In 1968, eco-lunatic Paul Ehrlich published his book The Population Bomb where he made wild claims that such as these:
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, a butterfly expert at Stanford, published “The Population Bomb.” It was filled with apocalyptic predictions: “In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now,” he wrote.
The president would dissolve Congress after the “food riots of the 1980s,” Mr. Ehrlich predicted. In that decade 65 million Americans would die of starvation and disease. By 1999, our population would plummet to just 22.6 million. India and Britain would no longer exist.
Funny, I don’t remember any food riots in the 1980’s.
Anyhow, undaunted by the fact his predictions were off by orders of magnitudes, eco-kook Ehrlich is back at it again with a peer-reviewed paper titled: Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
But today, for the first time, humanity’s global civilization—the worldwide, increasingly interconnected, highly technological society in which we all are to one degree or another, embedded—is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as ‘an act of suicide on a grand scale’ , facing what the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a ‘perfect storm’ of environmental problems .
Yes he really did cite the opinion of Charles, Prince of Wales in his supposed scholarly work. Reading further into his tedious paper, Ehrlich holds off for eleven paragraphs until he gets to the main thrust of his paper:
The critical importance of substantially boosting the inadequate current action on the demographic problem can be seen in the time required to change the trajectory of population growth humanely and sensibly.
Population growth.. Humanely… This is theme put forth by Paul Ehrlich and his co-author and now Obama science Czar John P. Holdren (who among other weird things believes that trees should have legal standing) in their book Ecoscience which includes gems such as this:
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
Ehrlich and Holdren are firmly in mad scientist territory and, of course, leftist Democrats worship these guys.
Getting back to Paul Ehrlich’s latest work, according to the good Doctor, the solution to all our problems is to simply listen to the smartest person in the room otherwise known as Paul Ehrlich:
The needed pressure, however, might be generated by a popular movement based in academia and civil society to help guide humanity towards developing a new multiple intelligence , ‘foresight intelligence’ to provide the long-term analysis and planning that markets cannot supply. Foresight intelligence could not only systematically look ahead but also guide cultural changes towards desirable outcomes such as increased socio-economic resilience. Helping develop such a movement and foresight intelligence are major challenges facing scientists today, a cutting edge for research that must slice fast if the chances of averting a collapse are to be improved.
If foresight intelligence became established, many more scientists and policy planners (and society) might, for example, understand the demographic contributions to the predicament , stop treating population growth as a ‘given’ and consider the nutritional, health and social benefits of humanely ending growth well below nine billion and starting a slow decline.
Reading this, you can’t escape the fact this is nothing more than an overly long footnoted opinion paper containing seriously warped ideas. Furthermore, given his track record of being spectacularly wrong, why would anyone give Paul Ehrlich the time of day is a mystery.