No, the World Is Not Heading Toward 'Mass Extinction'
Despite an apocalyptic media narrative, the modern era has brought much longer lives and the greatest decline in poverty ever.

Have you heard? The world is about to end!
60 Minutes recently featured Paul Ehrlich, author of the bestseller, The Population Bomb. "Humanity is not sustainable," he said.
Why would 60 Minutes interview Ehrlich?
For years, Ehrlich said, "We are very close to a famine" and, "In the next 15 years, the end will come." He's been wrong again and again.
Yet, 60 Minutes takes him seriously. "Paul Ehrlich may have lived long enough to see some of his dire prophecies come true," intoned reporter Scott Pelley. Now, 60 Minutes says, "scientists say" the earth is in the midst of a "mass extinction!"
Doom sells.
Ehrlich's book sold an amazing three million copies. It claimed the Earth's rising population would lead to worldwide famine.
The opposite happened.
The world's population more than doubled. But today there is less famine!
60 Minutes did mention that Ehrlich was wrong about widespread starvation, but they ignored his many other silly predictions. One was that by the year 2000 (because of climate change), England will not exist.
Ehrlich won't talk to me now, but seven years ago, when my producer asked him about his nonsense, Ehrlich said, "When you predict the future, you get things wrong."
The media should ignore doomsayers like Ehrlich, and pay more attention to people like Marian Tupy, editor of HumanProgress.org.
In my new video, Tupy points out that "life is getting better." The modern era has brought much longer lives and the greatest decline in poverty ever.
Of course, universities, media, and politicians say capitalism is destroying the earth, so young people throw soup on famous paintings. It's the moral thing to do, they believe, because we face an apocalypse!
"If you sell the apocalypse," says Tupy, "people feel like you are deep and that you care" But "if you are selling rational optimism, you sound uncaring."
Uncaring? It's the doomsayers who are anti-people. Ehrlich once even floated the idea of sterilizing people and reducing population growth by having government poison our food.
"Ehrlich sees human beings as destroyers rather than creators," says Tupy, "no different from rabbits. When they consume all grass around us, their population explodes, but then it's going to collapse. But human beings are fundamentally different. We have the capacity to innovate."
It's counterintuitive to think that people can be good for the environment. "We use stuff," I say to Tupy.
"We use stuff, but we also grow stuff," he responds. "What matters is new knowledge. Think about something as simple as sand. When we started melting down sand to create glass, we used the first glass for glass beads. Now we create microchips."
Similar innovation in farming, transportation, and genetic engineering is why our growing population doesn't destroy nature.
"Forests have grown by 35 percent in North America and Western Europe in the last 20 years," Tupy points out.
That's because innovative humans found ways to produce more food on less land. Also, prosperous countries can afford to protect nature.
But this idea that human innovation helps nature is nowhere near as popular as the idea that humans destroy earth.
Many young people are so misled that many don't want to have kids.
But that would hurt the world! Fewer women having babies today is probably more of a threat than climate change. Not only do we need young people to take care of the growing number of us old people, we need them to invent the things that will solve the Earth's problems.
More children means more people who might grow up to cure cancer or invent a carbon-eating machine.
However, more people by itself is not enough to provide the innovation we need.
"Certainly not," says Tupy. "If the number of people was all that mattered, China would have been the richest country for centuries. What you need is people, and freedom. If you let human beings be free, they will create more value for everyone."
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
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
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM
There's a fantastic quiz on pessimist vs optimist answers to some very basic questions, like what percentage of Africans have reliable electricity, what is the average global life expectancy, etc. I got some right, and I am a long term optimist, but I also got some surprising ones wrong.
I think Tupy was behind that quiz, but I haven't been able to find it since.
I get paid over 190$ 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.NETPAYFAST.COM
Cool story bro
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
The apocalypse isn't coming, humanity couldn't possibly get off that easily.
I can think of several people the world could do with out .
Have you heard? The world is about to end!
Margin of error: +/- 2 billion years.
That Hale-Bopp comet cult messed up the math on this. It was an astronomical error.
I had a sneaker suspicion you drank the kool aid
Free Nike shoes!
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
They were in their safe space.
Real galaxy brained stuff
I made a rope-jumping rhyme about them at the time:
"*Snip!-Snip!-Snip!*
My Mothership
Sails behind the Hale-Bopp!
You are it!"
🙂
Ehrlich is like some sort of inverted Cassandra. Despite decades of being wrong, people still listen to him. Just which god did we piss off to get this guy?
