60 Minutes Promotes Paul Ehrlich's Failed Doomsaying One More Time
The Population Bomber has never been right, but is never in doubt that the world is coming to its end.

Stanford University biologist and perennially wrong doomster Paul Ehrlich appeared on CBS 60 Minutes on Sunday where he once again declared, "I and the vast majority of my colleagues think we've had it; that the next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we're used to."
Ehrlich made himself (in)famous when he in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb: predicted that "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970's the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate." Instead of rising as Ehrlich predicted, the global crude death per 1,000 people has fallen from 12.5 in 1968 to 7 in 2019 before ticking up to 8 in the pandemic year of 2020.
At least CBS correspondent Scott Pelley acknowledged, "The alarm Ehrlich sounded in '68 warned that overpopulation would trigger widespread famine. He was wrong about that. The green revolution fed the world." Nevertheless, Pelley credulously reports Ehrlich's assertion that the world is undergoing a Sixth Mass Extinction owing to humanity's rising population and consumption. Paleontologists have identified five previous mass extinction events during the past 450 million years in which something like three-quarters of species disappeared due to events like supervolcano eruptions and asteroid strikes.
In fact, just as positive trends in global agricultural productivity that were already underway 50 years ago nullified Ehrlich's prophecy of inevitable famines that would kill hundreds of millions, current trends in agricultural productivity, population, urbanization, and dematerialization will likely negate his extinction auguries and predictions of civilizational collapse. Why? Because an increasingly wealthy and technologically adept humanity will be withdrawing from nature over the course of this century.
As the result of continuing increases in crop productivity, the world has reached peak agricultural land which means that more land will be freed up to revert to nature as the century evolves. In addition, global human population will likely peak around 2050 and begin falling. Furthermore, people will be depopulating the landscape as they move into cities. Currently, some 56 percent of humanity live in cities and that number is projected to increase to 68 percent by 2050 and 85 percent by 2100. What that means is that the number of people living on the landscape (many as subsistence farmers) will drop from 3.5 billion now to around 1.2 billion by 2100. Again, this will free up land into which wild species can expand and grow.
In his 2020 article on resource production and use, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis researcher Arnulf Grübler outlines a scenario in which technological progress enables a richer humanity to cut its overall natural resource use from about 100 gigatons per year now to 83 gigatons by 2050. (It's worth noting that about half of the current resource use involves non-metallic minerals, e.g., cement, sand, and stone.) Humanity can withdraw increasingly from nature by getting more and more value from ever less resource use.
Human activities have indeed been putting greater pressure on other species, both on land and in the seas. "The data are rock solid. I don't think you'll find a scientist that will say we're not in an extinction crisis," asserted Ehrlich's Stanford colleague biologist Anthony Barnosky in the 60 Minutes segment. "It means you look out your window, and three quarters of what you think ought to be there is no longer there. That's what mass extinction looks like." Assuming Barnosky's estimates are right, just how long would it take for three-quarters of the world's species to go extinct? "If currently threatened species—those officially classed as critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable—actually went extinct, and that rate of extinction continued, the sixth mass extinction could arrive within as little as three to 22 centuries," said Barnosky in the U.K. Mirror back in 2011. Three centuries is slow in terms of global geological and biological processes, but it is really fast in terms of the earlier noted positive human technological, economic, and social progress trends.
In 2018, in their article in the journal BioScience, three researchers from the Wildlife Conservation Society see biodiversity conservation reaching "breakthrough" after passing through a "bottleneck" over the next few decades. Ultimately, they projected that over the course of this century increasing wealth and urbanization will enable the global restoration of wild nature. From the article:
For the first time in the Anthropocene, the global demographic and economic trends that have resulted in unprecedented destruction of the environment are now creating the necessary conditions for a possible renaissance of nature. Drawing reasonable inferences from current patterns, we can predict that 100 years from now, the Earth could be inhabited by between 6 and 8 billion people, with very few remaining in extreme poverty, most living in towns and cities, and nearly all participating in a technologically driven, interconnected market economy. Building on the scholarship of others in demography, economics, sociology, and conservation biology, here, we articulate a theory of social–environmental change that describes the simultaneous and interacting effects of urban lifestyles on fertility, poverty alleviation, and ideation. By recognizing the shifting dynamics of these macrodrivers, conservation practice has the potential to transform itself from a discipline managing declines ("bottleneck") to a transformative movement of recovery ("breakthrough")
CBS and 60 Minutes should be ashamed of promoting Ehrlich's oft-debunked nonsense.
