Profound article not so much because it identified absurdly we accepted as truth, but it explains how one man's ego centered investment in an academic ideology could go unchallenged by his colleagues.
As I was reading this and struck by his arrogance and unwillingness to look at the actual facts, I couldn’t help thinking academia hasn’t changed. It still filled with arrogant professors, barking up the wrong tree, who somehow have accolades that bring them success and influence, even when they’ve been proven wrong for decades
Thank you for this lay to rest. Ehrlich personified the intellectual dishonesty of the environmental movement for 5 decades, and the melding of environmental advocacy based on false premises with elite academia. It will take another fifty years to dig out of the crepitaceous hole.
He sounds like an actual fascist. I’m surprised that these details of his misanthropy were omitted from the several other articles about his failed “science”.
I especially appreciate the point that he was feted by peers and institutions throughout his career. Again, see NYT obituary…
Great example of what man should not be. Ehrlich was not a God-fearing man, just another another soul that did not know he had a soul. He became a tool for many with an agenda. Que the internet for the Jaffe Memo (circa 1969) and the Rockefeller Population Report, commissioned by Congress, also 1969. President Ford opened a Population Office, it still exists.
I've hated Ehrlich since grad school. I've long thought part of what makes America great is that in general the voters have contempt for egghead intellectual tools who the establishment respects. In china no such check existed or exists and now, largely because that check didn't exist, china faces dissolution as a country.
I bought it along with Climate Change. Science is broken....... has been forever. What a bunch of Grifters. Still had 2 kids. Most of my friends ( in the arts) had no kids. Sad life
The media sold its soul to the left a long time ago. The live on "sensationalism" to "sell" their news, then they can charge their advertisers a good fee. Ehrlich's predictions sold papers so they used him for selling purposes. Professors like pro athletes are arrogant because they have reached the top of their profession.,,,that is to be expected if you have any form of intelligence.
What draws more, the winners of the national spelling bee contest or the guy who murders his family and 3 friends?
Did Paul Ehrlich overlook quality of life issues about population growth?
US population was 140 million when I was born; now 340 million.
Where did we put the 200 million new people?
The farms, open spaces, and woodlands near where I grew up are gone, cut and covered with shopping malls, parking lots, housing developments, highways, new roads, etc. Is that an improvement?
All across the nation, many of the 200 million live too close to places prone to flooding, water shortages, earthquakes, forest fires. Is that good for those people? Daily traffic jambs, air and water pollution, trash, energy shortages, housing shortages, towns and cities spreading endlessly into the open land, often farm land, outside their limits.
Yes, our US land mass is very large and we could absorb more people if we wanted and allowed that. Do we really want many more people here? We need to debate what should be our maximum population? Another 200 million or 400 million more in the next 70 years?
Maybe fewer than we have now? 300 million? Pick your own optimum number.
Are we at our maximum desired population number now? What do you think?
Ingenuity - what a blessing - planes, trains automobiles; much land freed from growing feed for the horse power that ran the economy. We still have excess land that has not been developed yet, well, that hasn't been absconded with by the fed gov - greedy thing that it is.
Be fruitful and multiply was a direction straight from our Maker. It is a good thing your parents had you, and I believe every one here today is glad to have a life and hopefully don't want to stop more lives for coming on board. What's good for me is good for others even if they are not alive yet. My two sons were born in the late '60s.
Don't spoil the good by wanting the perfect. We never know when a plague may show up and wipe out a third of the population like it did in the UK 400 years ago.
Agree.... but the land use and zoning req were a local issue so the cancer grew. American planners were poorly trained in the 1960's so the suburban development (single MacMansions) was encouraged and locals boards were easily bought. Developers and builder's have sway.
But parking lots can be dug up . In the future more sustainable, walkable, and nature filled homes will be reconstructed in the vinyl sprawl we have left.
