remains.
There are great minds working on solutions to life’s problems. Stop spinning and join the party!
Great minds are not neutral. They can move in any direction, it doesn’t necessarily have to be positive. Or do great minds only create good, subject to definition of course?
It could be that today’s great minds don’t like poor people and,having got ALL the money no longer need them to either provide labour or to rook from them what little money they have with shiny objects of desire. Maybe enough “great minds” now think poor people are a real nuisance.
It could be that today’s great minds don’t like poor people and,having got ALL the money no longer need them to either provide labour or to rook from them what little money they have with shiny objects of desire. Maybe enough “great minds” now think poor people are a real nuisance.
“Relax: The Committee for Life-Problem Solutions is watching over all of you and our great minds shall deliver all lesser lights. Why wouldn’t we take you to Mars with us after our techno-utopia has flatlined here on Earth?”
I understand that we aren’t conclusively doomed and that despair isn’t useful, but I don’t think Muad expressed a sky-is-falling or hysterical view at all.
Your optimism sounds facile to me, like something on a mass-produced bumper sticker. But I hope we can all get along with one another anyway! (Sincerely, but it’s not quite that easy is it?).
Great minds are not neutral. They can move in any direction, it doesn’t necessarily have to be positive. Or do great minds only create good, subject to definition of course?
“Relax: The Committee for Life-Problem Solutions is watching over all of you and our great minds shall deliver all lesser lights. Why wouldn’t we take you to Mars with us after our techno-utopia has flatlined here on Earth?”
I understand that we aren’t conclusively doomed and that despair isn’t useful, but I don’t think Muad expressed a sky-is-falling or hysterical view at all.
Your optimism sounds facile to me, like something on a mass-produced bumper sticker. But I hope we can all get along with one another anyway! (Sincerely, but it’s not quite that easy is it?).
Well, at least you’ve conceded that what we’re really talking about is human needs and human welfare. If you’re making the argument that we should have some limitations placed on exploitation of resources and give thought to sustainability, I agree. Reasonable people can disagree about what limits should be placed on industry or farming or mining or w/e else, and the proper way to decide on such issues is through open and democratic processes not by handing the decision making authority to a self-selected group of environmental advocates, nor to a bunch of profit driven corporations nor any combination of the two. I’m certainly not advocating that we place no limits on companies and individuals to do whatever they like with shared resources like air and water. I’m simply saying that we should look at issues, such as the ones you mention, plastic pollution, erosion, etc. as problems to be addressed through better technology or more efficient farming/fishing practices or whatever else. Reasonable people can debate these issues and arrive at some sort of policy, within their own countries at least. I’m fine with advocating for conservation, clean air laws, farming regulations that preserve land, and reducing all forms of pollution. Yes, I know we need earthworms for soil, so if there’s something we are doing that’s killing earthworms, that’s a problem that should be addressed. If plastic is killing fish, that’s a problem, albeit a difficult and maybe impossible one given the realities of international politics. We can debate real solutions to real problems. I cannot, however, intelligently argue against ‘human bad’, ‘nature good’. Furthermore, the notion that there’s some catastrophe lurking just around the bend for all of us unless we change our ways and upend our civilization sounds a lot like the religious proselytizing of the fundamentalist evangelical crowd that I have heard since I was five and quickly learned to ignore. I realize you think that think your position is ‘science’, but I say if it quacks like a duck…
Excellent post
You say I conceded that we talk about human needs and welfare, but if you read my original comment I say that I think our planet and humanity has serious issue with sustainability. I also say I may be wrong, and would love to be wrong, but I also give some reasons/ examples behind this opinion.
You agree with issues I mention but disagree with what you assume I’m thinking? You shouldn’t let your prejudices lead you to conclusions. I never wrote these things ‘nature good’ ‘human bad’, my concern is more selfish indeed. If you assume I’m some vegan, tree hugging eco-warrior, I’m nothing like that. I do admire nature in all its incarnations, and see no future where humans can be thriving if nature is diminishing at current rate.
Instead any arguments to help me change my mind you finish with some kind of insult, that’s very scientific from your side. Thank you
In my opinion, you provide an important contribution to this website, with your well-informed thoughtfulness and civil manner. Instead of qualifying that with individual phrases I dispute or cross-referencing my favorite posts of yours elsewhere, I’ll just leave it there for now.
In my opinion, you provide an important contribution to this website, with your well-informed thoughtfulness and civil manner. Instead of qualifying that with individual phrases I dispute or cross-referencing my favorite posts of yours elsewhere, I’ll just leave it there for now.
Excellent post
You say I conceded that we talk about human needs and welfare, but if you read my original comment I say that I think our planet and humanity has serious issue with sustainability. I also say I may be wrong, and would love to be wrong, but I also give some reasons/ examples behind this opinion.
You agree with issues I mention but disagree with what you assume I’m thinking? You shouldn’t let your prejudices lead you to conclusions. I never wrote these things ‘nature good’ ‘human bad’, my concern is more selfish indeed. If you assume I’m some vegan, tree hugging eco-warrior, I’m nothing like that. I do admire nature in all its incarnations, and see no future where humans can be thriving if nature is diminishing at current rate.
Instead any arguments to help me change my mind you finish with some kind of insult, that’s very scientific from your side. Thank you
Yes, well said. There is deep interdependence across species and bioregions, aside from any ethical, let alone “tree-hugging” concerns.
Though I’m not against tree planting–bold stance I know–doing that for a seasonal job as a young man in western Canada help to show me that biodiversity, a true forest, cannot be restored on a human rather than geological timeline. Especially when logging companies devastate a huge swath of old-growth woods and plug one cash-crop species such as spruce of pine back in, then declare it “re-forested”. It’s important to preserve a robust percentage of what remains.
There are great minds working on solutions to life’s problems. Stop spinning and join the party!
