The population bomb

By now, late 2007, one can hope that the anti-Ehrlich voices have gotten fewer in number. Our skyrocketing world population should be recognized by everyone as partly or largely responsible for many of our recent worldwide social crises and environmental disasters - global warming, the widespread water shortages, the disappearing arctic ice sheets, the global fish shortage, the extinction of the great apes, the exhaustion of ancient aquifers, uncontrolled urban sprawl, mega-cities, mega-slums, mega-smog, monster hurricanes and typhoons, unprecedented wildfires, disappearing wilderness, longer commutes, massive traffic jams, massive illegal immigrations, multimillions of refugees, various genocides, etc., etc. Here is the basic history of the overpopulation problem, a history that most people are shockingly ignorant of (and kept ignorant of by the powers that be). The entire human population of the world at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth, that is, in the 1st centuries B.C. and A.D., was only about 300 million. (It had been merely 10 million in about 10,000 B.C.). It then grew slowly to about 1 billion by 1850. Then, due to the Industrial Revolution, it grew very fast to 2 billion by 1930. Then superfast to 3 billion already by 1950 (WWII, with its 55 million dead, was a minor speed bump on the road), then very fast again to 4 billion by 1975. Let's skip the whiz-by dates for the 5 and 6 billion figures. We are now, in 2007, approaching 7 billion and will reach it within a few more years. By 2050, according to almost all projections, we humans will number 9-10 billion. Most projections I have seen deceptively stop there in 2050, as if that magical year will suddenly cause all couples throughout the world to stop having any more than 2 or 3 children, without even thinking about the subject. Alas, history and human population will not so conveniently stop. The latter will keep growing until it comes to a horrific halt, and long before that halt the great majority of humans will live in crowded misery and daily hunger. Unless some action in the form of worldwide public policy (incentives and penalties to keep population limited) is taken very soon. Surely most people, if they don't recognize that the world has an overpopulation problem now, would accept the idea that eventually we will have one. If 6.5 billion people is not appalling enough for them, the prospect of 16 billion should be. Or finally 60 billion, assuming they can count (which may be assuming a lot, in some cases). Paul Ehrlich's understandably frightened 1967 perspective looked out upon the U.S. Baby Boom, that 20-year population explosion 1946-64, when couples had big, healthy families in prosperous times. By 1967, the U.S. population had grown from 150 million to 200 million within a mere 20 years. That growth was phenomenal - but worrisome. And while our U.S. population was reaching its worrisome milestone of 200 million, India reached its own sc

By now, late 2007, one can hope that the anti-Ehrlich voices have gotten fewer in number. Our skyrocketing world population should be recognized by everyone as partly or largely responsible for many of our recent worldwide social crises and environmental disasters - global warming, the widespread water shortages, the disappearing arctic ice sheets, the global fish shortage, the extinction of the great apes, the exhaustion of ancient aquifers, uncontrolled urban sprawl, mega-cities, mega-slums, mega-smog, monster hurricanes and typhoons, unprecedented wildfires, disappearing wilderness, longer commutes, massive traffic jams, massive illegal immigrations, multi-millions of refugees, various genocides, etc., etc. Here is the basic history of the overpopulation problem, a history that most people are shockingly ignorant of (and kept ignorant of by the powers that be). The entire human population of the world at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth, that is, in the 1st centuries B.C. and A.D., was only about 300 million. (It had been merely 10 million in about 10,000 B.C.). It then grew slowly to about 1 billion by 1850. Then, due to the Industrial Revolution, better sanitation, and modern medicine, it grew very fast to 2 billion by 1930. Then superfast to 3 billion already by 1950 (WWII, with its 55 million dead, was a minor pothole in the road), then very fast again to 4 billion by 1975. Let's skip the whiz-by dates for the 5 and 6 billion figures. We are now, in 2007, approaching 7 billion and will reach it within a few more years. By 2050, according to almost all projections, we humans will number 9-10 billion. Most projections I have seen deceptively stop there in 2050, as if that magical year will suddenly cause all couples throughout the world to stop having any more than 2 or 3 children, without even thinking about the subject. Alas, history and human population will not so conveniently stop. The latter will keep growing until it comes to a horrific halt, and long before that halt the majority of people will live in crowded misery and daily hunger, unless action in the form of worldwide public policy (incentives and penalties to keep population limited) is taken very soon. Surely most people, if they don't recognize that the world has an overpopulation problem now, would accept the idea that eventually we will have one. If 6.5 billion people are not too many for them, the prospect of 16 billion should be. Or finally 60 billion, assuming they can count (which may be assuming a lot, in some cases). Paul Ehrlich's understandably frightened 1967 perspective looked out upon the U.S. Baby Boom, that 20-year population explosion 1946-64, when couples had big, healthy families in prosperous times. By 1967, the U.S. population had grown from 150 million to 200 million within a mere 20 years. That growth was phenomenal - but worrisome. And while our U.S. population was reaching its worrisome milestone of 200 million, India