So true
Prometheus
Ackshuyally, in Greek mythology, Prometheus was a Titan, not a God.
Have you seen a school teacher union meeting? Those fat masses aren’t going extinct, they just continue to grow larger. McDonalds butt may be a thing.
Your all going to DIE!
Only Gov -------> GUNS will save you!
It's a self-fulfilling narrative. The more GUNS one uses for survival the more DEATH those guns will accumulate. (Wrong tool for the solution).
Doomsayers aren't necessarily wrong in their dooms-day they just fail to recognize it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. GUNS don't make human resources thus the 'solution' in their heads is the 'problem' within itself.
The only asset to humanity Government (monopoly of Gun-Force) can provide is to ensure Liberty and Justice for all (defensive) against criminal intentions.
What to do when Government starts working for the criminals instead?
Fear is a great tool for the rich and powerful to get their way.
The world will end, in a great ball of fire as the sun super novas, just not anytime soon. Probably in about 10-12 billion years. Prepare now!
Not just the rich and powerful--anyone who craves power can use fear to gain it for themselves.
For example, today's greens largely emerged from yesterday's reds, once it became clear that world communism was not going to be the "next big thing" to empower the vanguard.
"The world will end, in a great ball of fire as the sun super novas, just not anytime soon. Probably in about 10-12 billion years."
The sun is predicted to become a 'red giant' which will engulf the earth in about 5 billion years. Mars or one of the outer planets or their satellites just may become suitable for life as a result of the process.
I don't think you understand what a red giant is. Yes, the Sun will expand and swallow the Earth's orbit. It will also swallow the orbits of every other planet. You might buy yourself a few millennia moving to a moon of Jupiter but to really be safe, you have to figure out how to leave the solar system.
Nah.
Long before that happened sentient started refueling it. This particular version of Earth had become something of a tourist attraction.
Later, when they figured out how, they used a mechanism to have it replenish itself.
So this one’s still chugging along (but here’s a thing not a lot of people know, this isn’t the original Earth. That one got all used up and they had to feed replicated material in from adjacent continua).
"I don’t think you understand what a red giant is. "
I don't. I'm simply repeating what I've heard astronomer Brian Cox saying in his recent BBC series on the planets. Apologies if you disapprove of Cox, his profession, or the BBC.
Tony approves of Cox, especially the BBC variety.
Tony also knows more about astronomy than Liberty Lover, so there's that.
Has he explored Uranus?
Or the briny deep with Neptune or The Underworld with Pluto?
😉
Porn may make them change the name to Albion Broadcasting Corporation. 😉
Yeah, well your rickshaw won't save you, Watermelon!
It really doesn't matter, people won't be here any longer by then anyway, If we don't destroy ourselves with nukes, mother nature will do the job for us.
There is always money to be made in predicting disasters/end of the world. History is full of religions/cults that predicted the end of the world. Even today many evangelical Christians expect the rapture in their lifetime. Growing up I followed, not too close, a fellow named Howard Ruff who was predicting an economic collapse. Is "replacement theory" anything different, I say no.
Stossel is correct that humans adapt. The SciFi author Larry Niven noted that humans tend to address problem last minute when there is no other alternative and then we go big. This will likely be the case with all our coming challenges.
"Even today many evangelical Christians expect the rapture in their lifetime."
The rapture is rarely if ever focused on in evangelical circles. Sure it is mentioned in some sermons, but it is not a primary focus.
The main religious group / cult with the end of the world focus today is the climate nazi crowd. You cant both sides this, they scream about it every day ad nauseum.
We just have to accept that the most magical thinking, pseudoscience believing, cult members in society are now mainsteam secular progressives.
Let me suggest the following poll,
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/12/08/about-four-in-ten-u-s-adults-believe-humanity-is-living-in-the-end-times/
Evangelicals are more likely to believe we are in end times than older mainstream religions. Republican more likely to believe that Democrats. The fact is that Atheist are the least likely to believe we are in end time.
The fact is we secular atheists have no heaven to go so we want to keep things going on the earth.
With as many on the left who believe in catastrophic environmental doom, I wonder if the phraseology of the question was too traditional religion based rather than encompassing all beliefs as to the end of civilization.
“Even today many evangelical Christians expect the rapture in their lifetime.”
Heh. They 'expect it'.
That's funny.
If you're still walking around on Earth you are......what's the term? 'Left Behind'. It already happened.
whatever churches my sisters go to that is all they preach is the rapture.