Note: I have debunked Ehrlich's bogus prophecies many, many, many, many times. For more background, see my books The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century and Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know: And Many Others You Will Find Interesting, with my co-author Marian Tupy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I earn $100 per hour while taking risks and travelling to remote parts of the world. I worked remotely last week while in Rome, Monte Carlo, and eventually Paris. I’m back in the USA this week. I only perform simple activities from this one excellent website. see it,
Click Here to Copy…… http://Www.Smartcash1.com
I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I…go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart…
HERE........................>>> http://Www.OnlineCareer1.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Crazy old man.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.WORKSCLICK.COM
crazy young man too
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,300 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Somebody is jealous of all the attention Greta got.
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ:) GOOD LUCK.:)
Just open the link————————————–>>OPEN>> USA JOBS ONLINE
Did you see the NYT article about breeding with short people to lower carbon output?
Was is by Robert Reich?
Listening to Robert Reich is kind of like turning the crank on a jack in the box. You know the crazy is going to pop out eventually, but you never know exactly when.
Greta would be more dangerous if she was hot and had big tits. Thankfully, she’s kind of dowdy. And a downer. A dowdy downer.
A Debbie Dowdy Downer. 🙂
Debbie Downer Takes on Current Events | WWHL
https://youtu.be/zBqea-Mu4tM
Seriously, I would probably pay more attention to what the dumb little theater bitch says if she looked like Emily Ratajkowski, and regularly posted nice pics, like ER does.
Ron can be exasperating, but at least he knows his commentariat:
<Trends Every Smart Person Should Know: And Many Others You Will Find Interesting,
The Vatican may have learned what to do when the Chairman of the Board goes ga-ga, but the Stockholm & Frisco Eyes Wide Shut crowd has not.
Greta looks like she would be perfectly happy sewing tattooed skin into lampshades.
Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing? Well, I say-- hard cheese.
Because an increasingly wealthy and technologically adept humanity will be withdrawing from nature over the course of this century....
Humanity can withdraw increasingly from nature by getting more and more value from ever less resource use.
Ackshuyally, Humanity can't withdraw from Nature, because Humanity is a part of Nature and the Natural Universe is everything that exists, M'Ladies!
*Tips cornucopia hat and gets it's infinite bounties rained upon his head.*
Will you look at that. Another leftist story from Reason demanding more government solutions to our problems. And they claim to be libertarian. Hogwash!
Even reading this sarcastically, it makes no sense. Do you just have an autoreply function set up?
It makes sense because the majority of the commentariat who claim Reason is progressive propaganda will say with a straight face that articles like this do not exist.
Another strawman. They are left leaning. Not left exclusive. I know, you think everyone that disagrees with you is a trump cultist. Doesn't mean others are making the same conclusion in the opposite way
No, they won’t.
They may say that Ron doesn’t lay out a libertarian argument to counter Ehrlich, but they won’t deny its existence.
This is, sadly, all sarc wants to do any more. He shows up to a thread and posts basically this exact troll bait. He hates the trolls, see. So he has to spend every waking second summoning them. *shrug*
Ideas!
Maybe if people like you stopped pretending that articles like this don't exist I might stop pointing it out.
Where have I pretended articles like this don't exist?
Oh you won't find them. Because you are trolling. You are making shit up, because the only thing more reliable than your hatred of the folk on the right, is your endless need to summon them again and again and again.
Hate? More like disappointment and disdain.
So much disdain that you constantly call out to them day in and day out. Like that little boy pulling the hair of that girl who makes him feel all tingly inside.
Keep pulling that hair.
*snort*
The hair pullers are the ones leaving turds on all my comments.
Every response to you has been substantive. Yet you name call here. Weird.
It is laughable that you can post these same shitty threads every day and simultaneously complain about shit posters. smdh.
Why do you have to be Reason’s resident Mean Girl?