Well, at least you’ve conceded that what we’re really talking about is human needs and human welfare. If you’re making the argument that we should have some limitations placed on exploitation of resources and give thought to sustainability, I agree. Reasonable people can disagree about what limits should be placed on industry or farming or mining or w/e else, and the proper way to decide on such issues is through open and democratic processes not by handing the decision making authority to a self-selected group of environmental advocates, nor to a bunch of profit driven corporations nor any combination of the two. I’m certainly not advocating that we place no limits on companies and individuals to do whatever they like with shared resources like air and water. I’m simply saying that we should look at issues, such as the ones you mention, plastic pollution, erosion, etc. as problems to be addressed through better technology or more efficient farming/fishing practices or whatever else. Reasonable people can debate these issues and arrive at some sort of policy, within their own countries at least. I’m fine with advocating for conservation, clean air laws, farming regulations that preserve land, and reducing all forms of pollution. Yes, I know we need earthworms for soil, so if there’s something we are doing that’s killing earthworms, that’s a problem that should be addressed. If plastic is killing fish, that’s a problem, albeit a difficult and maybe impossible one given the realities of international politics. We can debate real solutions to real problems. I cannot, however, intelligently argue against ‘human bad’, ‘nature good’. Furthermore, the notion that there’s some catastrophe lurking just around the bend for all of us unless we change our ways and upend our civilization sounds a lot like the religious proselytizing of the fundamentalist evangelical crowd that I have heard since I was five and quickly learned to ignore. I realize you think that think your position is ‘science’, but I say if it quacks like a duck…
It not question of being nice and caring it’s question of sustainability of the ecosystems on which we depend. We are completely dependent on other species for food, even air if you like. We know that once these ecosystems are disrupted whole domino effect can be triggered. Erosion destroys fertile land when we remove vegetation, also impacts water supply, pollinators are needed for plants, even humble earthworms are needed for soil… Those invasive species are almost always introduced by us, sometimes with devastating effect. If we empty oceans of fish and replace them with plastic, that has no effect on us? We are changing so much and so fast in our environment without understanding what will it do in the long term. I hope you agree that we cannot survive in the desert, even if we could I don’t think it would be much fun.
A tricky situation. Because it’s Capitalism that is supposedly behind our problems, but it’s Capitalism that lifts people out of poverty.
Study following wildlife from 1970 to 2020 found that on average 70% of wildlife populations is gone. 70% of all wildlife on planet Earth gone in 50 years!
Bull-roar. We have more deer, wolves, polar bears, coyotes, etc. than we have had for 100 years in the US.
Nevertheless, I agree that we should continue to protect wild habitats and species. I see species as an irreplaceable resource of genetic information that will likely benefit the world as we learn to use DNA better every year.
I agree we cannot have “growth forever” as something will have to give. Overall global population if forecasted to start falling as more societies reproduction factors go negative – AFAIK less than 1.5 babies per couple = negative? However that doesn’t mean we let people like Ehrlich or the WEF decides who lives and who dies – that will only lead to war at all points of the compass. Nowadays the “wretched of the earth” match the white man on the field of combat- Castro, Viet Cong, Taliban are proof. Sure battles can be won with tactical nuclear weapons, phosphorous bombs etc but that won’t win a war, only prolong it and worsten the rules of engagement.
To answer your question directly, I’m not shocked by all those statistics you named because I’m aware of geological history and the millions of species that thrived and went extinct long before humanity appeared, and I’m not particularly inclined to mourn for them. Whether human activity or asteroid impact, life will find a way. Imagining ourselves to be above and separate from nature is the problem. We’re not, and that cuts both directions. The extinction of one species, or many species, because of other species, is not new. See how invasive species can decimate native species. There is no moral imperative here. Nature doesn’t care how many species, or which ones, survive. Why should we?
“that the Great Barrier Reef has the most coral growth since records started 36 years ago, or that 80% of Pacific islands have grown larger since aerial records began after WWII.”
That’s heresy. You’ll burn in hell for that.
Whosoever angereth the planet must burn. Come brothers, let us put heretics to the stake and burn them for the glory of our Mother Earth. Let the blasphemer, the capitalist, the consumer, be purged from our midst that we might be spared from the wrath of an angry planet.
–Sorry, couldn’t resist. Living in the US Bible Belt, I can tell you that among the various types of humanity, environmentalist advocates most resemble bible thumping preachers in practically ever imaginable way. Environmentalism is religion for atheists.
Yes, and like the prophets of old they are the most likely to have great big wild beards, to go with their wild eyes.
Yes, and like the prophets of old they are the most likely to have great big wild beards, to go with their wild eyes.
That’s quite a vague accusation. Anything to add in the way of support?
I’m not sure what you mean by accusation.
I’m not sure what you mean by accusation.
Whosoever angereth the planet must burn. Come brothers, let us put heretics to the stake and burn them for the glory of our Mother Earth. Let the blasphemer, the capitalist, the consumer, be purged from our midst that we might be spared from the wrath of an angry planet.
–Sorry, couldn’t resist. Living in the US Bible Belt, I can tell you that among the various types of humanity, environmentalist advocates most resemble bible thumping preachers in practically ever imaginable way. Environmentalism is religion for atheists.
That’s quite a vague accusation. Anything to add in the way of support?
You’re right about the media. It’s about money. Politicians are, at the best of times, only casually acquainted with objective reality and good science, paying heed to them only when absolutely necessary, and distorting either to the greatest possible extent to suit their own ends, almost always some permutation of getting and keeping power for their political faction or themselves personally. The general public’s interest in silly nonsense is a consequence of the media’s misbehavior. There are, as ever, a lot of gullible people who default into believing whatever is told to them by anyone, especially what they see on TV, so the media drives a lot of it.
You left out Ehrlich’s revenues from 2 million of his books sold. But it’s established wisdom in publishing circles that books predicting the end of the world sell best.
Not really familiar with the work of Ehrlich and Malthus, but based on this no need to learn more. They seem to be dangerous quacks.
But I do sense a bit of agenda behind this article, associating certain issue with people like these to disqualify the issue itself.
I may be wrong but I think our wonderful planet and humanity has major, urgent issue with sustainability.
Yes, we can feed ten billion people and seems likely that population will plateau around there. But problem were never the poor but the wealthy. I mean wealthy in the global context, probably everyone reading and commenting here, so myself included.
Farmers in India, China or Africa are not the issue. The problem is that western middle class lifestyle cannot be sustained for 10 billion people. Energy and resource intensive existence, like I enjoy myself, is attractive and comfortable, nice heated home, big car in front, devices and stuff from all over the world. Avocado from Chile, New Zealand lamb, Spanish tomatoes…
Study following wildlife from 1970 to 2020 found that on average 70% of wildlife populations is gone. 70% of all wildlife on planet Earth gone in 50 years! Some species have gone completely some are fairing better, but how can one not be shocked by this. Damage in the preceding period e.g. 1800-1970 is difficult to quantify but certainly equally disastrous.
Data on global warming is increasingly clear, plastic is on track to be more prevalent in worlds oceans than fish, we keep claiming any resource we can get hold of from Artic to Patagonia.
All these issues are cumulative, certainly accelerated since Industrial Revolution, and this cumulative impact of Western developed countries is far, far higher than the developing world. But they are following our lead and we need to find strength and leadership to change something. Head in the sand is not going to help, and let’s not pretend we are concerned for the poor. We are concerned for our lifestyles and are happy to sacrifice the poor to keep it, this is as far from humanity as it gets.
“that the Great Barrier Reef has the most coral growth since records started 36 years ago, or that 80% of Pacific islands have grown larger since aerial records began after WWII.”
That’s heresy. You’ll burn in hell for that.
