[truthguy]

Okay so I share with you my disdain of Paul Ehrlich. I also happen to know he's a hypocrite of sorts but that's another story.

But Ehrlich wasn't completely wrong. Population is in fact a problem. Is it the type of problem that will sort itself out or will it take intervention in many horrific forms to try and sort it out. The reason Ehrlich attracted so many followers was because people could imagine the world he forcasted. Already the U.S. cities were becomming terrible places to live. Just look at the major American Cities. Most of them are mostly cesspools. Almost all people remember places that used to be magical wilderness and were turned into ugly strip malls. People could project what it might be like in the future. Many people would recoil in horror at the thought of 300 million, 400 million, 500 million U.S. Population. What would life be like?

Most of the struggles occurring today in the world come about because too many people are compeating for too few resources. What would the middle east be like if there were an adequate supply of water for all countries. Less Tension? I don't know. Perhaps.

Anyway I jumped into this post without realizing how long it would be. Whole books are written on this subject.

Yes I cannot stand Paul Ehrlich. Yes he's an elitist professor (the worst type) at a prestigious university. But I don't think he's entirely wrong about the perils of unlimited population.

[wideminded]

I would NOT, you understand, add more children to the planet that was doomed to starvation why goodness, the wonderful and wise Ehrlich done told us so.

According to the Wikipedia article on Borlaug, he also was worried about population growth:

"So, future food-production increases will have to come from higher yields. And though I have no doubt yields will keep going up, whether they can go up enough to feed the population monster is another matter. Unless progress with agricultural yields remains very strong, the next century will experience sheer human misery that, on a numerical scale, will exceed the worst of everything that has come before".

Besides increasing the worldwide food supply, Borlaug repeatedly stated that taking steps to decrease the rate of population growth will also be necessary to prevent food shortages."

[Fishtalk]

I enjoyed your insights.

My dislike of Ehrlich can translate to more of a dislike of liberal in general.

If I’m making sense. For I’m not denying the problems of overpopulation but if you were around during the infamous Ehrlich ZPG era, this overpopulation thing wasn’t just about Ethiopia and other areas of population in excess of food supplies. This has always been, and still is, a problem.

Ehrlich became of the darling of academia of that era and his writings were interpreted as part and parcel of America and were meant to be practiced by cool and thinking Americans.

Only whether or not a few cool, hip and happening Americans had one, three or even more children would not impact the world and the food supply one darn bit.

It was a liberal thing, just like the liberal things today. It’s part of some mantra they invent to get blind followers like my well-meaning but naive self. Like the young people who currently think public run healthcare would be a good thing, they don’t know what they’re talking about. They haven’t even lived long enough to know much of anything.

But someday, with their silly adherence to something so very harmful, they too will have to live with the consequences of that which they buy into today for their lack of experience.

Useful idiots, to sum it up.

And like me, they’ll be totally unable to change their wrong perhaps well-meaning actions of their youth.

It’s how liberalism succeeds even with its idiocy and lack of logic.

And it goes on and on and on.