Cash generating easy and fast method to work in part time and earn extra $15,000 or even more than this online. by working in 1ce85 my spare time. I made $17250 in my previous (ste-03) month and i am very happy now because of this job. you can try this now by follow
details here…….…….…….…….…….…….… http://Www.workstar24.com
Cite one time someone said they never do. Just one person.
What do you want from a demented drunk?
Hilarious how sarc in the roundup claims to want honest conversation yet does this is every thread slightly critical of the left. Still not understanding his comment is a strawman.
Are you just looking for a fight? And before you say I didn't comment on Ehrlich, I posted a link yesterday with my own criticism of him regarding this very topic and interview.
Personally, I think Bailey acquitted himself here rather well. Much better than the shilling he's done in the past regarding Covid.
What are your thoughts on it?
Bailey in particular and Reason in general have been remarkably consistent in pointing out all of the bunk in Ehrlich's claims over the years. (Spoiler alert: The bunk content is asymptotically approaching 100%)
I don't know how anyone, even a smug, ignorant, left-wing 'journalist', can take the guy seriously. Aren't they supposed to at least take a cursory look into their interviewee's background? Especially professional background?
How's this guy all that different from that nut who kept predicting specific dates for the Rapture? They would pass every time and he would announce that God had postponed the date of our inevitable demise . . .
But they mean well, and that is all that counts.
One of the most interesting things in modern discourse is the tendency of opponents of people to act and behave just like those people who they condemn.
Your schtick is exactly the same thing that you condemn; horribly lacking in nuance, tired, pseudo-intellectual, and fairly cringy. And these are all the things you hate about those who do their knee-jerk critique of Reason.
I am surprised Ehrlich isn’t extinct yet.
Only from the ears up.
It’s funny how aging Malthusians like him don’t do their duty and participate in Carousel to be renewed.
Ehrlich only knows one tune but some people just love hearing it. Stanford should be embarrassed to keep him on staff.
It proves you can be a "wise man" without actually knowing anything.
Whether they should be ashamed or not, their purpose is to give their viewers what they want; and "doomsday" scenarios sell. It's up to those of us who see through the eco scams to the political and social engineering motivators behind them to prevent government from implementing the real economic disaster they so badly want to impose.
Feh. There are doomsday scenarios aplenty. Look at the Year 12,000 people. And the Hollow Earthers. Look at every Zombie Apocalypse advocate or TEOTEAWKI Preper. They aren't on 60 Minutes.
It isn't just the doomsday. It is the fact that Ehlrich's sole solution to doomsday is the mass centralization of power that only elitist lefties can envision. THAT is why he isn't laughed at or at least looked at side eyed by the blue bubble urban crowd. For every incel nut-bag dreaming of the day he'll save the neighbor girl from zombies with the replica katana he bought online, there is some tongue-wagging Yalie who pines for the day when he is dictating "sustainable production" from some corner office on 5th Avenue.
It is the fact that Ehlrich’s sole solution to doomsday is the mass centralization of power that only elitist lefties can envision.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they have nefarious intentions. It's entirely possible for someone to sincerely believe in doomsday scenarios and see government as the solution, without realizing that what they demand will turn into tyranny.
"Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they have nefarious intentions"
I never said they had nefarious intentions. I said they wanted mass centralization of power (which is true. Ehrlich is on record in numerous places arguing for centralized control of resources and population control). I didn't comment on their intentions- nefarious or otherwise.
It's like you don't even read my posts. You just make up shit in your head and respond to that.
Mass centralization of power is equated with tyranny, because that's where it leads. So when someone says leftists want centralized power, it usually means ill intent.
Excuse the fuck out of me for misinterpreting what you said. Take a sedative while you're at it.
"So when someone says leftists want centralized power, it usually means ill intent."
Well I don't know what to tell you. They want centralized power. Do you deny this? Do you deny that Ehrlich has called for international control of raw resources and international population control? So what does that mean? Does that mean Ehrlich has ill intent?
"Excuse the fuck out of me for misinterpreting what you said. Take a sedative while you’re at it."
I am just noting matter-of-factly that you are arguing against points I didn't make. You are the one flying off the handle with expletives. Perhaps you are projecting.