You’re right about the media. It’s about money. Politicians are, at the best of times, only casually acquainted with objective reality and good science, paying heed to them only when absolutely necessary, and distorting either to the greatest possible extent to suit their own ends, almost always some permutation of getting and keeping power for their political faction or themselves personally. The general public’s interest in silly nonsense is a consequence of the media’s misbehavior. There are, as ever, a lot of gullible people who default into believing whatever is told to them by anyone, especially what they see on TV, so the media drives a lot of it.
You left out Ehrlich’s revenues from 2 million of his books sold. But it’s established wisdom in publishing circles that books predicting the end of the world sell best.
We live in very strange times.
Ehrlich and Malthus are basically death cult leaders. There will always be people who have an extremely pessimistic outlook on life, for whatever reason, and there will always be grifters who exploit this weakness.
Ehrlich isn’t the founder of climate change hysteria, but it fits nicely with his world view and it pays well. In fact, he has received more than $2.6 million in climate science awards given out by a dizzying number of NGOs. Add this to speaking fees and he has a very lucrative grift going on.
I understand why 60 Minutes features him. The legacy media is broken and chumps like Ehrlich drive ratings. Afterall, no one cares about good news – that the Great Barrier Reef has the most coral growth since records started 36 years ago, or that 80% of Pacific islands have grown larger since aerial records began after WWII.
What baffles me is that political leaders pay attention to him, or even the general public. It honestly takes five minutes to fact check this guy’s utterly rancid track record.
There are objective facts, and there are subjective beliefs, and then there are beliefs that you think almost define you – that you need so badly to believe in that they become unassailable facts to you.
We can all be guilty of this, to some degree or other.
But imagine the writer, academic or other public figure who has nailed their colours to the mast on a topic, to the extent that they are forever associated with that idea. No amount of contrary evidence will ever dissuade them.
Ehrlich could no more be convinced to row back on his earlier pronouncements than a fundamentalist could be persuaded to disavow his faith.
US psychologist Leon Festinger wrote a book, “When Prophecy Fails”, detailing his experience of studying a cult, whilst their predicted deadline for the end of the world came and went, without cataclysm. Rather than accept they had been demonstrably proved wrong, the cult members kept arbitrarily shifting the date of their impending doom. Never questioning that they were right.
Festinger noted, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change, tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point … Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
A bit like Sinclair saying that it’s hard to convince a man not to believe something when his salary depends on his believing it
A bit like Sinclair saying that it’s hard to convince a man not to believe something when his salary depends on his believing it
There are objective facts, and there are subjective beliefs, and then there are beliefs that you think almost define you – that you need so badly to believe in that they become unassailable facts to you.
We can all be guilty of this, to some degree or other.
But imagine the writer, academic or other public figure who has nailed their colours to the mast on a topic, to the extent that they are forever associated with that idea. No amount of contrary evidence will ever dissuade them.
Ehrlich could no more be convinced to row back on his earlier pronouncements than a fundamentalist could be persuaded to disavow his faith.
US psychologist Leon Festinger wrote a book, “When Prophecy Fails”, detailing his experience of studying a cult, whilst their predicted deadline for the end of the world came and went, without cataclysm. Rather than accept they had been demonstrably proved wrong, the cult members kept arbitrarily shifting the date of their impending doom. Never questioning that they were right.
Festinger noted, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change, tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point … Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
While on a local basis the inexorable pressure of population on local food resources remains valid in Nigeria for example food imports relieve the position.
Jordan Peterson regards the rhetoric of global warming as a death cult that considers mankind as a kind of cancer. In contrast he believes that the path to be pursued is the path of free enterprise that has lifted millions out of poverty throughout the globe in the last 60 years and resulted in a demographic transition in the developed and developing world whereby the birth of children no longer outruns food resources and the destruction of the local environment that can be seen in places like Sudan and Ethiopia.
Jordan Peterson is great on many philosophical and psychological aspects of humanity today, imo, but when it comes to science not so much. He is not a scientist and has apparently made at least two mistakes, involving scientific judgement, in his life with serious consequences. Firstly he refused to even consider that his daughter’s health problems as a child might be the result of intolerance to certain foods. Secondly he became addicted to benzodiazepams.
I have a lot of respect for his moral courage, his area of expertise and his ability to communicate his ideas effectively but when it comes to the science of climate change, or whatever you want to call it, I don’t think he is the man to listen to.
As I understand Peterson has no particular “belief” in Climate Change and admits that he doesn’t know one way or the other. He just follows the ideas of Bjorn Lomborg, who wants resources and money to be used in adaptation to the Climate Change, meaning investment in technology and resources that prevents people suffering from increasing temperatures. Instead what is happening right now in most Western countries is spending huge amounts of money on technology, which isn’t working, doesn’t really reduce CO2 and actually produces misery for the population.
I agree on the daughter bit but many better (and worse) people than Petersen have got into trouble with drugs. Lets hope he continues in recovery. He could do with mugging up scientific methods, conjecture and refutation, Mertonian norms etc . Not just the better to understand science but also when its being misused eg Warmism or Covid – i mean Kraken FGS….? Why not call it “Reaper” or “Widowmaker” or some such
Well, he wasn’t wrong about Erlich.
You claim that Peterson’s views can be disregarded on the basis of his personal lack of expertise (despite the fact that his views accord with the evidence and a selection of climate science expert opinion), but then offer no more than a judgement about his personal life and family to back this up?
Are you actually serious?
If you are, I suggest you at least read his book where the struggles faced by his daughter are described at length. It is moving, and it is not possible to imagine that as a loving father he would have deliberately maintained an ideologically-rooted aversion to any prospect of improving his daughter’s life.
I don’t think I have “claimed” anything as such.
In an interview with his wife, she recounted how she tried to persuade him to look into the possibility that their daughter was suffering as a result of food intolerances. According to her he refused, saying that “it was not scientific”, which would be ironic if it was’nt so sad.
I did not say his views should be “disregarded”, don’t put words into my mouth. I said “I don’t think he is the man to listen to”, making clear that is my opinion, nothing more.
I admire Jordan Peterson very much but he is not perfect, or necessarily right about everything, that’s all.
I didn’t claim Peterson was right about everything, I do say that he is right about climate change though because his views are based upon the evidence and upon expert advice. His personal life cannot possibly have any bearing on this, and I stand by my rejection of your previous comment.
I didn’t claim Peterson was right about everything, I do say that he is right about climate change though because his views are based upon the evidence and upon expert advice. His personal life cannot possibly have any bearing on this, and I stand by my rejection of your previous comment.
I don’t think I have “claimed” anything as such.
In an interview with his wife, she recounted how she tried to persuade him to look into the possibility that their daughter was suffering as a result of food intolerances. According to her he refused, saying that “it was not scientific”, which would be ironic if it was’nt so sad.
I did not say his views should be “disregarded”, don’t put words into my mouth. I said “I don’t think he is the man to listen to”, making clear that is my opinion, nothing more.
I admire Jordan Peterson very much but he is not perfect, or necessarily right about everything, that’s all.
