[daniel1212]

Liberals scoff at the warnings of God's judgments, but magnify issues which will gain them power.

[daniel1212]

“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” he promised in a 1969 magazine article. “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come,” Ehrlich told CBS News a year later. “And by ‘the end’ I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

Such statements contributed to a wave of population alarm then sweeping the world. The International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Population Council, the World Bank, the United Nations Population Fund, the Hugh Moore-backed Association for Voluntary Sterilization and other organizations promoted and funded programs to reduce fertility in poor places. “The results were horrific,” says Betsy Hartmann, author of Reproductive Rights and Wrongs, a classic 1987 exposé of the anti-population crusade. Some population-control programs pressured women to use only certain officially mandated contraceptives. In Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan, South Korea and Taiwan, health workers’ salaries were, in a system that invited abuse, dictated by the number of IUDs they inserted into women. In the Philippines, birth-control pills were literally pitched out of helicopters hovering over remote villages. Millions of people were sterilized, often coercively, sometimes illegally, frequently in unsafe conditions, in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia and Bangladesh.

In the 1970s and ’80s, India, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay, embraced policies that in many states required sterilization for men and women to obtain water, electricity, ration cards, medical care and pay raises. Teachers could expel students from school if their parents weren’t sterilized. More than eight million men and women were sterilized in 1975 alone. (“At long last,” World Bank head Robert McNamara remarked, “India is moving to effectively address its population problem.”) For its part, China adopted a “one-child” policy that led to huge numbers—possibly 100 million—of coerced abortions, often in poor conditions contributing to infection, sterility and even death. Millions of forced sterilizations occurred. - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/

[Paladin2]

"Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.” "

Agenda 21 to the rescue...

[ealgeone]

You’d think the Left would be thrilled with CORVID 19.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Deaf Smith]

For effect, The Population Bomb is #2 to Silent Spring.

Another work of fiction that has killed untold number of people world wide.

[nathanbedford]

Here is a contrary view from three years ago which asks conservatives to look at the other side of the coin, a contrarian view that is not traditionally advanced on these threads:

The population of the United States has doubled in my father's lifetime and redoubled in my lifetime. This is not an arithmetic but an exponential rate of growth which cannot be sustained for very many more generations. My concern about exploding population is not offered out of Hobbesian theories of want but out of real fears concerning liberty. Even assuming we are theoretically capable of feeding billions more people, are we actually able to do so as a free people operating in a free market in a free society? Or are the leftists right when they say that the problem is too much freedom and not enough organization? Are we populating ourselves into a statist dystopia?

Nathan Bedford's Maxim: the more population density, the less liberty.

Look about you and consider how the left has compressed our liberties in the last three quarters of a century. Think of the strictures placed upon you for the environment. For example, it is no longer legal to burn a wood stove in parts of California. It is now the federal government that tells you as a rancher in Wyoming whether you could have a pond out back for geese and ducks. Your ability to charge rent in your New York City apartments has been controlled for decades by the government because of overcrowding. Your right to shoot a deer has been severely restricted and regulated and taxed. Your right to shoot a deer or a bear may have been entirely eliminated and there are no resemblance to the America of my forefathers who actually went hunting with Daniel Boone. The size of the toilet you flush and the bulb with which you illuminate the darkness is no longer a matter of choice.

The list is endless, indeed there is virtually no area of your life that is not currently regulated by the federal government or the state government and much of that is justified by the need to protect your neighbor from you. You also want the government to protect you from your neighbor, that is why we have zoning ordinances for example. All of these things come with density of population. A density of population which we might be able to feed but can we endure? Can we endure as free men? Can we feed them as free men?

Against this we have the inherent liberty to have children. Because one regards overpopulation as a threat to liberty does imply he also condones curtailing the liberty to have a family. Conversely, nor does it imply in any way that we should condone abortion. Perhaps we ought not to subsidize more children, but if you think we should, even as we do, perhaps, if we wish to be consistent, we should subsidize an unlimited inflow of immigrants?

The hordes rushing into Europe ought to give us pause before we blandly dismiss the downside of overpopulation.

[Stevenc131]

Overpopulation ceased to be an issue with liberals about 20 years ago when they discovered that ‘persons of color’ were responsible for virtually all of the population growth. Once they found that they couldn’t pin the blame on Western countries, i.e white people, the liberals lost interest.

I actually heard a rep from the World Wildlife Fund say in a radio interview in the late ‘90s that they didn’t discuss the effects of overpopulation on wildlife any longer because it would sound racist (since 3rd world countries were responsible). That’s pretty much about the time liberals lost interest in overpopulation.

[hinckley buzzard]

I vividly recall when Ehrlich appeared on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show. He made a big splash, with Johnny’s enthusiastic backing. Then of course Earth Day 1970 seemed to confirm that we were approaching an apocalypse. The “Environmental Handbook” published for the occasion added to the hysteria. Filled with the damndest layer of bullshit ever squeezed between two covers but taken as gospel by the useful idiots of “The New Left (same as the Old Left)”.

[Fiji Hill]

In 1969, I saw Ehrlich when he came to the slopes of Fiji Hill to give an address at Occidental College. He urged every young man in the audience to get a vasectomy. I thought his presentation was creepy.

[KarlInOhio]

The only way I was able to survive the Great Starvation of the 1980s was by eating remaindered copies of the Population Bomb.

[Lurker]

Julian Simon won the bet.

L

[yesthatjallen]

The Ehrlichs took the cab ride in 1966. How many people lived in Delhi then? A bit more than 2.8 million, according to the United Nations. By comparison, the 1966 population of Paris was about 8 million. No matter how carefully one searches through archives, it is not easy to find expressions of alarm about how the Champs-Élysées was “alive with people.” Instead, Paris in 1966 was an emblem of elegance and sophistication.

Delhi was overcrowded, and would continue to grow. By 1975, the city had 4.4 million people—a 50 percent gain in a decade. Why? “Not births,” says Sunita Narain, head of the Centre for Science and Environment, a think tank in Delhi. Instead, she says, the overwhelming majority of the new people in Delhi then were migrants drawn from other parts of India by the promise of employment.

The man who led the demographic collapse of western nations based his theory on a completely false premise.

[The Truth Will Make You Free]

That book about killed me. Read it high school. Lost hope. Got depressed and confused. Went into the occult. Hitch-hiked cross country. Thank God I had a praying aunt and was eventually led to the Lord.

[KosmicKitty]

I guess Ehrlich never heard of Thomas Malthus.

[Salman]

Erlich is still around ans an “expert” on climate change.

[Grimmy]

“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” ― George Orwell