My explicatives were in response to you flying off the handle. I said I misinterpreted what you said. Let it go.
"My explicatives were in response to you flying off the handle"
I didn't fly off the handle. I said that it seems like you are making shit up in your head.
But I notice you didn't answer my question.
Do you deny that Ehrlich has called for international control of raw resources and international population control? So what does that mean? Does that mean Ehrlich has ill intent?
Seriously. You are the one arguing that if I point out Ehrlich's support of command and control, it is accusing him of ill intent. It sure seems to me that I can't even point out facts without you accusing me of "attacking" people. Perhaps the problem is that you are embarrassed on behalf of Ehrlich and his proponents?
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said, acknowledged it like an adult, and now it's time for you to act like an adult and let it go.
Jesus, you actually tried to righteously take the high road after constantly taking the low road when Overt never strayed from the high road.
It’s embarrassing reading your posts anymore. Maybe stop trying so hard to be a confrontational troll and learn to refine your discourse appropriately.
Otherwise, you just keep up with being the Taylor Lorenz of Reason.
Sarc, stop trying to pick fights with everyone.
Must be in whatever he's drinking today; I don't know. He tried to pick on with me in the Roundup thread for merely referring to him as the "village idiot". I much prefer what he actually had to say in the Canadian Housing thread. It actually was pretty decent. I'd rather see that Sarc than this Sarc. 🙁
He is definitely capable of having intelligent discourse. But he resorts to butthurt bitching and his attempts at "sarcastic" commentary that it's just so hard to take him seriously on anything.
Weird. Sarc accuses others of misinterpreting him all the time as he rages. Here when his misinterpretation, that was obvious is called put, he rages still. Almost like he is a hypocrite.
You didn’t misinterpret. You deduced an illogical implication out of whole cloth.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they have nefarious intentions. It’s entirely possible for someone to sincerely believe in doomsday scenarios and see government as the solution, without realizing that what they demand will turn into tyranny.</I.
But they are the useful idiots for the ones who DO have evil intentions.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. - H. L. Mencken
Do you think Hitler woke up every morning and thought to himself "What's the most evil thing I can do today?" No, he actually thought he was the good guy. Intentions are in the eye of the beholder.
Do you think evil people exist and possibly some of them will try to gain power over others even when professing to have good intentions?
Yes. But they're few and far between. I think people should be judged by their intentions. A lot of political debate assumes that if someone disagrees with how something is to be accomplished, that they oppose it happening at all. When both sides often have similar goals, but disagree on the methods. In simplistic terms the left wants things done by government, while the right wants things done by markets. They both want people to have education, homes, food, health care and all that. Just because someone doesn't want something done by government doesn't mean they don't want it to be done at all, and the fact that markets don't come up with predictable solutions doesn't mean it doesn't produce any at all. The right accuses the left of evil for wanting government control, and the left accuses the right of evil for not being horrified by inequality. It's tiresome.
So, i'm saying that some people driving the "save the world from doomsday x" have evil intentions and are more interested in ruling us than on saving the world.
Many of the sincere footsoldiers are just useful idiots who really do think there is a doomsday to save us from. They are fools but not evil, unlike many of the folks driving it.
I'm not talking right or left but you seem to think that's all anyone thinks about here.
I do not think people should be judged by their intentions. I think they should be judged by the outcomes of what they do. Although I do not think people should make decisions without at least considering the possible consequences of their choices, it is impossible to foresee all the consequences of all possible choices. The human race has not only survived but thrived despite the countless unforeseen consequences of millions of decisions every second for thousands of years and we should not let ourselves be immobilized by indecision. Although their predictions along these lines have clearly been wrong and it doesn't take a genius to foresee the economic disaster that will result from their "solutions" it's just one more silly voice added to a cacophony of silly voices through the ages.
People with good intentions can support policies with bad results. I'm saying judge the policies by the results, not the people. If people with different policy ideas can accept that they share common goals, then debate can be a lot more productive. Otherwise you see people being accused of being evil because they, with good intentions, supported bad policy. Debate the policy, not the people.
Except leftist ABSOLUTELY want centralization of power. But I’ll eagerly await some proof of them calling for the “50 labs of democracy” to solve a perceived problem.
