The Population Bomb that fizzled.

Paul Ehrlich: 'Collapse of civilisation is a near certainty within decades'

Paul Ehrlich: 'Collapse of civilisation is a near certainty within decades'By Damian Carrington

Cities
Overstretched cities



Fifty years after the publication of his controversial book The Population Bomb, biologist Paul Ehrlich warns overpopulation and overconsumption are driving us over the edge
Cities is supported byAbout this content

@dpcarrington

Thu 22 Mar 2018 07.30 EDTLast modified on Thu 22 Mar 2018 18.00 EDT


The toxification of the planet with synthetic chemicals may be more dangerous to people and wildlife than climate change, says Ehrlich. Photograph: Linh Pham/Getty Images


Ashattering collapse of civilisation is a “near certainty” in the next few decades due to humanity’s continuing destruction of the natural world that sustains all life on Earth, according to biologist Prof Paul Ehrlich.

In May, it will be 50 years since the eminent biologist published his most famous and controversial book, The Population Bomb. But Ehrlich remains as outspoken as ever.
FacebookTwitterPinterest Prof Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

The world’s optimum population is less than two billion people – 5.6 billion fewer than on the planet today, he argues, and there is an increasing toxification of the entire planet by synthetic chemicals that may be more dangerous to people and wildlife than climate change.

Ehrlich also says an unprecedented redistribution of wealth is needed to end the over-consumption of resources, but “the rich who now run the global system – that hold the annual ‘world destroyer’ meetings in Davos – are unlikely to let it happen”.

The Population Bomb, written with his wife Anne Ehrlich in 1968, predicted “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” in the 1970s – a fate that was avoided by the green revolution in intensive agriculture.

Many details and timings of events were wrong, Paul Ehrlich acknowledges today, but he says the book was correct overall.

“Population growth, along with over-consumption per capita, is driving civilisation over the edge: billions of people are now hungry or micronutrient malnourished, and climate disruption is killing people.”


Make modern contraception and back-up abortion available to all and give women full equal rights, pay and opportunities

Ehrlich has been at Stanford University since 1959 and is also president of the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere, which works “to reduce the threat of a shattering collapse of civilisation”.

“It is a near certainty in the next few decades, and the risk is increasing continually as long as perpetual growth of the human enterprise remains the goal of economic and political systems,” he says. “As I’ve said many times, ‘perpetual growth is the creed of the cancer cell’.”

It is the combination of high population and high consumption by the rich that is destroying the natural world, he says. Research published by Ehrlich and colleagues in 2017 concluded that this is driving a sixth mass extinction of biodiversity, upon which civilisation depends for clean air, water and food.
FacebookTwitterPinterest High consumption by the rich is destroying the natural world, says Ehrlich. Photograph: Paulo Whitaker/Reuters

The solutions are tough, he says. “To start, make modern contraception and back-up abortion available to all and give women full equal rights, pay and opportunities with men.

“I hope that would lead to a low enough total fertility rate that the needed shrinkage of population would follow. [But] it will take a very long time to humanely reduce total population to a size that is sustainable.”


It will take a very long time to humanely reduce total population to a size that is sustainable

He estimates an optimum global population size at roughly 1.5 to two billion, “But the longer humanity pursues business as usual, the smaller the sustainable society is likely to prove to be. We’re continuously harvesting the low-hanging fruit, for example by driving fisheries stocks to extinction.”

Ehrlich is also concerned about chemical pollution, which has already reached the most remote corners of the globe. “The evidence we have is that toxics reduce the intelligence of children, and members of the first heavily influenced generation are now adults.”

He treats this risk with characteristic dark humour: “The first empirical evidence we are dumbing down Homo sapiens were the Republican debates in the US 2016 presidential elections – and the resultant kakistocracy. On the other hand, toxification may solve the population problem, since sperm counts are plunging.”
FacebookTwitterPinterest Plastic pollution found in the most remote places on the planet show nowhere is safe from human impact. Photograph: Conor McDonnell

Reflecting five decades after the publication of The Population Bomb (which he wanted to be titled Population, Resources, and Environment), he says: “No scientist would hold exactly the same views after a half century of further experience, but Anne and I are still proud of our book.” It helped start a worldwide debate on the impact of rising population that continues today, he says.

The book’s strength, Ehrlich says, is that it was short, direct and basically correct. “Its weaknesses were not enough on overconsumption and equity issues. It needed more on women’s rights, and explicit countering of racism – which I’ve spent much of my career and activism trying to counter.