As I understand Peterson has no particular “belief” in Climate Change and admits that he doesn’t know one way or the other. He just follows the ideas of Bjorn Lomborg, who wants resources and money to be used in adaptation to the Climate Change, meaning investment in technology and resources that prevents people suffering from increasing temperatures. Instead what is happening right now in most Western countries is spending huge amounts of money on technology, which isn’t working, doesn’t really reduce CO2 and actually produces misery for the population.
I agree on the daughter bit but many better (and worse) people than Petersen have got into trouble with drugs. Lets hope he continues in recovery. He could do with mugging up scientific methods, conjecture and refutation, Mertonian norms etc . Not just the better to understand science but also when its being misused eg Warmism or Covid – i mean Kraken FGS….? Why not call it “Reaper” or “Widowmaker” or some such
Well, he wasn’t wrong about Erlich.
You claim that Peterson’s views can be disregarded on the basis of his personal lack of expertise (despite the fact that his views accord with the evidence and a selection of climate science expert opinion), but then offer no more than a judgement about his personal life and family to back this up?
Are you actually serious?
If you are, I suggest you at least read his book where the struggles faced by his daughter are described at length. It is moving, and it is not possible to imagine that as a loving father he would have deliberately maintained an ideologically-rooted aversion to any prospect of improving his daughter’s life.
Jordan Peterson is great on many philosophical and psychological aspects of humanity today, imo, but when it comes to science not so much. He is not a scientist and has apparently made at least two mistakes, involving scientific judgement, in his life with serious consequences. Firstly he refused to even consider that his daughter’s health problems as a child might be the result of intolerance to certain foods. Secondly he became addicted to benzodiazepams.
I have a lot of respect for his moral courage, his area of expertise and his ability to communicate his ideas effectively but when it comes to the science of climate change, or whatever you want to call it, I don’t think he is the man to listen to.
While on a local basis the inexorable pressure of population on local food resources remains valid in Nigeria for example food imports relieve the position.
Jordan Peterson regards the rhetoric of global warming as a death cult that considers mankind as a kind of cancer. In contrast he believes that the path to be pursued is the path of free enterprise that has lifted millions out of poverty throughout the globe in the last 60 years and resulted in a demographic transition in the developed and developing world whereby the birth of children no longer outruns food resources and the destruction of the local environment that can be seen in places like Sudan and Ethiopia.
The great thing about Paul Ehrlich is that he is reliably wrong on any subject of importance, and while it is true that his policy agenda is indeed hostile to humans, especially poor ones, we can be confident that he will once again be proved wrong.
As for this: “We now live in the Anthropocene era — and with its consequent focus on the impact humanity has on the planet, Malthus is back on the agenda.”
There is no Anthropocene Era. It was made up by a bunch of climate alarmists and then an attempt was made, in 2018, to persuade the International Commission on Stratigraphy to formally adopt this name for the period from 1950 to date, which would have required deeming the existing Holocene epoch to have ended in 1950.
The attempt failed, for the very good reason that there is no evidence, anywhere, that would justify such a fundamental change in the basis for assessing these things. The evidence would need to prove that we have changed the geological dynamics of the Pleistocene era and stopped the glacial/interglacial periodic shifts that have applied in the Northern Hemisphere for about 2.8million years. There is no evidence that suggests this is true, likely or even possible.
“The great thing about Paul Ehrlich is that he is reliably wrong on any subject of importance,”
People forget that in the fable, the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the wolf does eventually appear and the moral is not the one you draw — that past predictions of doom have failed and that therefore we have nothing to worry about, the moral is if we let failed predictions of doom lull us into complacency, the day will come when the doom is real and we are likely to ignore the warnings.
There’s no parallel. Erlich is consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects, not the same one time and again.
However it would in any be be ludicrous to somehow conclude that he had been right all along on the basis of finally achieving a stopped-clock-right-twice-a-day correct prediction. The rational conclusion is that he is simply a bad scientist who can’t do his job properly.
And there’s a further point that even if there comes a time in the future where humanity really does run into hard resource limits, Ehrlich still isn’t vindicated even then, because humanity is already past the point where the originally-predicted resource limitations are supposed to have led to disaster. So the argument becomes an existential one in which we accept that in the long run we can’t last forever, all we can control is how we live before we die. Ehrlich’s manifesto for the human race is for us all to shuffle in rags across that particular finish line, not to save us from having to do so at all.
“The rational conclusion is that he is simply a bad scientist who can’t do his job properly.”
Even more rational to conclude that worrying to much about one particular individual is a red herring. That this or that doom-sayer has been wrong in the past is not solid grounds for concluding that we have no worries and that infinite growth is the way to go. One can play Russian Roulette all night with no ill effects yet I’d still advise against it.
I don’t care about Ehrlich very much one way or the other but I’m skeptical that he want’s us all in rags. It seems to me that the infinite growth globalists want us all in rags — or at least the fact is that standards of living for working people have been going down for 30 years. More people trying to live on rapidly exhausting resources. Here in BC, the forests are almost gone, the fish are almost gone, the mines are running out, and we mostly get by selling our own country out from under our own feet to Chinese landlords. But the plutocracy is doing very well and naturally wants more of the same.
You’re assuming a whole host of problems relating to corporatism and corruption must be somehow the result of environmental decline, but give no explanation for how.
Either way though, global trends do seem to contradict your position – certainly on forest cover, which is increasing globally, and the problem of overfishing is one that has been solved some time ago technically, it just hasn’t been implemented yet in many regions requiring the solution. As for mines, they do get exhausted if you keep digging them out, yes, but mines have been closing for that reason for hundreds of years, yet we have not run out of new places to dig, have we, because there are not global scarcities of the things being mined for.
In other words you can’t advance any of these arguments in defence of the nonsense spouted by Paul Ehrlich.
You’re assuming a whole host of problems relating to corporatism and corruption must be somehow the result of environmental decline, but give no explanation for how.
Either way though, global trends do seem to contradict your position – certainly on forest cover, which is increasing globally, and the problem of overfishing is one that has been solved some time ago technically, it just hasn’t been implemented yet in many regions requiring the solution. As for mines, they do get exhausted if you keep digging them out, yes, but mines have been closing for that reason for hundreds of years, yet we have not run out of new places to dig, have we, because there are not global scarcities of the things being mined for.
In other words you can’t advance any of these arguments in defence of the nonsense spouted by Paul Ehrlich.
“The rational conclusion is that he is simply a bad scientist who can’t do his job properly.”
Even more rational to conclude that worrying to much about one particular individual is a red herring. That this or that doom-sayer has been wrong in the past is not solid grounds for concluding that we have no worries and that infinite growth is the way to go. One can play Russian Roulette all night with no ill effects yet I’d still advise against it.