Wow! It seems this steaming pile of lefty shit has rent-free space in a lot of heads here.
WIH do you folks grant more credibility to this asshole than you do to turd? turd lies, sarc whines; neither one ever brings anything to the discussion, unless it's purely accidental.
"For every incel nut-bag dreaming of the day he’ll save the neighbor girl from zombies with the replica katana he bought online.."
literally laughed out loud on this one. Great line 🙂
For every incel nut-bag dreaming of the day he’ll save the neighbor girl from zombies with the replica katana he bought online,
Don't insult Napoleon Dynamite like that! GOSH! 🙂
At least Napoleon got the girl at the end. 😉
Look at every Zombie Apocalypse advocate or TEOTEAWKI Preper.
Ehrlich's doomsaying doesn't even compare to that. Rational Prepping is actually a winning practice.
If you stockpile and rotate redundancies of water, food, toiletries, clothes, tools, and other things you use and consume every day, if you "Eat what you store and store what you eat," you will be better off for more mundane non-Apocalyptic disasters and especially if nothing goes wrong.
Rational Prepping is extremely necessary for dealing with the slow-motion Conqueror Worm destroyer known as Inflation, a monster that has picked up speed nowadays.
Seriously, what is the difference between Ehrlich and any random flat earther? The only difference I can tell is that rando flat earthers don't use their repeatedly discredited pseudoscience to justify the centralized control of our lives. If they could figure out how to make that glass slipper fit, you'd be seeing Bill Nye and Ehrlich at the launch of the next flat-earther rocket.
The difference is that what Ehrlich says makes sense on an intuitive level, while flat-earth does not. If population is increasing, and you assume that agricultural technology is static, then it seems quite obvious that agriculture won't be able to keep up. If you assume that agricultural productivity is static, then it seems quite obvious that we'll run out of good land as the population increases.
The hard part is convincing people that both of those assumptions are false.
Your second sentence literally disproves your first. Nobody believes agricultural output is static intuitively.
Everything you said about intuition holds true for flat earthers as well. People look around them and see a flat earth. If they assume it goes on with the same flatness, then it seems quite obvious that the earth is flat.
What direct evidence have you observed to indicate that the earth is not flat? I guarantee you there is less such evidence than proof that Ehrlich is wrong.
Ehrlich's predictions have been publicly, famously falsified for over 50 years, and he is still making them over and over. There is nothing intuitive about it. He said in the 80s that we'd be out of food. Are you out of food?
I said it makes sense intuitively, not rationally. Comparing them to flat-earthers (who don’t even take themselves seriously) is like comparing people who don’t want electric cars to holocaust deniers. It’s a rhetorical technique akin to an ad hominem attack.
Yes he’s been proven wrong. Yes it is not a rational belief. But it is intuitive. Just like socialism makes sense intuitively because it works in the family setting. It doesn’t scale.
If you want to persuade people, don’t attack them. That puts them on the defensive. Point out that their intuition is wrong.
Did you even read Overts post?
Also not an ad hominem.
"I said it makes sense intuitively, not rationally."
I don't think you know the difference between intuition and rationality. Intuition is the faculty of experiential wisdom. No one in the modern world has experience of going to the store and finding the shelves completely empty. The experiential wisdom of pretty much every american is that there is more food than we need- so much that we become fat on it and waste it by the ton.
You are confusing "intuition" with a myth that has been repeated so often that people take it for granted. Like the car that runs on water or the dude who flew a JATO-powered car into a mountain.
There is FAR more intuitive sense that the earth is flat, than that one day there will be so many people that we cannot feed one another.
"Comparing them to flat-earthers (who don’t even take themselves seriously) is like comparing people who don’t want electric cars to holocaust deniers."
No, it is an apt comparison. Both are false claims. Claims that are easily falsified based on evidence you can see for yourself and repeat experimentation for 50 years.
"If you want to persuade people, don’t attack them. "
Please, spare me your craven bleats, you hypocrite. I'll take advice from you when you start following it yourself.
For some reason, now you care about "persuasion". Oh, you'll mock anti-vaxxers and people on the right all day and night. You'll +1 Mike and his mocking nonsense all day long, and post endless trollish nonsense. You'll bitch about me taking you too seriously whenever I try to pin you down to an argument.
