Paul Ehrlich talks

[ribozyme]

Paul Ehrlich is one of my mean heros. Listen to what he has to say. Do you agree with him?

wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1413&fuseaction=topics.event&event_id=459162

bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12309

 

[ribozyme]

I meant to say “many heroes.”

So what do you think of his views?

 

[1ke]

I think Paul Ehrlich is a complete moron who hasn’t gotten one thing right in 50 years.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Paul Ehrlich is one of my mean heros. Listen to what he has to say. Do you agree with him?

wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1413&fuseaction=topics.event&event_id=459162

bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12309

Sounds like just another talking head using overpopulation and climate change to justify their political agenda.

No matter what the “crisis” is, the solution always seems to be the same…

Solution to overpopulation? Multi-national government control…
Solution to climate change? Multi-national government control…
Solution to healthcare crisis? Multi-national government control…
Solution to lead based paint on toys? Multi-national government control…
Solution to energy crisis? Multi-national government control…
Solution to this month’s scary disease? Multi-national government control…
Solution to tough stains that just don’t come out? Multi-national government control…

You might want to reconsider why you count this guy as a “hero.” I’d have more respect for crazy dictators because they have the backbone to just come out and ADMIT their primary objective is to gain power and influence.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I found this on wikipedia about this joker…

Just a handful of his dire predictions for humanity over the years…

Some are pretty funny-

“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, … The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” Paul Ehrlich in special Earth Day (1970) issue of the magazine Ramparts.

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.” (Population Bomb 1968)

“Smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)

“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” (1969)

“Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.” (1976)

“By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” (1969)

“By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million.” (1969)

“Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people…” - Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” - Quoted by R. Emmett Tyrrell in The American Spectator, September 6, 1992

“People are welcome to any religious belief they want but I don’t want them planning my planet on the basis of ideas that they think can be ascribed to some supernatural monster written down thousands of years ago. That’s just silly” [14]

 

[redhen]

snip
Solution to tough stains that just don’t come out? Multi-national government control…

Nice reductio ad absurdum.

“The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earths limits.”

That’s not Paul Erlich, that’s from ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html

which includes “1,700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences”

You can believe (along with big business, politicians and land developers) that there** no limits to growth**. We can keep growing in population, land use, resource consumption and waste manufacturing, but you’d be wrong.

 

[gam197]

The sad part of this is that in th 1960’s Paul Ehrlich was written into the Geography book in many middle schools with a whole chapter on over-population. It was very frightening because India had a great famine where 1.5 million died in 1965 and pictures were broadcast daily on the news.(Little was known or said about the 2 Chinese famines (1958-62 and 1969)that took the lives of 50 million people as they were a closed society and the full numbers weren’t been seen on the TV news every day until numbers were published in 1980’s.)

They did not discuss the cause of these famines.

As I live in New England, I don’t know if this was just our area or whether the whole nation got over-population in their classrooms and books

Today the schools in NE teach the melting pot, diversity, and climate change more than population control.

Paul Ehrlich is a Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford - so that is where he has been all these years.

 

[manualman]

Paul Ehrlich’s history of doomsday predictions utterly discredits the man.

A broken clock is right a LOT more often than he is.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Nice reductio ad absurdum.

“The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earths limits.”

That’s not Paul Erlich, that’s from ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html

which includes “1,700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences”

You can believe (along with big business, politicians and land developers) that there** no limits to growth**. We can keep growing in population, land use, resource consumption and waste manufacturing, but you’d be wrong.

Wow, you managed to pack a lot of logical fallacies into a relatively short post.

First, you start off by completely redirecting the original issue.

Whether these problems exist is not my issue.

My issue is that people like Paul Ehrlich pair forecasts of doom and gloom with their particular solutions, and then accuse anyone who rejects their particular solution of rejecting the whole premise that a problem exists at all.

Going on…

The most common fallacy you used is the argumentum ad populum- that is, you referred to a gaggle of scientists in the hope that the sheer number of scientists will quell the opposition into submission. For example, one might say “1500 scientists think the sky is red.” This kind of appeal to numbers makes people think “well, if 1500 scientists say so, then it must be true, because scientists are smart.” But this approach typically masks the credentials of those scientists. Or, it might fail to mention that those 1500 OTHER scientists believe exactly the opposite. It might also fail to mention that 150 much more qualified scientists think those 1500 scientists are wrong.