I don’t care about Ehrlich very much one way or the other but I’m skeptical that he want’s us all in rags. It seems to me that the infinite growth globalists want us all in rags — or at least the fact is that standards of living for working people have been going down for 30 years. More people trying to live on rapidly exhausting resources. Here in BC, the forests are almost gone, the fish are almost gone, the mines are running out, and we mostly get by selling our own country out from under our own feet to Chinese landlords. But the plutocracy is doing very well and naturally wants more of the same.
There’s no parallel. Erlich is consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects, not the same one time and again.
However it would in any be be ludicrous to somehow conclude that he had been right all along on the basis of finally achieving a stopped-clock-right-twice-a-day correct prediction. The rational conclusion is that he is simply a bad scientist who can’t do his job properly.
And there’s a further point that even if there comes a time in the future where humanity really does run into hard resource limits, Ehrlich still isn’t vindicated even then, because humanity is already past the point where the originally-predicted resource limitations are supposed to have led to disaster. So the argument becomes an existential one in which we accept that in the long run we can’t last forever, all we can control is how we live before we die. Ehrlich’s manifesto for the human race is for us all to shuffle in rags across that particular finish line, not to save us from having to do so at all.
“The great thing about Paul Ehrlich is that he is reliably wrong on any subject of importance,”
People forget that in the fable, the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the wolf does eventually appear and the moral is not the one you draw — that past predictions of doom have failed and that therefore we have nothing to worry about, the moral is if we let failed predictions of doom lull us into complacency, the day will come when the doom is real and we are likely to ignore the warnings.
The great thing about Paul Ehrlich is that he is reliably wrong on any subject of importance, and while it is true that his policy agenda is indeed hostile to humans, especially poor ones, we can be confident that he will once again be proved wrong.
As for this: “We now live in the Anthropocene era — and with its consequent focus on the impact humanity has on the planet, Malthus is back on the agenda.”
There is no Anthropocene Era. It was made up by a bunch of climate alarmists and then an attempt was made, in 2018, to persuade the International Commission on Stratigraphy to formally adopt this name for the period from 1950 to date, which would have required deeming the existing Holocene epoch to have ended in 1950.
The attempt failed, for the very good reason that there is no evidence, anywhere, that would justify such a fundamental change in the basis for assessing these things. The evidence would need to prove that we have changed the geological dynamics of the Pleistocene era and stopped the glacial/interglacial periodic shifts that have applied in the Northern Hemisphere for about 2.8million years. There is no evidence that suggests this is true, likely or even possible.
I use to give a guest lecture every semester to a university class called, “Critical Concerns in the Environment.” It was a collection of seniors taking the capstone class in their major before going out into the world to declare it was about to end. A group of Greta Thunbergs. They were the richest, most entitled, privileged group of human beings who have ever lived. And they never made a single personal sacrifice to achieve their goals. They lived lavish, pampered lifestyles. They were calling on African villagers to make the sacrifices. The author asks, “Will humanity eat itself?” There is absolutely no reason on earth or heaven to believe that. The growth economies of the West have made billions fabulously rich. In the words of Julian Simon: “Every trend is positive.” But the handwringing continues for psychological/spiritual reasons. None of this has anything to do with science or reality.
I use to give a guest lecture every semester to a university class called, “Critical Concerns in the Environment.” It was a collection of seniors taking the capstone class in their major before going out into the world to declare it was about to end. A group of Greta Thunbergs. They were the richest, most entitled, privileged group of human beings who have ever lived. And they never made a single personal sacrifice to achieve their goals. They lived lavish, pampered lifestyles. They were calling on African villagers to make the sacrifices. The author asks, “Will humanity eat itself?” There is absolutely no reason on earth or heaven to believe that. The growth economies of the West have made billions fabulously rich. In the words of Julian Simon: “Every trend is positive.” But the handwringing continues for psychological/spiritual reasons. None of this has anything to do with science or reality.
“One way of avoiding this is to take preventative measures to reduce the population, including cutting support for the poor so that they are encouraged to have fewer children.”
These theories; does anyone follow up on them? Don’t help the poor and they’ll have fewer children, thus saving resources, Presumably the theory is that eventually they’ll disappear, or reach such small numbers we won’t even notice them, not only saving money but also saving us the discomfort of living with them. In the favelas of Brazil Mothers can have up to five or six children. These are poor people and yet it hasn’t stopped them from having children. It’s also possible, if not likely, that the number of children in a family offer some security in them bringing in whatever is needed to survive. Of course the obvious question is why is there even such a thing as poor people?
There is plenty of evidence from Europe and Asia that birth rates fall when there are educational opportunities for girls and employment opportunities for young women; no coercion, just women making up their own minds. As far as I can see, sub-Saharan Africa does not seem to be following this pattern.
The women may indeed want fewer, but it’s a sad fact that the men often have a macho attitude, imagining that they are more “potent” if they sire lots of offspring, preferably boys, and often with various mothers.
“Sub Saharan Africa” is not a useful designation in this context. There are individual nations, such as Botswana, that are doing well at advancing towards first nation status, and the correlation between female emancipation and birthrates holds true there just the same as everywhere else.
Botswana is brilliant. It’s the only well run African country ( aside from Morocco,) and both countries are monarchies with enlightened rulers.
Botswana is brilliant. It’s the only well run African country ( aside from Morocco,) and both countries are monarchies with enlightened rulers.
Why did Shamima Begum,a highly intelligent young woman,in the top percent in her school, definitely going to university,no question there,why did this highly intelligent,very educated,yawn,”child” decide she preferred the idea of being a “housewife”. Such an aim in life would have been cruelly derided by those 1979s feminists who were vociferously telling my generation that liking to cook meant you were a moronic drudge. (Then when men took up cooking they were tv stars. Amazing). Yes,I know there were other factors in this case. I’m not so sure that education is the answer really. Only I can’t explain why. And this idea that if the girls learn maths,physics,etc they will only have say,two or three babies rather then up to ten,I don’t know,it comes across to me as a bit white saviour patronising.
The women may indeed want fewer, but it’s a sad fact that the men often have a macho attitude, imagining that they are more “potent” if they sire lots of offspring, preferably boys, and often with various mothers.
“Sub Saharan Africa” is not a useful designation in this context. There are individual nations, such as Botswana, that are doing well at advancing towards first nation status, and the correlation between female emancipation and birthrates holds true there just the same as everywhere else.
Why did Shamima Begum,a highly intelligent young woman,in the top percent in her school, definitely going to university,no question there,why did this highly intelligent,very educated,yawn,”child” decide she preferred the idea of being a “housewife”. Such an aim in life would have been cruelly derided by those 1979s feminists who were vociferously telling my generation that liking to cook meant you were a moronic drudge. (Then when men took up cooking they were tv stars. Amazing). Yes,I know there were other factors in this case. I’m not so sure that education is the answer really. Only I can’t explain why. And this idea that if the girls learn maths,physics,etc they will only have say,two or three babies rather then up to ten,I don’t know,it comes across to me as a bit white saviour patronising.