“Too many rich people in the world is a major threat to the human future, and cultural and genetic diversity are great human resources.”

Accusations that the book lent support to racist attitudes to population controlstill hurt today, Ehrlich says. “Having been a co-inventor of the sit-in to desegregate restaurants in Lawrence, Kansas in the 1950s and having published books and articles on the biological ridiculousness of racism, those accusations continue to annoy me.”

But, he says: “You can’t let the possibility that ignorant people will interpret your ideas as racist keep you from discussing critical issues honestly.”

More of Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s reflections on their book are published in The Population Bomb Revisited.

Editor's Note:  I cannot believe this idiot is still peddling his nonsense. Fear sells.  Unfortunately for him, the truth is more durable than lies. I guess he was tenured before he was exposed as a charlatan.   

"Excuses aren't reasons" (Carroll County Maryland Politician Questions Population Growth Projections) Lesson for Marin County

Excuses aren't reasons

When negotiating a contract, and the other party bulks, to overcome objections, you must discern between "excuses" versus "reasons."

Most of us unwittingly blur the distinction from time to time. My wife wants ice cream, and I tell her I don't feel like ice cream, but what I really mean is, "It's too fattening and I'll gain weight." The first is the "excuse," the latter is the "reason."

So it is with government policies. Manufactured excuses mask real reasons behind policies.

Tell me the reason why 2 percent to 4 percent annual population growth isn't enough?

I'm for economic growth, but one or two commissioners say we need more population growth in order "to do what needs to be done." Tell me, exactly what needs to be done? I want sound "reasons," not political "excuses."

Besides, if we can't run a healthy county with 170,000 people, tell me exactly why we can do it if we add thousands of "affordable housing or workforce housing units." (That's government-speak for apartments, and government-sponsored housing projects preferred by energetic politicians.)

Carroll County's low population growth rate may be 'new normal'

Ironically, considering the average household must gross $80,000 in wages, and pay taxes on a house costing at least $320,000 to generate enough tax revenue to pay for county services, it is self-evident the "excuse" for low-end growth simply exacerbates the "reason" for government financial challenges.

Forget "excuses." What are the real "reasons" behind drum-beating for more population growth?

Recently, in Annapolis, I challenged a liberal senator who concocted an "excuse" to justify policies harmful to rural counties. He said rural development is "too expensive for government," and suggested urban development is more affordable. It isn't.

Urban development leads to skyrocketing costs for social services, housing services, drug treatment services, municipal utilities, law enforcement services, emergency services … and when you add all of these together, urban development is actually a greater strain on government.

I blew-up the senator's "excuse" by pointing-out that urban areas consistently have higher tax rates than rural areas. If urban development is more affordable, cities would have the lowest tax rates. They don't. It's just an excuse that hides the real "reason." Urbanesque development shifts voting blocks from right to left. Witness Frederick County.

So, tell me a "reason" why higher growth rates will make Carroll County better? Will it lead to lower crime, less congestion, better communities and a higher quality of life … or simply increase the strain on existing taxpayers?

Here's my position: "People move to Carroll from surrounding jurisdictions to escape urban development patterns. They don't want Carroll officials re-creating what they came here to escape." Hundreds of people attended our PlanMaryland forum four years ago and booed then-Gov. Martin O'Malley's Secretary of Planning when he tried to sell denser development to us.

There's also that other pesky problem … too many schools costing too much money. So, let's grow the county any way we can to fill empty schools … right? Wrong.

But commissioner, we've been told large numbers of teachers are leaving Carroll County because of poor pay. Except, this "excuse" simply wasn't true. Two years ago, Carroll had the lowest teacher attrition rate in the entire state of Maryland. Last year, our attrition rate was still among the lowest in the state.

Question: Why did the school system advance this blatantly misleading "excuse?" You know the real "reason." It's green, but has nothing to do with the environment.

Recently, public school political hacks grabbed front page headlines alleging Carroll is not "welcoming." Hogwash. All legal citizens are welcome in Carroll. Our Realtors, communities and government embrace Equal Housing Opportunity. So, what's this hoopla really about? It's an attempt to justify social engineering of communities to promote a political agenda and fill empty classroom seats. Again, it's about green … as in greenback.

Let's face fact: Donald Trump's election proves citizens are tired of expensive overbearing government that interferes with citizens' lives. It was a referendum against establishment government — of both parties.

Decision-making should always be based on solid "reasons." Leave the politically correct "excuses" at the doorstep.

By the way, what were those "excuses" about why we need to spend $60 million rebuilding the Career and Tech Center? Do you remember hearing any good "reasons?"