In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich achieved infamy by publishing
The Population Bomb,
one of the most controversial eco-books ever printed. Ehrlich has been condemned to spend eternity
with Thomas Malthus, in a dungeon reserved for doom perverts. To this day, professors still use the two lads
as great reasons to never take seriously anyone who asserts that there are
limits to growth. We all know, of
course, that humankind has no limits. We
have technology!
Actually, Malthus never predicted catastrophic famine. He simply stated the obvious — when
population reaches overshoot, the death rate will automatically rise to restore
balance, one way or another (starvation, disease, conflict). A thousand people cannot prosper if forced to
share ten cheeseburgers a day. The
overshoot ceiling rises when food is abundant, and falls when food is
scarce. Malthus was not a doomer. His cardinal sin was declaring the obvious — that
there are limits to growth.
Ehrlich, on the other hand, actually did predict catastrophic
famine, and soon. The first lines in his
book are, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions
of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon
now.” Millions indeed starved, but not
hundreds of millions. Everyone agrees
that this prediction was inaccurate or premature.
When Ehrlich was writing, India was sliding toward
catastrophic famine. Only ten nations
produced more food than they consumed in 1966.
In America, the postwar baby boom led to a freakish population spike of
55 million in 20 years. The streets of
1968 were jammed with scruffy rebels protesting the Vietnam War, and our
totally unhip way of life. It was hip to
be loud, brash, and vigorously opposed to the status quo.
At the same time, the Green Revolution was just getting
rolling, and no one could foresee how well it would succeed at temporarily boosting
grain production. Norman Borlaug was the
wizard of the Green Revolution, and his holy mission was to reduce world
hunger. He hoped that the new technology
would give us 10 or 20 years to resolve our population issues. We didn’t even try. Those who recommend strict population control
measures are called callous. But the
leaders who irresponsibly blew off an amazing opportunity were also callous.
Naturally, much more food led to many more people. In 1968, there were 3.5 billion people, by
late this morning there were 7.2 billion.
World hunger sharply increased, and many other problems worsened. The Green Revolution had wonderful
intentions, but its unintended consequences far exceeded its benefits, because
we refused to seize the opportunity to confront and subdue the 800-pound
gorilla.
The bottom line here is that Ehrlich’s predictions of
catastrophe within a specific timeframe were wrong, but he succeeded in
bringing a lot of attention to real and growing problems — population,
pollution, and environmental destruction.
At the same time, he succeeded at pissing off almost everyone.
Liberals hated him because he wanted to set population goals
for poor nations, and withhold food aid for those who did not meet their goals. He contemplated the notion of withholding
food aid to nations that had zero chance of becoming self-sufficient. He did not endorse the “right” of families to
breed as they pleased — a right that was not handcuffed to responsibilities.
Religious people hated him because he believed that
contraception and abortion should be legal everywhere, and that all children
should receive rigorous training in sex education and family planning. They hated him because he believed that fetuses
were nothing more than potential humans.
Environmentalists hated him, because he was a lightning rod
for criticism. They believe that his
fondness for bold statements made it hard for folks to trust anything that
greens said. He was a popular scapegoat
to blame their failures on. If Ehrlich
had never been born, would we be living in a sustainable utopia today?
Conservatives hated him because he wanted to regulate
pollution and pesticide use. He
advocated compulsory population control, because voluntary family planning has
never been successful at stabilizing or reducing population. Ehrlich detested their insane obsession with
perpetual economic growth, which thrived on population growth, and disregarded
ecocide. But they loved him for being so
loud and so bizarre. He made it easy for
them to label all greens as hysterical nutjobs.
Modern society is suffocating in information. Everyone in a hunter-gatherer clan knew the
entire collection of their cultural information. Today, we don’t know a millionth of our
cultural information, because knowing it all is impossible. So, climatologists are freaked out about
rising temperatures, while the masses are blissfully ignorant. Petroleum geologists are freaked out about
the looming specter of Peak Energy, while the masses are not.
Within the realm of his specialty, Ehrlich could perceive enormous
threats that society was unaware of, and this freaked him out. He was compelled to rattle cages. If he had written a dry, mature, scholarly
discourse on population, with 300 footnotes, it would not have reached a
general audience and provoked lively and widespread discussion. In modern society, suffocating in
information, you get attention by flaming and screaming, like the election ads
for candidates. Whether or not it is
honorable, it works. In my opinion, Ehrlich’s
opinions were sincere, and a bit inflamed, but not devious fabrications.
Ehrlich’s book was read by many, and it drew needed attention
to a crucial issue. A taboo subject was
let out of the closet, for a while.
Others were inspired to write books.
Green organizations boldly called for action, but many checkbook
activists promptly revolted by putting away their checkbooks. So, the issue of overpopulation was handed
over to Big Mama Nature to resolve, and she will.
While his ideas continue to outrage many, they do have a
basis in cold, hard reason. We could
reward couples who don’t marry until 25, and those who space their children at
least five years apart. Childfree people
could be eligible to win lottery prizes.
“There has been little effective criticism of the medical profession or
the government for their preoccupation with death control… death control in the
absence of birth control is self-defeating.”
It would have been cool if humans were purely rational,
realized their mistake, and took bold action to divert disaster. Ehrlich sighed. “By now you are probably fed up with this
discussion. Americans will do none of
these things, you say. Well, I’m
inclined to agree.” He wrote because
there was a wee chance for success.
Don’t read this book to learn about overpopulation and its
side effects. Hundreds of newer books
are far more up to date. Read this book
to contemplate morals, ethics, taboos, ideologies, and communication. Contemplate his critics, and why they are so
determined to banish discussion on an issue that is a major threat to humankind
and the planet (see the reader
comments on Amazon.com). The anger
and pain that continues to swirl around this book provides a fascinating study
in human nature — long-term survival vs. a mentally unstable culture.
Ehrlich is an intelligent and charismatic fellow. In 2008, on the fortieth anniversary of The Population Bomb,
he reread his book and blushed a bit. He
had learned a few new things in the preceding forty years, but his overall
impression was that in 1968 he had been far too optimistic. He presented his current perspective in a
lecture at Stanford, From
the Population Bomb to the Dominant Animal (54 min.).
Ehrlich, Paul R., The
Population Bomb, Ballantine, New York, 1968.
Other reviews on population-related books: The
Ostrich Factor, The
Coming Famine, The
Rapid Growth of Human Populations 1750-2000, Living
Within Limits, Old
Fashioned Family Planning.
No comments:
Post a Comment