I have a cousin who has been driving through several Central American countries. He has been sharing his adventure through pictures and videos. Today I saw one where he spoke to a young man pumping gas. The young man had been living in the US with his family, but they all returned when the Trump administration made the offer to help those here illegally to leave. He is hoping to gain a visa and return to the USA someday. He was a high school student when in the USA.
My high school English teacher had us all read this book and attend the first Earth Day at a local university. It was a great (sadly) influence on my generation. But, you know, you always have to believe ‘the science.’
Ehrlich was wrong almost before the ink was dry in his book. The Green Revolution was already underway, breaking the Malthusian trap. Looking back I’m surprised the book still had traction years later.
Human behaviour is hard to predict and I don’t think anyone predicted declining birth rates would correlate so well with prosperity. In addition the increase in female literacy also lowered the birth rate. The current panic about the declining birthrate indicates we will make the same mistake in reverse.
I’m not sure why Mohler, the columnist, viewed Ehrlich as a leftist. Most Marxist disagreed with his premise — the problem was not food production nor human population rather it was and still is distribution, something Ehrlich didn’t really address. Since the book was published, most famines have been due to political circumstances in responding to natural disasters (eg the Derg regime in Ethiopia) not overpopulation. Currently we produce more food than needed and often produce is thrown while people line up at food banks — distribution is a problem even in the developed world.
I’m also not sure why Mohler implies Ehrlich advocate eugenics. Malthus and certainly the 1920s social reformers, both left and right, did but in the post WW2 era nobody mentioned eugenics. It’s only in the last decade, that comments about the “right” type of people are seeping back in the political discourse.
Wandering Views 
I have a cousin who has been driving through several Central American countries. He has been sharing his adventure through pictures and videos. Today I saw one where he spoke to a young man pumping gas. The young man had been living in the US with his family, but they all returned when the Trump administration made the offer to help those here illegally to leave. He is hoping to gain a visa and return to the USA someday. He was a high school student when in the USA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My high school English teacher had us all read this book and attend the first Earth Day at a local university. It was a great (sadly) influence on my generation. But, you know, you always have to believe ‘the science.’
The population bomber | WORLD
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for an interesting read.
Ehrlich was wrong almost before the ink was dry in his book. The Green Revolution was already underway, breaking the Malthusian trap. Looking back I’m surprised the book still had traction years later.
Human behaviour is hard to predict and I don’t think anyone predicted declining birth rates would correlate so well with prosperity. In addition the increase in female literacy also lowered the birth rate. The current panic about the declining birthrate indicates we will make the same mistake in reverse.
I’m not sure why Mohler, the columnist, viewed Ehrlich as a leftist. Most Marxist disagreed with his premise — the problem was not food production nor human population rather it was and still is distribution, something Ehrlich didn’t really address. Since the book was published, most famines have been due to political circumstances in responding to natural disasters (eg the Derg regime in Ethiopia) not overpopulation. Currently we produce more food than needed and often produce is thrown while people line up at food banks — distribution is a problem even in the developed world.
I’m also not sure why Mohler implies Ehrlich advocate eugenics. Malthus and certainly the 1920s social reformers, both left and right, did but in the post WW2 era nobody mentioned eugenics. It’s only in the last decade, that comments about the “right” type of people are seeping back in the political discourse.
hrw
LikeLike