The growth of the evangelical Christianity is largely responsible for a reduced focus on eschatology. That's one one of the reasons they have such a large focus of socially conservative activism, they are in it for the long haul.
No, they just made an ass of themselves too many times. Scaring little children until they're afraid to fall asleep doesn't help matters either.
It's the need that people have to live in the most important times that have ever existed. Everyone wants to be living during the time of the Pharaoh Ramses, no one wants to be living during the times of the numerous Pharaohs that no one knows about and there is no record of.
There's only one sure extinction for each one of us: death. Nobody has decided to exist either. These two facts open the door to thinking outside the materialistic framework that cannot answer the basic question "Why do we exist?". This is why every human being has imprinted a religious instinct. Human reason is the seed of our religiosity. Even the atheist is practicing his own religion. I think this is the cause of our deep interest in the doom-sayers. The possibility of extinction awakens our religious instinct.
" Human reason is the seed of our religiosity."
Religion arises from the failure of reason to answer questions like what happens to us after we die and so on. We don't have a religious instinct. We have curiosity and an urge to tell ourselves stories.
"There’s only one sure extinction for each one of us: death."
Extinction is about the death of an entire species. Not a single individual.
Humans have a philosophical instinct, not a religious instinct.
I would disagree. Humans have an inherent need for religious comfort. From providing an explanation for the unexplainable, to providing a sense of purpose and self, to providing a cultural structure, to providing solace in not being alone and being part of something bigger, the religious need is there. It's this religious need that then drives the philosophical approach.
Some religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Unitarian-Universalism may include Atheists among membership, and some Atheists believe in Supernatural concepts like souls or reincarnation, but Atheism is not a religion, nor do all Atheists practice religion.
Ehrlich is a busted flush. That doesn’t mean that Stossel is right. The globe does not just include the US, so mentioning what the US is doing to reforest is – intentionally – misleading. There are other parts of the world – Brazil, Indonesia, etc – where deforestation is still happening.
Yes, there is money to be made predicting TEOTWAWKI. There is also money to be made denying that there are any serious problems.
And “extinction” applies not just to humans.
Survival denier.
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and received $18539 from this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by.
follow instructions on this website… http://Www.workstar24.com
"That doesn’t mean that Stossel is right."
Who was right? Who was predicting, back when Ehrlich was writing his best seller, that we'd have some two billion suffering from malnutrition in spite of record levels of surplus food production?
Who says 2B are suffering from malnutrition now?
"Who says 2B are suffering from malnutrition now?"
Who indeed.
You going to actually answer?
I'm deputizing you as my answerer of questions. While you're at it, who was predicting back then widespread malnutrition in conditions of food abundance?
So, you're not going to answer. You know that not answering actually provides an answer? Kinda shows your claim was wrong.
Fuck off and do your own research.
Notably, all the places where deforestation is still happening are desperately poor (and invariably poor not because of a lack of natural resources but because of government policies). So Stossel is right on all points.
"Notably, all the places where deforestation is still happening are desperately poor "
Poor like Australia?
The irony of environmentalism, unfortunately. Only wealthy countries are able to care about the environment.
What an absurd argument! Because deforestation happens where people are poor, therefore it doesn't count so Stossel is really right.
Quel fuckwit.
The constant need to live in a world gripped by outrage and hysteria is just so tiring anymore.
The quote in Men in Black that people are panicky, dangerous animals has never been more true.
"Forests have grown by 35 percent in North America and Western Europe in the last 20 years," Tupy points out."
Tupy is wrong. Forests have not grown. That growth comes from monocultured tree plantations. Calling these plantations 'forests' is akin to calling wheat fields 'prairies.' More honest observers will refer to an increase of forest and 'tree covered areas.' Environmentalists refer to these plantations as 'green deserts.'
Tupy is right and you are wrong. Yes, there have been some increases in tree plantations but there have also been massive increases in natural forests and re-forested areas.
"Tupy is right and you are wrong."
I disagree. Tulpy's classification of tree plantations as 'forests' is dishonest. Read other writers on the issue and you'll see they are careful to distinguish between forests and 'tree covered areas.' Environmentalist refer to these plantations as 'green deserts.' Tulpy and Stossel make no effort to make such distinctions. It's dishonest propaganda, bandying about numbers to mislead the ignorant. Don't fall for their knavish tricks.