But NOT RIGHT NOW.
Stop the PRESSES, everybody! SARC wants to lecture us on persuasion. HE IS SUPER SERIAL!
God forbid I mock one of the most dangerous pseudo-scientists in the modern world. The guy whose falsified hoaxes supported China's One Child policy. Well that is a bridge too far, everyone. Sarc said so.
Wow dude. You sure owned me. Your entire post managed to ignore what I said and instead attack me as a person. There isn't a single substantive statement for me to respond to, since it's all "you, you, you." Congrats. You're right on par with the asshats I have on mute. I apologize for thinking you're better than them.
"Your entire post managed to ignore what I said and instead attack me as a person."
I said: You are confusing “intuition” with a myth that has been repeated so often that people take it for granted. That is attacking your argument (that it confuses one thing for another). But who are we kidding- you and I both know you don't give a flying fuck about actual arguments.
"I apologize for thinking you’re better than them."
Right, on cue, Sarc plays the wounded victim. It's almost as if we can't look one page up and see him being a crass troll.
Ah well, I gave you a chance this year, and you disappointed me again. I'll check back in maybe in Q3. Your behavior in (checks watch) one hour has convinced me the same as last year- that you actually don’t want to converse. You want people to join you in mocking folks on the Right and "persuading" the people you are sympathetic with on the left. And if you can’t have that, you will settle for turning my thread into the millionth shit slinging exchange.
Mind you, I used to wonder why you spend day after day shitting up the threads with this antagonizing troll bait, only to play the poor besot victim minutes later…but it's 2023, and you aren't actually worth it. *shrug*
Right, on cue, Sarc plays the wounded victim.
*snort*
I'm not wounded at all. I'm simply stating that, based upon your comments, you're more interested in scoring points than having a debate.
You could have said something like "I think we disagree on what the word intuitive means" and we could have hashed out some agreed upon terminology and continued the conversation.
Instead you launch into a tirade that's all about me and completely forgets whatever we were talking about.
Whatever dude.
You ultimately make everything about you. So mission accomplished, right? Instead, you should try contributing for a change. Since no one trusts you, you will have to take a lot of shit (you’ve earned it) for a long time. But maybe if you’re good, people can tolerate you again.
Sarc, please take this to heart from Ted. I've read some decent stuff from you, but you're not much good, nor much fun when you pick fights with seemingly everyone.
But maybe if you’re good, people can tolerate you again.
I'd rather read comments like you have in the Canadian Housing thread. Those were actually pretty good.
I don't read Ted's posts. He's been on permamute for a long time.
Congrats Ted!
I'll try.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but to me intuition is what you think about something before you really think about it. If you look at a piece of farmland, and a growing population, it makes sense that food production won't be able to keep up. But then if you really think about it, advances in methods and technology result in more food produced from that field as well as food produced from land that was previously unusable.
Problem is getting people to really think about it.
That's what I meant. Perhaps I used the word "intuition" wrong.
Is it possible to respond to that without using the word "you" in every sentence?
He's the Taylor Lorenz of Reason.
Uh oh, Sarc lost another argument, and has once again activated Victim Mode
Standard sarc victimhood. Watch out he will mute you!
Paul Erlich and Rachel Carson may be responsible for more deaths than any other humans who ever lived barring the three 20th century dictators we all know about.
Fauci, Hitler, Stalin, Mao? That's 4.
Oh, is Fauci considered 21st century? C-19 was not exactly his first rodeo. He's been fucking things up for 40 years.
“Furthermore, people will be depopulating the landscape as they move into cities.”
I don’t think this statement will age well. The prediction cited is from 2018 – pre-pandemic. The trend now is WFH, remote offices, and de-urbanization.
On the contrary, I think cities will die.
Don't be so sure. Central planners and those who advocate packing people into little boxes love cities.
They sure do.
However when battling one prognostication with another prognostication, that means that any and all prognostications are acceptable.