I won't repeat what Alan Lewis said below, but I completely agree with him. It sounds, to me, as if the other reviewers are in denial of what's actually happening in the world.

Those who lampoon this book can sneer at its flaws: there has yet to be a Malthusian catastrophe, Africa is rich in natural resources, and some densely-populated nations such as Holland, England, and Japan are quite wealthy. Twinky-gorged Americans grow fatter by the year. Ehrlich's dated crystal ball predictions appear to have fallen pitifully short.However, because he was wrong about some things does not mean Ehrlich was wrong about everything. Every branch of science must undergo revision. But just as Darwin was wrong about many things doesn't negate the theory of evolution, Ehrlich's mistakes in the sixties don't trump population studies.Ehrlich didn't foresee technology's ability to keep pace with the multiplying number of mouths, but this good fortune has come at a price. A host of chemicals in the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe is linked to skyrocketing rates in asthma and cancer. Upping food production has resulted in topsoil erosion and a depletion of fresh water reserves, reducing our capacity to feed ourselves in the future. Technology provides no immediate answers to these problems, and to assume it will amounts to wishful thinking, not science, logic, or common sense.Ehrlich's model was overly simplistic. More people doesn't necessarily mean impoverishment. People-packed countries like Japan and Holland are affluent. The ignored factor in this equation is what it has taken to support this many people: the impoverishment of other nations (both economically and environmentally-what is happening to the rainforests of southeast Asia?) Resource and food imports to nations like these are so great that calling them self-sufficient is referred to as "the Holland Fallacy." This formula cannot work in every nation.Charges of misanthropy (I particularly enjoyed the review that suggested Ehrlich wished people would die) are amusing rather than persuasive. If he really hated people, he would keep quiet rather than sound the alarm. Just because he doesn't want humans crammed shoulder to shoulder with all haste doesn't mean he hates us. It seems likely that he cares more for humans than those who regard us as primarily economic equations. Besides, who wants a longer rush hour?Finally, to dismiss Ehrlich on racist grounds is absurd. He doesn't argue that overpopulation is a Chinese, African, or South American problem, but a world-wide problem. He never advocated draconian measures such as forced abortion or sterilization, and to blame such programs on him illustrates the lack of rational thought found in abundance on that side of the debate. For heaven's sake, two-thirds of reviewers can't even spell the man's name correctly (Ehrlich with an "H"). If they can't even think things like that through, how far can we trust their theories on population studies? I doubt whether most have read the book.You should read this book if you want to see where the modern debate on population came from. But just as you can't learn all Astron

The human population has risen to 12 billion this year, 1999, and is still growing. How long can we continue this increase? Can we, or rather should we, increase ad infinitum? Is there any connection between our population's number & destruction of the environment? Dr. Ehrlich comments scholarly on these questions and makes it very clear that the world is not inexhaustible. Although written in 1968, it is as applicable now as it was then.