Please...knavish tricks?? Your "green desert" might not have the diversity that Yellowstone NP has, but it's hardly a desert. I have spent a lot of hours in tree plantations and there is plenty of wildlife and plant life there. Compared to any city, it's a freaking oasis. Birds, deer, turkeys, raccoons, possums, rabbits, squirrels, etc. And all those trees? They're sucking up that CO2 that worries all you doomsters so much. So, the fact that every square acre of "reforested" space doesn't meet the Sierra Club specs doesn't worry me a bit. And It shouldn't worry you either. Take a partial win and be happy instead of bitching that it's not the Garden of Eden.
"Compared to any city, it’s a freaking oasis. Birds, deer, turkeys, raccoons, possums, rabbits, squirrels, etc. And all those trees? "
I take your point. You could also say that wheat fields are host to a wide variety of wild animals. My point is the lack of vegetable variety in all monocultural settings, 'forest' or field.
"So, the fact that every square acre of “reforested” space doesn’t meet the Sierra Club specs doesn’t worry me a bit"
It's just another extractive process that ultimately leaves the land impoverished for the sake of short term economic expediency.
"Take a partial win and be happy instead of bitching that it’s not the Garden of Eden."
This is no partial win. Cutting down old growth forests and replanting them with slightly larger monocultured tree plantations is only a win for those who are making money from the enterprise. The rest of us schlubs pay in more ways than one.
One of my biggest gripes is with what I will term the made up word syndrome. Back in the day it was fashionable to talk about the Earth turning into a ball of ice (as science would predict due to entropy which basically says there is not enough energy in an expanding universe to maintain the current temperature; kinda like if you boil a pot of water on a stove and turn of the heat the water goes back to room temperature. But then the global warm crowd started with global warming which was redefined to climate change since that word covered what ever direction the temperature went.
Not much question there is change. Maybe my biggest concern is the water supply (google the Southwest is returning to a desert state due to mismanagement of the Colorado River). My sailing and cruising groups are up in arms about the PRC's massive fishing fleet harvesting all the sea life in the world's oceans. As others have mentioned industrial strength farming (including farming trees) has altered what we term open spaces. Tree farms are not forest and have changed the environment even if there are more trees than there use to be in some areas. Not to mention as others have posted while the US and to some extent the world in general has a problem with getting too fat kids in third world countries really are suffering from malnutrition.
I do think there is what planners term 'sustainable carrying capacity' and a lot of places have exceeded their carrying capacity.
"But then the global warm crowd started with global warming which was redefined to climate change since that word covered what ever direction the temperature went."
Climate change is a broader more general term and global warming refers specifically to temperature. There's more to climate than temperature. There's clouds and everything to do with water on land, atmosphere, and what's going on in the oceans. Also winds, storms, volcanoes, tides, seasons and phenomena like el nino. Climate change is more accurate because CO2 affects more than temperature. More accurate nomenclature is something all science strives for. Science is about the nameable, the observable and the measureable. Getting the name right is step one. It's not some kind of con job or Chinese hoax they are trying to pull.
I feel your pain over water in the west. It's a very shitty situation and there's a good chance it's only going to get worse. Tighter rationing and harsh enforcement are only the beginning. Communal sacrifice and common purpose might pull us through, but that's a tough sell in a Libertarian forum.
Indeed, and most of those changes are beneficial.
Water in the American West is primarily a question of mismanagement and typical variability, not man-made climate change. Man-made climate change will not substantially alter water availability in the American West.
"Man-made climate change will not substantially alter water availability in the American West."
And a free market will ensure enough water to refill the aquifers with enough left over to water our lawns and keep our swimming pools brimming.
"primarily a question of mismanagement and typical variability"
Wait until there's not enough water to go around. Then you'll long for the days when mismanagement was you chief concern.
A free market would price water appropriately so that most people in California couldn't afford to water lawns, fill swimming pools, or grow alfalfa sprouts. That kind of waste occurs because government is fixing prices, resulting in waste and shortages.
Water mismanagement in California doesn't concern me anymore since I have left the state.
The only thing I care about as far as California is concerned that they don't shift blame for their policy failures on other people. California's problems are not due to climate change, they are due to progressive policies.
"California’s problems are not due to climate change, they are due to progressive policies."
You mean they're not free market enough for you. Surprise surprise the parrot talks!
No, I mean that resources are actually, objectively misallocated. The misallocation is so bad that even a rational, centrally planned policy would do better.
"No, I mean that resources are actually, objectively misallocated. "
You mean you'd prefer these resources to be allocated in a different manner. Fine, but a drought is a drought no matter how you cut the cake.