I’ve often thought that the poor need to have enough children to insure their share of the population remains high enough that they can’t be ignored. if poverty ever drops too much, the poor will be ignored with disasterous consequences for those who remain poor.
That’s not too far-fetched. It’s almost an instinctive survival mechanism.
I’ve often thought how funny it is that right-wing political parties are sometimes accused of hating the poor on the basis that they want to get rid of poor people by making them wealthy.
Has anyone asked the poor people themselves if they have any objection to this?
We are already there. It’s not about making more food etc available now,it’s about thinking up plausible and inventive ways to reduce and remove it. Interesting times.
That’s not too far-fetched. It’s almost an instinctive survival mechanism.
I’ve often thought how funny it is that right-wing political parties are sometimes accused of hating the poor on the basis that they want to get rid of poor people by making them wealthy.
Has anyone asked the poor people themselves if they have any objection to this?
We are already there. It’s not about making more food etc available now,it’s about thinking up plausible and inventive ways to reduce and remove it. Interesting times.
The evidence, from all over the world, is that as people become more prosperous they will have fewer children. This is clearly at the root of Europe’s static or declining populations, and the US seems to be headed the same way.
But instead of creating a spacious environment where everybody lives comfortably it just acts like a magnet for people to come in and fill up the vacant space and claim or take their slice of cake.
But instead of creating a spacious environment where everybody lives comfortably it just acts like a magnet for people to come in and fill up the vacant space and claim or take their slice of cake.
I suspect that Bill Gates (I’ve got a new pandemic for you and I’ve got the corresponding vaccine for you too,bargain deal,just for you),he is asking that question only his idea for a solution is not to find better ways to feed them(us),and raise them out of poverty. Anyway,it’s a never ending cycle,no sooner do you raise one lot out of poverty than another tranche come along.
There is plenty of evidence from Europe and Asia that birth rates fall when there are educational opportunities for girls and employment opportunities for young women; no coercion, just women making up their own minds. As far as I can see, sub-Saharan Africa does not seem to be following this pattern.
I’ve often thought that the poor need to have enough children to insure their share of the population remains high enough that they can’t be ignored. if poverty ever drops too much, the poor will be ignored with disasterous consequences for those who remain poor.
The evidence, from all over the world, is that as people become more prosperous they will have fewer children. This is clearly at the root of Europe’s static or declining populations, and the US seems to be headed the same way.
I suspect that Bill Gates (I’ve got a new pandemic for you and I’ve got the corresponding vaccine for you too,bargain deal,just for you),he is asking that question only his idea for a solution is not to find better ways to feed them(us),and raise them out of poverty. Anyway,it’s a never ending cycle,no sooner do you raise one lot out of poverty than another tranche come along.
“One way of avoiding this is to take preventative measures to reduce the population, including cutting support for the poor so that they are encouraged to have fewer children.”
These theories; does anyone follow up on them? Don’t help the poor and they’ll have fewer children, thus saving resources, Presumably the theory is that eventually they’ll disappear, or reach such small numbers we won’t even notice them, not only saving money but also saving us the discomfort of living with them. In the favelas of Brazil Mothers can have up to five or six children. These are poor people and yet it hasn’t stopped them from having children. It’s also possible, if not likely, that the number of children in a family offer some security in them bringing in whatever is needed to survive. Of course the obvious question is why is there even such a thing as poor people?
‘More than 146 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, can’t get enough to eat, putting them in serious danger from disease and starvation.’ Red Cross
India’s water table is falling, it’s major dams are at 27% of capacity, and water scarcity is pushing farming to crisis point. Hindustan Times.
‘Water resources are becoming increasingly scarce in the ME, especially for the millions there who already lack access to sanitary water. Some of these countries, including Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, are facing unique problems.’ The Water Project.
The head of the World Food Program warned the UN Security Council 2 years ago:
More than 30% of the world’s fisheries are seriously depleted, and falling oceanic oxygen levels are adversely impacting the reproduction and survival rates for sealife.
But never mind the facts, if Malthus was wrong then, it can’t ever happen.
I am very skeptical that food shortages in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia are due to resource constraints. I would suggest political constraints are the real reason for any food shortages.
Agricultural production has exploded across the globe. India now exports agricultural products. 50 years ago it was starving, but stable govt and fertilizer have had a remarkable impact on food production.
Fisheries are definitely an issue, what I consider the biggest environment issue facing the world. Indiscriminate over fishing has seriously depleted fish stocks across the globe.
“But never mind the facts, if Malthus was wrong then, it can’t ever happen.”
None of the facts you cite are proxies for global trends, which contradict your general position on this. It is simply not plausible to cite the poorest regions of the planet as evidence that the technological progress that is still improving yields and logistics everywhere else is somehow failing: in fact the intellectual dishonesty involved stands out like a sore thumb.
As for the final line the reason we can be confident Malthus was wrong isn’t the inductive reasoning involved in observing that he has been up to now and therefore he will keep being wrong. The reason is that we understand why he was wrong, and the explanations as to why – namely technological progress that is still in place and still improving humanity’s ability to survive – provoke the rational conclusion that the Malthus fallacy isn’t something that can be rescued by the next disaster (no matter how much some people would evidently like to see that happen).
Wasn’t there a pre-Industrial Revolution thinker who, failing to foresee railways and motor cars, predicted the civilized world would be buried under horse manure?
I recall reading somewhere that someone had predicted New York would be buried under 10 feet of horse manure, yes. Can’t remember who, but he stands alongside a whole bunch of other people who knew how to add up numbers on the back of an envelope but don’t understand economics.
Yes.
I recall reading somewhere that someone had predicted New York would be buried under 10 feet of horse manure, yes. Can’t remember who, but he stands alongside a whole bunch of other people who knew how to add up numbers on the back of an envelope but don’t understand economics.
Yes.
Wasn’t there a pre-Industrial Revolution thinker who, failing to foresee railways and motor cars, predicted the civilized world would be buried under horse manure?
On mainstream media we are rarely shown places in Africa,Asia or South America as other than basket cases. It’s very misleading and it boosts our White Saviour idea and it’s actually very patronizing. I once saw a tv show about Ethiopia that totally changed the mental picture I had of that place. For a start Adis Ababa was full of Italian style coffee shops ( a legacy from the past) and they were well patronised by the city dwellers,it was just like Paris.
In fact in the city and the country there was a lot going on. But we only get shown people squatting in the dust covered in flies. Because that image suits someone’s agenda.
I am very skeptical that food shortages in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia are due to resource constraints. I would suggest political constraints are the real reason for any food shortages.
Agricultural production has exploded across the globe. India now exports agricultural products. 50 years ago it was starving, but stable govt and fertilizer have had a remarkable impact on food production.
