The Population Bomb [Hardcover]

Paul R. Ehrlich (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 201 pages
• Publisher: Buccaneer Books (December 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1568495870
• ISBN-13: 978-1568495873
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 5.8 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (47 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #666,782 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

111 of 158 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars It can't survive hindsight, August 13, 2002

By 

William E. Fleischmann (Loganville, Pennsylvania United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Population Bomb (Hardcover)

Paul Ehrlich begins the work that gave him instant notoriety (infamy) by saying: "I have understood the population explosion intellectually for a long time."

He spends the next 180 pages proving conclusively that such is not the case.

It isn't simply that his predictions turned out to be wrong in some of the particulars, but rather that they were so completely wrong that they will NEVER come to pass (though he unrepentantly continues to beat the same drum).

Ehrlich predicted that, by the end of the 20th century, human want would outstrip available resources; whole areas of human endeavor would screech to a halt due to resource scarcity; England would, in all likelihood, cease to exist; India would collapse due to its inability to feed itself; and "inevitable" mass starvation would sweep the globe (including the US). We were on the brink of disaster in 1968, and the future looked very, very dark. In fact, he asserts, "it is now too late to take action to save many of those people."

And yet none of these things have come to pass. Why? Because Ehrlich makes the same mistake that Malthus did: he confuses the concept of finite resources with the notion that they (and the demand for them) are fixed. This is the point that Ehrlich's detractors (most notably Julian Simon) have been making for decades.

Ehrlich did not foresee the technological innovations (the Green Revolution) that have been such a boon to mankind, or changes in both the supply and demand of various resources (such as those in his famous bet with Simon). But such changes were inevitable (far more than the catastrophe that he predicted). The entire history of human endeavor is adaptive. As resources become more scarce, their costs rise. As those costs rise, incentives are created to find alternatives or increase supply or decrease demand. Thus, assuming that either resource availability and/or per capita demand is fixed is not merely an oversight - it is inexcusably poor science.

This is also why claims that "The Population Bomb" was some sort of self-correcting prophecy - that by drawing attention to the problem, disaster was averted - hold no water. This fallacy is based on the assumption that long-term concerns about population growth are somehow more pressing than current hunger problems. Norman Borlaug (one of many involved in the Green Revolution) would have a good laugh about that one. Unfortunately, the major cause of hunger in the world today (in countries like Ethiopia) is not resource scarcity, but political realities (despots) that prevent access to food.

One last point to Ehrlich's defenders: much has been made about cancer rates (and Simon's purported unwillingness to bet on them). But a rise in cancer incidence was to be expected, not because of pollutants or chemicals or environmental degradations, but because cancer is primarily a disease of the aged. The population "explosion" did not occur because more children were/are being born (the opposite is true), but that children were/are no longer "dropping like flies." The average age of the population has risen markedly and so, of course, has the incidence of age related diseases.

My favorite example of Ehrlich-speak: "Enough of fantasy.... Just remember that, at the current growth rate, in a few thousand years everything in the visible universe would be converted into people, and the ball of people would be expanding at the speed of light."

I'm SO glad he'd had "enough of fantasy."

23 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars This book seems kind of silly., December 12, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: The Population Bomb (Hardcover)

THE POPULATION BOMB is basically one big statement claiming that humans beings are evil. According to this book, there are too many people in the world.

In this book, which first started telling its lies to the world in 1968, the author predicts that before the 20th century is over, huge numbers of people in the United States would starve to death.

Hmm. That's interesting.

Well, anybody who has ever been to a supermarket knows that there is PLENTY of food here.

The author claims that the United States is overpopulated. But this is utter nonsense. If you get in an airplane, and fly from New York to California, and you spend the entire time looking out the window, you will see that the vast majority of the United States is completely UNpopulated.

And even though Paul Erlich was totally wrong in his predictions, today, more than 30 years later, he continues to make these same predictions anyway! And he has a huge number of loyal followers.

On the other hand, fortunately, there is the wonderful book THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE 2 by Julian Simon. This book debunks all of the myths and lies that are in THE POPULATION BOMB. Thank goodness for Julian Simon!

9 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Readers should read Julian Simon's books for a counterpoint, April 22, 1998

By 

Eduardo Bilbatua (Mexico) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Population Bomb (Hardcover)

Readers should read Julian Simon's books like "The Ultimate Resource 2" for counterpoints. People through work generate and develop resources and wealth and more people means more wealth. I believe that what we should be worried about is not about the number of people but about their access to education. Education will enable people to be productive members of society and productive people will provide for themselves. I find that at the core of many of the arguments against population growth there is latent racism. Is not that there is too many people is just that there is not enough like me and my friends.