No, you do: you called it a “very shitty situation”. I’m pointing out the reason that that “very shitty situation” exists: it isn’t “climate change”, it is government policy.
My personal preference is actually that they continue this way and that California fails miserably, to serve as a warning to others. All I want is for people not to lie about the origins of California’s problems.
Long droughts are a regular and natural occurrence in California and much of the West and are not the result of “climate change”. The inability of California policy makers to deal with them is one small aspect of water mismanagement and economic mismanagement in the state.
But then the global warm crowd started with global warming which was redefined to climate change since that word covered what ever direction the temperature went.
Nope. The change in term was promoted by Frank Luntz, a GOP strategist, who recommended that W and the rest of the GOP use the term in preference to global warming because it sounded less threatening.
This is well documented, but not as well known as it should be.
What you call "monocultured tree plantations" provides erosion control, carbon capture, wind breaks, and habitats. And if left alone for long enough, it will mature into something that is indistinguishable from what you consider a "forest".
In fact, there are almost no "natural forests" left on this planet; human beings have shaped and manipulated almost all of them.
"What you call “monocultured tree plantations” provides erosion control, carbon capture, wind breaks, and habitats."
It's not the same as a forest. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.
"And if left alone for long enough"
The 'cultured' part of monocultured means they're cultured, attended to, cared for. Leaving them alone until the weeds take over is never part of the plan.
Fact is that people plant and maintain forests for all sorts of reasons: restoration, appearance, creating ecosystems and habitats, harvesting, erosion control, etc. Most of those are designed as complex ecosystems, not "monocultures".
There are some forests that are monocultures: fast growing trees for harvesting. And there's nothing wrong with that either.
"Fact is that people plant and maintain forests for all sorts of reasons"
People undoubtedly do all you say. But follow the money. It's the large capitalist enterprises that outweigh any efforts by individuals planting a few trees in their garden.
"And there’s nothing wrong with that either."
Environmentalists have a number of problems with. They disagree.
i.e. My religious GOD is "Environmentalists".... And my religious GOD requires GUNS against those 'icky' people.
It's so funny to hear the left complain about the right and their religious agenda's getting pushed into government while the left has a religion they absolutely insist requires government intervention.
Neither of which has any other end-goal other than to use GUNS to dictate people taking away their Liberty and Justice for one's own religion....
P.S. Your Environmentalist GODS have a running correlation with REALITY = to 0% (proven through the test of time on a Global scale).
Laugh while you can, monkey boy.
So? All those capitalist enterprises operate subject to heavy environmental regulations.
If environmentalists had their way, forests in the US would end up being completely and utterly destroyed.
"So? All those capitalist enterprises operate subject to heavy environmental regulations. "
You're joking right? They write the regulations. You should read how these regulations are gamed by influential players and often result in exacerbating the problems they are meant to address.
"If environmentalists had their way,"
It's the ultra rich who have their way these days. Environmentalists don't have the weight. They have moral suasion (clean air, pure water, nutritious food) which only gets them co-opted by the powerful.
Environmentalists are the people preventing the construction of nuclear power plants and desalination plants, making them responsible for massive air pollution, carbon emissions, and destruction of aquifers. Environmentalists also make large infrastructure projects in the US impossible, even those that they themselves advocate, by having effective veto power over any kind of construction, particularly in California.
The "environmental movement" consists of powerful lobbyists, power-hungry politicians, self-serving "non-profits", and entitled and wealthy radical leftists with a "let them eat cake" attitude. They have no morality at all, just naked self-interest.
Ehrlich’s ideas about human doom are wrong.
But the term “mass extinction” has nothing to do with human deaths, it is a term from biology that refers to a rapid decline in the number of species.
Many biologists believe that we are in a period of mass extinction right now. Such a belief is supported by data. But the fact that it is debatable already tells you that it doesn’t automatically have apocalyptic consequences, it is a technical issue.
Another poorly researched and technically inaccurate article from Reason.
"Most" biologists believe no such thing. The data show that there was an increase in extinctions associated with the Age of Exploration (largely as the result of introduced species crowding out very local native species) but that the rate of extinctions since then is approximately the same as is found in the geological record.
" but that the rate of extinctions since then is approximately the same as is found in the geological record."
The geological record goes back a long time and the rate of extinctions goes up and down according to circumstances. Many informed scientists refer to our current era as 'the sixth wave of extinction,' the fifth being the one that wiped out the dinosaurs some 50 ~ 60 million years ago.