Fisheries are definitely an issue, what I consider the biggest environment issue facing the world. Indiscriminate over fishing has seriously depleted fish stocks across the globe.
“But never mind the facts, if Malthus was wrong then, it can’t ever happen.”
None of the facts you cite are proxies for global trends, which contradict your general position on this. It is simply not plausible to cite the poorest regions of the planet as evidence that the technological progress that is still improving yields and logistics everywhere else is somehow failing: in fact the intellectual dishonesty involved stands out like a sore thumb.
As for the final line the reason we can be confident Malthus was wrong isn’t the inductive reasoning involved in observing that he has been up to now and therefore he will keep being wrong. The reason is that we understand why he was wrong, and the explanations as to why – namely technological progress that is still in place and still improving humanity’s ability to survive – provoke the rational conclusion that the Malthus fallacy isn’t something that can be rescued by the next disaster (no matter how much some people would evidently like to see that happen).
On mainstream media we are rarely shown places in Africa,Asia or South America as other than basket cases. It’s very misleading and it boosts our White Saviour idea and it’s actually very patronizing. I once saw a tv show about Ethiopia that totally changed the mental picture I had of that place. For a start Adis Ababa was full of Italian style coffee shops ( a legacy from the past) and they were well patronised by the city dwellers,it was just like Paris.
In fact in the city and the country there was a lot going on. But we only get shown people squatting in the dust covered in flies. Because that image suits someone’s agenda.
‘More than 146 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, can’t get enough to eat, putting them in serious danger from disease and starvation.’ Red Cross
India’s water table is falling, it’s major dams are at 27% of capacity, and water scarcity is pushing farming to crisis point. Hindustan Times.
‘Water resources are becoming increasingly scarce in the ME, especially for the millions there who already lack access to sanitary water. Some of these countries, including Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, are facing unique problems.’ The Water Project.
The head of the World Food Program warned the UN Security Council 2 years ago:
More than 30% of the world’s fisheries are seriously depleted, and falling oceanic oxygen levels are adversely impacting the reproduction and survival rates for sealife.
But never mind the facts, if Malthus was wrong then, it can’t ever happen.
The future is unknown. Predictions should be treated with care. The case for looking after our environment and our planet better than we have been can be made by looking at the past and the present (as in my The Earth and Us). If the case is based on predictions, it is open to argument and disbelief.
The future is unknown. Predictions should be treated with care. The case for looking after our environment and our planet better than we have been can be made by looking at the past and the present (as in my The Earth and Us). If the case is based on predictions, it is open to argument and disbelief.
I think a largely ignored aspect of this issue is the extent to which Malthus and Ehrlich are appealing to deeply ingrained fears developed over millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of history. It doesn’t take much to push us in the directions our intuitions and instincts tell us to go, and in this case, our intuition and instinct tell us that there must be some limitation to how many people can be fed/housed/etc. because this has always been true before. Starvation and famine are familiar threats that have always existed and we fear them as much as our ancestors did Our history is littered with examples of mass starvation, plague, famine, wars over land and resources, and so on. Competition over scarce resources is practically hard-coded into our DNA. Relative abundance, where the fear of starvation is relegated to an afterthought through much of the world, is quite new, and the explanations for why we have such abundance are complicated, unintuitive, and far more difficult to grasp than the simple notion of X amount of food being divided between Y number of mouths to feed. We have ample, conclusive evidence that these simple calculations simply do not reflect our reality, indeed the author lists some of this, but that barely puts a dent in the fear we have. The author himself, despite all the evidence he himself cites, seems unwilling to entirely dismiss Malthusianism, turning to more modern, not yet thoroughly discredited environmental arguments. Moreover, no amount of evidence can ever erase the basic fears of human nature. People have little rational reason to fear wild animals of any kind, most especially predators like sharks/wolves/etc. but people still fear them because it’s instinct. We can pile on with mountains of evidence and studies and whatever else and people will still fear something like Malthusian collapse for the same reason we fear wolves, snakes, spiders, and other things that pose far less real risk to us than the foods and medicines we imbibe or the vehicles we drive. The point of emphasis is that this should not guide our rational thinking and policy making. The fact that Ehrlich and his ilk have a following is not at all surprising. The fact that they have a political following is also unsurprising. The problem only arises when they reach a democratic majority or come to power through some other means and begin to impose their dogma on everyone. Then they are no better than the Ayatollahs or the Communists or any other fundamentalist religion.
Excellent, excellent post.
Agree 100%.
Which is now the case.
Excellent, excellent post.
Agree 100%.
Which is now the case.
I think a largely ignored aspect of this issue is the extent to which Malthus and Ehrlich are appealing to deeply ingrained fears developed over millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of history. It doesn’t take much to push us in the directions our intuitions and instincts tell us to go, and in this case, our intuition and instinct tell us that there must be some limitation to how many people can be fed/housed/etc. because this has always been true before. Starvation and famine are familiar threats that have always existed and we fear them as much as our ancestors did Our history is littered with examples of mass starvation, plague, famine, wars over land and resources, and so on. Competition over scarce resources is practically hard-coded into our DNA. Relative abundance, where the fear of starvation is relegated to an afterthought through much of the world, is quite new, and the explanations for why we have such abundance are complicated, unintuitive, and far more difficult to grasp than the simple notion of X amount of food being divided between Y number of mouths to feed. We have ample, conclusive evidence that these simple calculations simply do not reflect our reality, indeed the author lists some of this, but that barely puts a dent in the fear we have. The author himself, despite all the evidence he himself cites, seems unwilling to entirely dismiss Malthusianism, turning to more modern, not yet thoroughly discredited environmental arguments. Moreover, no amount of evidence can ever erase the basic fears of human nature. People have little rational reason to fear wild animals of any kind, most especially predators like sharks/wolves/etc. but people still fear them because it’s instinct. We can pile on with mountains of evidence and studies and whatever else and people will still fear something like Malthusian collapse for the same reason we fear wolves, snakes, spiders, and other things that pose far less real risk to us than the foods and medicines we imbibe or the vehicles we drive. The point of emphasis is that this should not guide our rational thinking and policy making. The fact that Ehrlich and his ilk have a following is not at all surprising. The fact that they have a political following is also unsurprising. The problem only arises when they reach a democratic majority or come to power through some other means and begin to impose their dogma on everyone. Then they are no better than the Ayatollahs or the Communists or any other fundamentalist religion.
Elon Musk replied: “His Population Bomb book might be the most damaging anti-human thing ever written.”
No, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is more damaging.
In terms of actual deaths directly attributable to policy choices resulting from the book, you’re probably correct. Silent Spring is usually directly credited as being the reason DDT is no longer used for mosquito control. DDT had a measurable effect on deaths from malaria and other mosquito borne diseases, thus it is fairly simple math to work out the numbers of excess deaths resulting from the ban of DDT. We in the global north basically prioritized birds over the lives of our fellow human beings in the global south.