IOW this is not a clash of warriors armed with data, they are armed with magic 8-balls.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23073992.traffic-filters-will-divide-city-15-minute-neighbourhoods/
City of Oxford in UK wants to split the city into different sections and enforce it via traffic cams, fining you if you visit a part of the city too far from your home address. This is real
I see they deleted lots of comments on that article and quickly closed them entirely. If the British people want Britain to survive, they should overthrow their government. Using any force necessary to succeed.
Every country controlled by leftists should overthrow them, and cleanse them from their countries.
these little Stalinists are everywhere. It's going to be a long fight.
All the people with the stones to do so moved to the colonies 200+ years ago.
Um, where do we move next?
The Moon?
we're not doomed from population growth, but there's definitely going to be some painful adjustments as the intergenerational pyramid levels out.
lots of promises made to old people dependent on there being some large multiple of younger people around to pilfer from.
Government Ponzi schemes are going to fail. For sure. But at least there will be enough food.
To be fair, old people were supposed to die sooner.
Ehrlich looks like Donald Fagen with a few extra pounds added on.
But we’re all gonna die from climate change by 2035, so what does it matter?
Again?
This is 60 Minutes, ffs! What did you expect?
They have some passing acquaintance with facts and the truth, but you can be sure they are not on a first-name basis.
turd, accidentally, posts more honestly than these scumbags.
I think he should move to Canada for health care.
Come for the health care, stay in the lines!
Oh, and that dude in the picture has a failing liver...
The scandal here is not that this misanthropic asshole wants billions of people dead, it's that he gets to spew this vicious pseudointellectual bullshit from a comfy, tax-subsidized office in what's ostensibly an institution of higher education instead of a skid-row barstool.
-jcr
^WELL SAID.
Like the mad scientist punch-line from the Playboy cartoon said: "Yes, I may be mad, but I have tenure!"
🙂
Seriously, the guy is like an inverted Cassandra. He's been consistently wrong for decades, yet people still take him seriously.
Because an increasingly wealthy and technologically adept humanity will be withdrawing from nature over the course of this century.
WTF is this retardation? You don't even believe this shit. You want humanity to build all the water, power, and facilities necessary to proliferate lab-grown meat, you want humanity to compete mosquitoes out of existence, to open all the hospital and diagnotic testing sites possible to provide humans with 24/7 COVID testing and monitoring, and to do its utmost to preserve the American chestnut.
Say what you will about Malthusian doomsayers, but at least it's an ethos.
Relax, It's just part of one possible future.
In a Libertarian future, you could could still build tiny houses in vacation spots in the mountains or the veldt and go travel to them. (Make sure you use CRISPR to thicken up the eardrums for the mountains and get the temporary Sickle Cell trait for visits to Africa.). Or take the Trans-Pacific Highway to visit the smashed Kim statues in newly United Korea.
And forget testing sites. Dr. "Bones" House-Call-In-A-Pocket (advertised by a VR hologram DeForrest Kelly) could diagnose you for any known human ailment in a moment, with free upgrades on new strains. If something is wrong, nanobots could fight any pathogens and rebuild that torn ligament instantly.
I'd say that's a Helluva better ethos than LARP versions of Schleprock!
It's kinda interesting that, by Stanford's policies, saying the words "black box", by generating a negative association with the color black (which it's not doing) is racist; but saying, "The world's poor won't be able to feed themselves, we're already seeing evidence of it." isn't racist.
Paul Ehrlich was only wrong because of the technological advances of the green revolution. If that hadn't happened he would have been right. The fact remains that unlimited population growth can't be sustained forever. We can't depend on technology saving the day every time.
You.
Are.
As.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
As.
Ehrlich.
Nice sarcasm!
Feel free to kill yourself.
So Green Revolution technology was just a fluke, along with nuclear energy, fracking, ocean exploration, space travel, and all other technologies of rational minds that man has used and will use to fight all that Nature has ever thrown against us?
And is it just a fluke that rational minds continue to improve on these and other technologies, so much so that 57 pounds of equipment from just 10 years ago is now replaced with pads, smartphones, and smart watches and soon to be embeddable in the human body if you so wish?
It may be a fluke for for you, but the rest of us are trying our damnedest to carry on and would appreciate it if you get out of our sunlight.
Imagine if fire hadn't been tamed! See? See?