Yes, many informed scientists have ditched standard religious apocalypse and substituted in the humanist religious apocalypse.
Maybe because they are more informed than you are.
And most are nitwits out of their specialized niche in the sub discipline of some specific science.
And most are also just as prone to religious thinking when they choose their ideology.
"And most are nitwits out of their specialized niche in the sub discipline of some specific science."
You'd be surprised at how adept the successful scientist is in filling in filing grant requests.
"religious thinking"
What exactly do you mean by religious thinking? I gather you disapprove of the results, but beyond that I'm not at all sure.
Which is precisely why such successful scientists cannot be trusted: they cater to the preferences of the policy makers that hand them their grant money.
Kind of amazing he said the quiet part so out loud. Makes me think he didn't realize that was a quiet part.
Research costs money. Who knew? It would be nice if we lived in a worker's paradise where everything was free, but we don't. And take your faux naivete and go fuck yourself.
It does! And it shouldn't come from taxpayers.
No doubt that's what you want.
I hope you enjoy seeing California fall apart around you.
Maybe, but most likely not. Sorry, just because you call yourself a scientist doesn't mean you actually know anything more than most. That's what's kind of lost in the mix. I know many, many, many, scientist that I would trust to watch my dog. Scientists are humans just like the rest of us. They have biases and prejudices. They are affected by peer pressure, societal pressure, academic pressure, institutional pressure, career pressure, and funding pressure.
One of the biggest problems our country and much of the world is suffering is the lack of credibility and reliability of the scientific and expert communities. So, simple appeals to "scientists said" has lost almost all of its persuasive power.
"hey are affected by peer pressure, societal pressure, academic pressure, institutional pressure, career pressure, and funding pressure. "
Life is tough. For everyone.
"One of the biggest problems our country and much of the world is suffering is the lack of credibility and reliability of the scientific and expert communities. "
Bullshit. People come from all over the world to study and learn from America's scientific community, you fucking ignorant ingrate. Having the most advanced science in the world is now a problem? Come back when you've thought about this for a while and stop parroting the folks you hear on TV.
Top scientists used to come to the US because the US offered opportunities, funding, and a good life, and because Europe was in shambles. US universities used to be highly selective and value free and open inquiry. None of those are true anymore.
The quaternary extinction was mammoth.
Mmm, mammoth.
Soviet Russian scientists unthawed one once and made steak from it. They said it was too dry. Perhaps literally freeze-dried.
Of course, they didn't have Decadent Bourgeois Capitalism to introduce them to A-1:
A-1 Steak Sauce Commercials 1980s and 1990s
https://youtu.be/2etDD_CmPmk
RANT ALERT
The biologists blabbing about bullshit like extension are rent seekers pure and simple putting food on the table from government grants (maybe some NGOs too using government money). Truth be told there is no way to know how many introduced species crowded out local species during what ever the fuck the "Age of Exploration" was; hell they often times they did not even know where they were. But we do know there is hard scientific evidence that the mermaids went extinct due to sailors fucking them in the ass with no lube.
As an aside there is some evidence that the real mass extinctions were the result of shit from space (big meteors hitting just off the Yucatan or atomic particles from far away astronomical events bombarding earth) and not what happened on earth.
"As an aside there is some evidence that the real mass extinctions were the result of shit from space"
Sudden changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere can have dire consequences. Who knew?
No matter how clearly and carefully one writes, there are always idiots like you who fabricate quotes. I never said "most".
My point is that Stossel doesn't seem to know what the term even means. The question of whether we are in a mass extinction or not is a subtle statistical point for biologists, unrelated to Ehrlich's doom scenarios.
It's 60 Minutes. One notorious fraud interviewing another.
Two words: panic porn.
John
Great piece! I got a question for you. Why does this apocalypse fear keep on cropping up in society? If you look in history, it’s been around – shows up at the millennial marks. Especially it crops up with some recent religious movements(Ex:Jehovah Witness partic during late 1800’s-early 1900’s). I was wondering, if you ever looked into it. Is it a deep facet of human nature perhaps from very early primative past ….maybe the flood..asteroid strikes…etc.
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.APPRICHS.com
I’ve made $19490 just within thirty days by simply working part-time on home computer. As I lost my last position, I was very upset but thankfully I have started this online assignment & in this way I am capable to get thousand USD easily from home. Each individual can certainly avail this easy work & may earn extra money on-line by
exploring this website..... http://Www.Salaryapp1.com