Full of ideology: Politicians and economists are stupid (esp. with their [quote] "worship of ‘free’ markets"), we need to change our (bad) Western culture, we need a "steady-state economy" (the usual propaganda stuff from eco-socialists) because growth is evil and technological innovation is useless (even bad), we need more redistribution a.s.o.
Of course, economists who share this view are called "distinguished economists" (not stupid then) and they should lead the transformation of the society into the steady-state sustainable society.
The most funny statement might be this: "The industrial revolution set civilization on the road to collapse." The opposite is true because before the industrial revolution societies collapsed frequently and usually never get beyond subsistence level and the Malthusian trap. The industrial revolution broke us free from this curse.
Ehrlich repeats his ideological BS (e.g., population bomb, we'll all die because of overpopulation in the 1970s and 1980s). He's a green fascist.
Food is so important, yet so cheap that farmers can not sustain themselves. When people really start starving, food costs will rise and farmers will be the new rich.
There is no overpopulation. Overpopulation of urban centers, yes, overpopulation of useable land - no.
We'll have trouble sustaining the current growth, and the way money are spent on useless and short term stuff is alarming, but that will most likely lead to another recession instead of collapse.
That's my opinion on just these matters - the article is a great piece of information that needs to be read by everyone.
I've heard that Iowa can feed two United States (if we were content to eat only corn and beans). SO agriculture can be very powerful. If necessary we could make huge changes in production in a year (growing season) and respond to pressure.
Its politics alone that determine who starves and who enjoys the benefits of technological society.
Of all U.S. government policies that stand little chance of being reversed, the cheap food policy stand tall. As Bob Marley said, "A hungry mob is an angry mob." Nothing threatens the status quo more than the unavailability of food. Plus, individual farmers have little power. They have always relied on government to prevent them from being completely impoverished by the distributors, or in more modern times, by the seed technology companies.
Yes it can be avoided. The predicted collapse has been avoided during the forty years that Ehrlich has been making predictions like this. (I'm old enough to remember his early career, and how different the predicted future years of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s looked from what he predicted in my youth.)
Ehrlich counts on people not remembering anything that happened before they were in high school, and being young enough not to remember what he has said time and time again, and been wrong about every time.
Every once in a while, it's worth reminding people that ad hominem is only a fallacy when the ad hominem is not relevant to the argument being made. In this case, ad hominem is not a fallacy; this source has a history of being repeatedly wrong about this exact topic without changing. At this point, even if he's correct about some particular point, the information content of the correct statement coming from him is still 0. Get it from other sources.
Haven't read the article, just wanted to point out that 40 years is nothing. In Jared Diamond's Collapse he tells about civilizations that collapsed after 4000 years.
I don't think we can assume that our current society exists in an equilibrium. We launched into the industrial age like a cannonball and we don't know yet where we will land.
Didn't some agricultural revolution in the last century safe our ass for the time being (I'm too lazy to google, basically one guy saved billions of lives). I don't know if that kind of agriculture is sustainable, though. Perhaps it requires a lot of energy, or it destroy the soil in the long run. (Maybe not - I don't know, just saying).
I won't go as far to say a collapse would be good, but I think being mindful of our rate of expansion would be nice. There are limits to everything, why do we need to push all of them including the population limit?
17 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 43.9 ms ] threadThe most funny statement might be this: "The industrial revolution set civilization on the road to collapse." The opposite is true because before the industrial revolution societies collapsed frequently and usually never get beyond subsistence level and the Malthusian trap. The industrial revolution broke us free from this curse.
Ehrlich repeats his ideological BS (e.g., population bomb, we'll all die because of overpopulation in the 1970s and 1980s). He's a green fascist.
There is no overpopulation. Overpopulation of urban centers, yes, overpopulation of useable land - no.
We'll have trouble sustaining the current growth, and the way money are spent on useless and short term stuff is alarming, but that will most likely lead to another recession instead of collapse.
That's my opinion on just these matters - the article is a great piece of information that needs to be read by everyone.
Its politics alone that determine who starves and who enjoys the benefits of technological society.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/apocalypse-not.aspx
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/howlin-wolf-paul-ehrli...
Ehrlich counts on people not remembering anything that happened before they were in high school, and being young enough not to remember what he has said time and time again, and been wrong about every time.
I don't think we can assume that our current society exists in an equilibrium. We launched into the industrial age like a cannonball and we don't know yet where we will land.
Didn't some agricultural revolution in the last century safe our ass for the time being (I'm too lazy to google, basically one guy saved billions of lives). I don't know if that kind of agriculture is sustainable, though. Perhaps it requires a lot of energy, or it destroy the soil in the long run. (Maybe not - I don't know, just saying).
Also: nice.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...
Some pretty graphs here: http://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/2776214.html