The fact remains that unlimited population growth can’t be sustained forever.
Do you know what the cure to population growth is? Wealth. The wealthier a society gets, the fewer children they have. Know what also happens with wealth? Technological innovation.
So the solution to both issues is letting people create wealth.
Hey, folks, you can all waste time and keystrokes trying to reform this slimy piece of lefty shit again!
Tell him how he’s wrong, and hope he learns this time. Seems it must be worth your while.
I'll pass: Fuck off and die, steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.
Where’s Julian Simon when you need him!
That is a sad and ironic question. The one who held to human flourishing isn't around and the sandwich board holder proclaiming "THE END IS NEAR!" is still puttering along on the corner.
what Robbie doesn't understand is that present and future environmental and climate change laws will destroy productivity and what we have created and gained so far. so Erhlick will be right but for all the wrong reasons.
Hey fuckturds open your eyes.
The water crisis in the Southwest desert of the US is already impacting the production of avocado so no more guacamole for you. But that is just the tip of the ice cube; groundwater levels in the Midwest where we grow all the wheat and corn for bread and beef are down 100 feet in some places. Not to mention serious top soil loss.
Lucky for you that is just the good news. There is something like three million tons of microplastics enter the oceans every year much of it from the maybe 50 million tons of plastics (and more every year) that are floating around in the oceans and breaking down. If that is not bad enough the little fishies ingest the microplastics and are eaten by the bigger fishies till the humans in the food chain eat the big fishies.
Growing up in Miami there was a small town in Dade County called Sweetwater, so named because of the naturally sweet tasting water there. Sad to say the water is no longer drinkable without treatment. In fact with out serious treatment (not to mention periodic droughts that force limits on watering yards, which in ironically limits the polluted runoff from over fertilized yards and golf courses) the water is not drinkable.
It is not so much that we can't produce enough food (even if a lot of it is shit food with so many chemicals with names none of us can spell or pronounce), rather it is we keep shitting where we are eating and fouling our nest.
^ Meet the new Malthus!
Hey, fucktard, sarc or stupidity?
That’s not a farming problem you fucking retard. That’s a “why is the government subsidizing agriculture in the fucking desert” problem.
Erich makes Chicken Little look like Nostradamus. Why is this clown getting even a second of airtime? He has been 100% wrong about EVERYTHING! Read his book “Population Bomb” and realize it was not a sequel to the comedy “Idiocracy” but rather a serious work. Then you’ll understand.
The 4 horseman of getting it wrong: Ehrlich, Fauci, Rob Reich and Krugman.
Ok, that got me but we need names for them
Ehrlich - Incorrect
Fauci - dishonest
Reich - Crazy
Krugman - defective
"In fact, just as positive trends in global agricultural productivity that were already underway 50 years ago nullified Ehrlich's prophecy of inevitable famines that would kill hundreds of millions, current trends in agricultural productivity, population, urbanization, and dematerialization will likely negate his extinction auguries and predictions of civilizational collapse. Why? Because an increasingly wealthy and technologically adept humanity will be withdrawing from nature over the course of this century."
Ehrlich's predictions have turned out to be more correct in some ways. He was predicting famines and failures in food production due to overpopulation killing millions. This didn't happen. Still, over 2 billion suffer today from malnutrition, and about half the children under the age of 5 who die are undernourished. All this in spite of the increased wealth, technological innovation and food production surpluses. Who else but Ehrlich predicted such a miserable fate, even if he got the details wrong? Who got them right?
"humanity will be withdrawing from nature over the course of this century."
Not sure what that's supposed to mean or why it's supposed to be desirable.
"Ehrlich’s predictions have turned out to be more correct in some ways..."
It takes a large helping of stupid to make that claim, but trueman is up for it:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Go lookup Golden Rice. People like you are the reason for malnutrition. You don't care about people.
Ehrlich is a relic - a period piece. We've moved on to global warming, or COVID, or, or, or.
Bad news sells.
Good to see Ron still here. I don't always agree but at least he is honest and has facts to back up his data.
Now, about more people going to move in cities. After Covid, the reverse is true. Will that change? I don't know.
Funny that Ehrlich is always "the world is doom but needs my genius to stay around"