Yes,it’s reckoned millions of Africans have died since then and it has kept Africa in poverty but I’ve read that there are USA state documents,in the archive somewhere, that it was post WW2 policy to keep Africa from developing and possibly challenging the USA dollar supremacy. That was why they had Gaddafi taken out. He was about to launch a pan African currency based on Gold. That is what this Ukraine war is about (as well as enriching the arms dealers). Freedom and Democracy I don’t think so.
Yes,it’s reckoned millions of Africans have died since then and it has kept Africa in poverty but I’ve read that there are USA state documents,in the archive somewhere, that it was post WW2 policy to keep Africa from developing and possibly challenging the USA dollar supremacy. That was why they had Gaddafi taken out. He was about to launch a pan African currency based on Gold. That is what this Ukraine war is about (as well as enriching the arms dealers). Freedom and Democracy I don’t think so.
Started it all off. We reached a point where a good compromise was in place. Some of the early green warnings were good. And once farmers got over an initial enthusiasm for these wonder substances they used them sparingly so as not to waste money. I’m not sure exactiy when THEY whoever THEY are cottoned on that Environmental Concern would be the ideal Front for their nasty aims.
In terms of actual deaths directly attributable to policy choices resulting from the book, you’re probably correct. Silent Spring is usually directly credited as being the reason DDT is no longer used for mosquito control. DDT had a measurable effect on deaths from malaria and other mosquito borne diseases, thus it is fairly simple math to work out the numbers of excess deaths resulting from the ban of DDT. We in the global north basically prioritized birds over the lives of our fellow human beings in the global south.
Started it all off. We reached a point where a good compromise was in place. Some of the early green warnings were good. And once farmers got over an initial enthusiasm for these wonder substances they used them sparingly so as not to waste money. I’m not sure exactiy when THEY whoever THEY are cottoned on that Environmental Concern would be the ideal Front for their nasty aims.
Elon Musk replied: “His Population Bomb book might be the most damaging anti-human thing ever written.”
No, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is more damaging.
Had contraception been invented at the time, I think Malthus would have promoted it, as the best way of ensuring no unwanted children were brought into the world. There is no doubt that this planet has finite resources and responsible self-restraint is preferable to being culled – by nature, or the result of our excesses.
The problem with that logic is that ‘finite’ is a rather broad target. Ten is a finite number. So is ten thousand. So is ten trillion. So is 10 raised to the hundredth power. Saying the earth’s resources are ‘finite’ is thus not particularly useful until one narrows down the range considerably. To date, all attempts to specify a range at which we will ‘run out’ of resources like food/water/etc. have been demonstrably, spectacularly wrong. That’s half the point of the article. The actual amount of any given resource humanity can produce at any given time is a complex calculation that includes known but very complex economic systems, methods of extraction, known sources, recycling potential, and so one, plus any number of unknown unknowns such as undiscovered sources, new extraction methods, better recycling techniques, or even technology that renders some resources obsolete while creating a need for others that are not currently considered important. In 1950, for example, nobody worried about the global supply of lithium or cobalt, but now we do. Who knows what will be considered a critical resource in the year 2100? Who can say we won’t be mining asteroids for unobtainium or building orbital farms two hundred years from now.
I agree that we don’t understand the true limits or resiliency of Earth and its inhabitants. Finding out conclusively would be a far worse environmental disaster than anything we’ve witnessed so far, and one very few of us, as a species, might remain here to reckon with. Outsourcing our runaway consumption to the galaxy and beyond might become possible and even necessary or wise (given the alternative), but I don’t see why we should flirt with extra-maximum resource extraction, to an often needless degree, as though we can be confident that unobtanium will be become obtainable when it’s needed.
The air is already very bad in many parts of India and China, and here on the Pacific Coast during our extended and exacerbated fire seasons. Once-cleaner waterways are poisoned. That mightn’t pose a primary threat to most people, who can filter what they drink and use waterways with care. But a major die-off of non-human river and ocean life would begin to pose an existential threat to us, even if we deny our deeper interdependency.
Even at our current pace, I tend to think it will take a very long time to end life on Earth through our own collective mismanagement. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be wary of hubris or technological overreach. Human posterity in a techno-engineered bubble, perhaps on some unearthly colony, would be better than extinction, but not human in any recognizable sense–leaving aside all the organisms who’d be rendered “obsolete”.
Are the melting polar icecaps threatening coastal cities and the rapid devastation of the Amazon rainforest something of little concern, something we shouldn’t try harder to mitigate?
I’m not claiming it’s entirely Anthropogenic or purely under our control–or even “all about us”–but we can do something more to limit and uplift ourselves. As with individual lives, our “later years” (eons) of existence as a a species could be pretty good ones or more of a grim march toward welcome death. We have group influence over how that hypothetical future might look. And some things about our air, water, soil, and weather are pretty bad already–not a scientific assessment, but hard to call untrue.
I admire the Chinese for coming straight out and saying they intend to mine on the moon for minerals and no garbage about we are doing it to expand the horizons of mankind. Of course once they get there,and they will,this is Chinese people,they are not losers,then the USA will get into a huge kefuffle,we was there first,we planted a flag,it’s ours. And the lawyers will start to get rich (er).
I agree that we don’t understand the true limits or resiliency of Earth and its inhabitants. Finding out conclusively would be a far worse environmental disaster than anything we’ve witnessed so far, and one very few of us, as a species, might remain here to reckon with. Outsourcing our runaway consumption to the galaxy and beyond might become possible and even necessary or wise (given the alternative), but I don’t see why we should flirt with extra-maximum resource extraction, to an often needless degree, as though we can be confident that unobtanium will be become obtainable when it’s needed.
The air is already very bad in many parts of India and China, and here on the Pacific Coast during our extended and exacerbated fire seasons. Once-cleaner waterways are poisoned. That mightn’t pose a primary threat to most people, who can filter what they drink and use waterways with care. But a major die-off of non-human river and ocean life would begin to pose an existential threat to us, even if we deny our deeper interdependency.
Even at our current pace, I tend to think it will take a very long time to end life on Earth through our own collective mismanagement. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be wary of hubris or technological overreach. Human posterity in a techno-engineered bubble, perhaps on some unearthly colony, would be better than extinction, but not human in any recognizable sense–leaving aside all the organisms who’d be rendered “obsolete”.
Are the melting polar icecaps threatening coastal cities and the rapid devastation of the Amazon rainforest something of little concern, something we shouldn’t try harder to mitigate?
I’m not claiming it’s entirely Anthropogenic or purely under our control–or even “all about us”–but we can do something more to limit and uplift ourselves. As with individual lives, our “later years” (eons) of existence as a a species could be pretty good ones or more of a grim march toward welcome death. We have group influence over how that hypothetical future might look. And some things about our air, water,