…and then you make two logical twists that are very common paired in this kind of debate…

The first twist is that proponents of particular solutions reject that their proposals bear the burden of proof, and instead assert the burden of proof belongs to those who disagree with them. This flies in the face of traditional logic, which places the burden of proof on person offering a solution, because it is on them to prove that their solution will actually work.

The second, and more interesting, twist is in the slight of hand that occurs in redirecting the burden of proof away from discussing the basic problem, and instead redirects it toward proving that the proposed solution won’t work.

These two twists work very well together because they allow the antagonist to nimbly leap between them, thus constantly keeping their opposition chasing after the debate topic…

antagonist: “Global warming will kill us if you don’t ride this camel”
me: “but I don’t want to ride a camel”
antagonist: “then you hate the planet”
me: “No, I don’t hate the planet”
antagonist: “then prove it by riding this camel”
me: “but I don’t want to ride the camel”
antagonist: “I knew you were lying about not hating the planet.”
…and so on…

Here are a couple of other common fallacies I expect to see in this thread if it continues…

One is to provide a series of several solutions as a complete package, and then criticize anyone who rejects any piece of that solution package for rejecting the whole package.
For example: say you offer to make soup with peas, carrots, and chicken. I respond by saying that i don’t like carrots in my soup. You declare that I hate soup.

Another common tactic is to demand that those who disagree with said solutions must either provide a “better” solution or accept the solution they don’t like. This is often predicated on a sense of intense urgency, such that failure to act right now will result in big bad horrible things.

So, thanks again for an interesting post- it gave me a lot to think about

 

[Ruthie]

He is most concerned about continually shifting patterns of precipitation, which could wreak havoc on agriculture and water infrastructure.

These shifting patterns, of course, are a recent development caused by global warming. There is no historical evidence of shifting precip patterns.


:hypno:

:banghead:

 

[redhen]

Whether these problems exist is not my issue.

Ok, I misunderstood then. So you agree that there are* limits to growth*?

My issue is that people like Paul Ehrlich pair forecasts of doom and gloom with their particular solutions, and then accuse anyone who rejects their particular solution of rejecting the whole premise that a problem exists at all.

I’m not up on any of their current solutions. I just wanted to point out that their concerns are not flights of fancy.

The most common fallacy you used is the argumentum ad populum-

I disagree. Appeal to popularity implies that the claim is true because it is widely believed or held.

that is, you referred to a gaggle of scientists

Exactly. So if anything I could be charged with appeal to authority. I’ll overlook the use of the loaded term gaggle.

in the hope that the sheer number of scientists will quell the opposition into submission.

In this case my appeal to authority is legitimate.

1. The earth’s material limitations is an identifiable field of knowledge.
2. The UCS scientists are authorities in that field.
3. These authority’s knowledge of the field is current.
4. There is a general consensus within that field on the topic being appealed to.
5. The USC authorities are clearly identified on their website.
6. Their testimony does not put the authorities in an obvious conflict of interest.

…and then you make two logical twists that are very common paired in this kind of debate…

The first twist is that proponents of particular solutions reject that their proposals bear the burden of proof, and instead assert the burden of proof belongs to those who disagree with them. This flies in the face of traditional logic, which places the burden of proof on person offering a solution, because it is on them to prove that their solution will actually work.

Wow, I said all that? Really? I didn’t say anything about solutions.
If I did, could you please specifically show me where?

The second, and more interesting, twist is in the slight of hand that occurs in redirecting the burden of proof away from discussing the basic problem, and instead redirects it toward proving that the proposed solution won’t work.

These two twists work very well together because they allow the antagonist to nimbly leap between them, thus constantly keeping their opposition chasing after the debate topic…

antagonist: “Global warming will kill us if you don’t ride this camel”
me: “but I don’t want to ride a camel”
antagonist: “then you hate the planet”
me: “No, I don’t hate the planet”
antagonist: “then prove it by riding this camel”
me: “but I don’t want to ride the camel”
antagonist: “I knew you were lying about not hating the planet.”
…and so on…

Well ok, I think most forum members will see that I did not type anything such thing. I made one quote and one claim, that there are limits to growth. So what we have here then is a Strawman fallacy, which you deftly knocked down. Good job.

Here are a couple of other common fallacies I expect to see in this thread if it continues…

One is to provide a series of several solutions as a complete package, and then criticize anyone who rejects any piece of that solution package for rejecting the whole package.
For example: say you offer to make soup with peas, carrots, and chicken. I respond by saying that i don’t like carrots in my soup. You declare that I hate soup.