Profound article not so much because it identified absurdly we accepted as truth, but it explains how one man's ego centered investment in an academic ideology could go unchallenged by his colleagues.
As I was reading this and struck by his arrogance and unwillingness to look at the actual facts, I couldn’t help thinking academia hasn’t changed. It still filled with arrogant professors, barking up the wrong tree, who somehow have accolades that bring them success and influence, even when they’ve been proven wrong for decades
Thank you for this lay to rest. Ehrlich personified the intellectual dishonesty of the environmental movement for 5 decades, and the melding of environmental advocacy based on false premises with elite academia. It will take another fifty years to dig out of the crepitaceous hole.
Contrast this with NYT obit.
He sounds like an actual fascist. I’m surprised that these details of his misanthropy were omitted from the several other articles about his failed “science”.
I especially appreciate the point that he was feted by peers and institutions throughout his career. Again, see NYT obituary…
Thanks.
Great example of what man should not be. Ehrlich was not a God-fearing man, just another another soul that did not know he had a soul. He became a tool for many with an agenda. Que the internet for the Jaffe Memo (circa 1969) and the Rockefeller Population Report, commissioned by Congress, also 1969. President Ford opened a Population Office, it still exists.
I've hated Ehrlich since grad school. I've long thought part of what makes America great is that in general the voters have contempt for egghead intellectual tools who the establishment respects. In china no such check existed or exists and now, largely because that check didn't exist, china faces dissolution as a country.
I bought it along with Climate Change. Science is broken....... has been forever. What a bunch of Grifters. Still had 2 kids. Most of my friends ( in the arts) had no kids. Sad life
The media sold its soul to the left a long time ago. The live on "sensationalism" to "sell" their news, then they can charge their advertisers a good fee. Ehrlich's predictions sold papers so they used him for selling purposes. Professors like pro athletes are arrogant because they have reached the top of their profession.,,,that is to be expected if you have any form of intelligence.
What draws more, the winners of the national spelling bee contest or the guy who murders his family and 3 friends?
Did Paul Ehrlich overlook quality of life issues about population growth?
US population was 140 million when I was born; now 340 million.
Where did we put the 200 million new people?
The farms, open spaces, and woodlands near where I grew up are gone, cut and covered with shopping malls, parking lots, housing developments, highways, new roads, etc. Is that an improvement?
All across the nation, many of the 200 million live too close to places prone to flooding, water shortages, earthquakes, forest fires. Is that good for those people? Daily traffic jambs, air and water pollution, trash, energy shortages, housing shortages, towns and cities spreading endlessly into the open land, often farm land, outside their limits.
Yes, our US land mass is very large and we could absorb more people if we wanted and allowed that. Do we really want many more people here? We need to debate what should be our maximum population? Another 200 million or 400 million more in the next 70 years?
Maybe fewer than we have now? 300 million? Pick your own optimum number.
Are we at our maximum desired population number now? What do you think?
Ingenuity - what a blessing - planes, trains automobiles; much land freed from growing feed for the horse power that ran the economy. We still have excess land that has not been developed yet, well, that hasn't been absconded with by the fed gov - greedy thing that it is.
Be fruitful and multiply was a direction straight from our Maker. It is a good thing your parents had you, and I believe every one here today is glad to have a life and hopefully don't want to stop more lives for coming on board. What's good for me is good for others even if they are not alive yet. My two sons were born in the late '60s.
Don't spoil the good by wanting the perfect. We never know when a plague may show up and wipe out a third of the population like it did in the UK 400 years ago.
Agree.... but the land use and zoning req were a local issue so the cancer grew. American planners were poorly trained in the 1960's so the suburban development (single MacMansions) was encouraged and locals boards were easily bought. Developers and builder's have sway.
But parking lots can be dug up . In the future more sustainable, walkable, and nature filled homes will be reconstructed in the vinyl sprawl we have left.
So he was almost universally wrong 100% of the time like The DEMONcrats of today