What is it about Paul Ehrlich?

[Eric_W]

What is about Paul Ehrlich? Virtually every published prediction he has made has been wrong, yet he continues to be cited as an ostensible authority on ecological matters. Any scientist whose theories proved so frail would be held up to ridicule. The contrast between Ehrlich's doomsday predictions that accomplish nothing and the extraordinary work of agronomist Norman Borlaug is portrayed in stark relief in Reason (April 2000). It was largely thanks to Borlaug's pioneering work in the development of diseaseresistant, high-yield dwarf wheat that has made India -Ehrlich's predicted site for massive famine in the seventies -a food exporter today. In fact, food is actually cheaper and more plentiful than ever before in history. Despite this, the doomsday crowd led now by Lester Brown of the World Watch Institute, continues to predict apocalypse even though all their previous prognostications have proven false. Rather than wring his hands, Borlaug worked with others to develop the technology that will continue to feed the hungry. His work in Africa has tripled crop yields over traditional farming practices. Borlaug comments in the interview that environmental extremists most often live in conditions of extreme affluence. Borlaug suggests that before they oppose improving the living standards of the underdeveloped countries they go live under those conditions permanently, not just while on holiday, and see if they would want their children to grow up under those conditions. Countering arguments that suggest the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering will reduce biodiversity, Borlaug replies that using farmland effectively and productively enables us to set aside less productive wilderness land. In 1960, food crops in the United States amounted to 252 million tons. By 1990, it had risen to 596 million tons, but produced on 25 million fewer. Had we not improved technologically, millions of acres of marginal forest land and rolling hills would have been plowed up to increase production. The debate over organic farming is specious, he says, noting that to a plant a nitrate ion is the same whether it comes from artificial chemicals or decomposed organic material. Why do people continue to listen to Ehrlich and Brown? Borlaug theorizes that "People don't go back and read what he wrote. . . . Our elites live in big cities. Whether it's Brown, or Ehrlich or the head of the Sierra Club or the head of Greenpeace, they've never been hungry." Why does Lester Brown predict every five years or so that massive famines are imminent? "I guess it sells," says Borlaug, "I guess what he writes has a lot to do with raising funds."

See also Julian L Simon for an economist's view. It's also worth looking at the famous bet between Ehrlich and Simon in which Ehrlich bet $10,000 that prices of 10 commodities would rise over a period of time because of shortages; Simon said they would not. Simon won in every case
The State of Humanity
The Ultimate Resource 2

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World

[Sharon Eudy]

You are so right. I totally bought into Ehrlich's theories while in high school (grad. in 1971). The alarmists are always excusing the failure of their doomsday predictions by pushing them a little way down the road. Now with the greenhouse effect, oops, global warming, oops, climate change they tell us the doomsday is coming in 100 years unless we cripple our economies right now. And, by the way, don't bother arguing because the debate is over. And, no, you can't see our calculations, just trust us and hand over your freedom.

[Abel]

Just finished The Population Bomb and found myself lauging all the way through it. Yes, you'd think that someone who was wrong on just about everything would be discredited. But since he environmental movement is about fear rather than science, they'll continue to go back to the same fearmongers/losers until they die.