Another common tactic is to demand that those who disagree with said solutions must either provide a “better” solution or accept the solution they don’t like. This is often predicated on a sense of intense urgency, such that failure to act right now will result in big bad horrible things.

Again, I said nothing about solutions. You shouldn’t presume to know, in advance, how I or anyone else would respond. I am quite open to new ideas or suggestions, in other words I do not follow any ideology, and will abide by the constitutive rules of argumentation.

So, thanks again for an interesting post- it gave me a lot to think about

Anytime

 

[mpi]

Paul Ehrlich is one of my mean heros. Listen to what he has to say. Do you agree with him?

wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1413&fuseaction=topics.event&event_id=459162

bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12309

He is an idiot. I love the stories of Julian Simon humiliating him repeatedly and publicly.

www.juliansimon.com/

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think if Paul Ehlich said the sky is NOT falling, I would be tempted to put on a hard hat.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Ok, I misunderstood then. So you agree that there are* limits to growth*?

I’m not sure how anything that I said would lead you to believe that.
But as I said before, that is not the issue here.

I’m not up on any of their current solutions. I just wanted to point out that their concerns are not flights of fancy.

Yes, their concerns are flights of fancy- they might start out with somewhat reasonable concerns, but they take them to a place that any sane person simply can’t follow. You’re talking about a guy who, in the 1960’s, firmly believed that England would not exist in the year 2000.

Ehrlich been on a rocket powered flight of fancy for over 40 years.

I disagree. Appeal to popularity implies that the claim is true because it is widely believed or held.

Exactly. So if anything I could be charged with appeal to authority. I’ll overlook the use of the loaded term gaggle.

Yes, appeal to popularity does apply here, and in my opinion more aptly, because the focus in citing a report like that is on the sheer volume of citing 1500 scientists who agree with you.

In this case my appeal to authority is legitimate.

1. The earth’s material limitations is an identifiable field of knowledge.
2. The UCS scientists are authorities in that field.
3. These authority’s knowledge of the field is current.
4. There is a general consensus within that field on the topic being appealed to.
5. The USC authorities are clearly identified on their website.
6. Their testimony does not put the authorities in an obvious conflict of interest.

That’s all well and good, but I’m sure I’m not the first to tell you that there are numerous problems with the “Union of Concerned Scientists.” Just read their mission statement and try to tell me that it sounds like an objective scientific organization more than a political action committee. Here it is, for your enjoyment…

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development, and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions.

Established in 1969, we seek to ensure that all people have clean air, energy, and transportation, as well as food that is produced in a safe and sustainable manner. We strive for a future that is free from the threats of global warming and nuclear war, and a planet that supports a rich diversity of life. Sound science guides our efforts to secure changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices that will protect and improve the health of our environment globally, nationally, and in communities throughout the United States. In short, UCS seeks a great change in humanity’s stewardship of the earth.

The funniest thing about these guys is that they actually believe they are the voice of scientific objectivity in the face of manipulation of scientific data by politicians.

Wow, I said all that? Really? I didn’t say anything about solutions.
If I did, could you please specifically show me where?

I guess I took the following statement:
“You can believe (along with big business, politicians and land developers) that there no limits to growth. We can keep growing in population, land use, resource consumption and waste manufacturing, but you’d be wrong”

to advocate the reversal of the practices and ideologies you believe to be incorrect.

I might have been wrong jump to that conclusion… maybe you favor continued growth in population, land use, resource consumption, and waste manufacturing?

Well ok, I think most forum members will see that I did not type anything such thing. I made one quote and one claim, that there are limits to growth. So what we have here then is a Strawman fallacy, which you deftly knocked down. Good job.

OK, your claim is that there are limits to growth.
I should also point out that this was your response to my assertion that people like Ehrlich are just nuts seeking to increase their own lot by scaring people with bleak predictions which can only be avoided by strict adherence to their big government protocols.

You completely ignored that point, and instead decided to state that there are limits to growth.

Now that I think of it, I would like to add non sequitor to the list of logical fallacies in your post.

Again, I said nothing about solutions. You shouldn’t presume to know, in advance, how I or anyone else would respond. I am quite open to new ideas or suggestions, in other words I do not follow any ideology, and will abide by the constitutive rules of argumentation.

Do you find anything incongruous between that comment and your original reply to me? Just food for thought.

 

[redhen]

I’m not sure how anything that I said would lead you to believe that. But as I said before, that is not the issue here.

Let me ask you again, do you believe that there are limits to growth? And by growth, I mean increase in human population, land use and resource development?

Yes, their concerns are flights of fancy- they might start out with somewhat reasonable concerns

I admit I haven’t read anything by the Ehrlich’s for some time. They may have made the same mistake the Club of Rome did back in the 1970’s, with their report Limits to Growth. Predictions can be tricky, especially when it concerns the future.

Yes, appeal to popularity does apply here, and in my opinion more aptly, because the focus in citing a report like that is on the sheer volume of citing 1500 scientists who agree with you.

1500 scientists make up the majority of scientists on the planet?

That’s all well and good, but I’m sure I’m not the first to tell you that there are numerous problems with the “Union of Concerned Scientists.” Just read their mission statement and try to tell me that it sounds like an objective scientific organization more than a political action committee. Here it is, for your enjoyment…

Yup sounds objective to me. What parts did you think were ideologically driven?

The funniest thing about these guys is that they actually believe they are the voice of scientific objectivity in the face of manipulation of scientific data by politicians.

How are politicians manipulating their data?

I guess I took the following statement:
“You can believe (along with big business, politicians and land developers) that there no limits to growth. We can keep growing in population, land use, resource consumption and waste manufacturing, but you’d be wrong”

to advocate the reversal of the practices and ideologies you believe to be incorrect.

I might have been wrong jump to that conclusion… maybe you favor continued growth in population, land use, resource consumption, and waste manufacturing?

No, you set up a Strawman about not accepting partial solutions.
I have never once talked about solutions in this thread.

OK, your claim is that there are limits to growth.
I should also point out that this was your response to my assertion that people like Ehrlich are just nuts seeking to increase their own lot by scaring people with bleak predictions which can only be avoided by strict adherence to their big government protocols.

Yup, that was my claim alright. That’s the only claim I made.

You completely ignored that point,

What point, that we should dismiss anything Ehrlich says because he made some wrong predictions in the past? That’s called poisoning the well.

and instead decided to state that there are limits to growth.

Yup, that’s my claim again. I’m a regular one trick pony.

Now that I think of it, I would like to add non sequitor to the list of logical fallacies in your post.

Do you find anything incongruous between that comment and your original reply to me? Just food for thought.

What comment? That there are limits to growth? My original reply concerned your use of reductio ad absurdum;

“Solution to tough stains that just don’t come out? Multi-national government control…”

We can play spot the formal logical errors and inductive logic fallacies all day, but all I want to do here is point out the fact that there are limits to growth.

So, would you care now to the answer the question I’ve asked before; do you believe that there are limits to growth?

That’s all I want to know. Thanks.

 

[ribozyme]

Let me ask you again, do you believe that there are limits to growth? And by growth, I mean increase in human population, land use and resource development?

I admit I haven’t read anything by the Ehrlich’s for some time. They may have made the same mistake the Club of Rome did back in the 1970’s, with their report Limits to Growth. Predictions can be tricky, especially when it concerns the future.

Ehrlich did not write* The Limits to Growth*. Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William Behrens did.

 

[ribozyme]

More talk:

democracynow.org/2007/9/6/fmr_secretary_of_state_george_shultz

hawaiipublicradio.org/audio/TS_112008.mp3

 

[redhen]

Ehrlich did not write* The Limits to Growth*. Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William Behrens did.

Yes, I said Limits to Growth was put out by the Club of Rome.

I read the one link you put up, Ehrlich relating global warming to global warring.

Ok, I get it. Ehrlich has opinions on a whole range of topics.

So, put that aside for a minute. Can I ask you if you believe that there are limits to growth or not?

 

[ribozyme]

Yes, I said Limits to Growth was put out by the Club of Rome.

I read the one link you put up, Ehrlich relating global warming to global warring.

Ok, I get it. Ehrlich has opinions on a whole range of topics.

So, put that aside for a minute. Can I ask you if you believe that there are limits to growth or not?

I am not going to answer that in this thread. You could search Ehrlich using the forum search and find other posts I made about him.

 

[redhen]

I am not going to answer that in this thread. You could search Ehrlich using the forum search and find other posts I made about him.

I didn’t ask for your opinion on Ehrlich. I simply asked if you believed that there are physical limits to growth or not.

You don’t have to answer that of course, I was just curious.