The Population Bomb (Hardcover)

When Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, he did not have any evidence to prove his claims. And the reason for this is because such evidence in fact does not exist! For example, consider his claim that Africa is overpopulated. Well, the United Nations has kept population statistics for many decades. These statistics can be looked at by anybody. And according to these statisitcis, most of the countries in Africa have very low population densities. Despite this, Ehrlich claims that there are too many people in Africa. Hmm. Can anybody say 'racism'?

Another of Ehrlich's claims is that Africa does not have enough natural resources. And once again, Ehrlich does not proivide any evidence to support his claim. And again, this is because such evidence simply does not exist. If Ehrlich had simply taken the time to look in any geology textbook, he would have seen that the land in Africa has an abundant supply of many valuable natural resources, including gold, coal, iron, copper, aluminum, lead, diamonds, and many other natural resources. Again, Ehrlich didn't do his homework. Shame on him.

Another claim by Ehrlich is that Africa is incapale of feeding itself. What Ehrlich completely ignores is the fact that Africa has vast expanses of land that could be used to grow crops. In fact, the fact that Africa is situated at the equator allows for Africa to grow food year round.

So Ehrlich makes all these false claims, but he does not back them up with any evidence.

There are reasons for why the people in Africa are so poor. But Ehrlich has ignored these reasons. The reason that Africa doesn't grow enough food to feed itself is because the government policies regarding land use in most African counties are based on collective farming, instead of on private onwership. The reason that Africa does not benitfit from its vast supplies of natural resources is because most of the countries in Africa do not protect private property rights and contracts, and so private companies are afraid to do business in Africa. Thus, the problems of poverty in Africa have everything to do with Africa's own ridiculous government policies, and nothing to do with overpopulation or a lack or natural resources. All of this has been discussed in The Economist, which is a very reliable source.

Ehrlich claims that overpopulation causes poverty. If this were true, then Hong Kong and Japan would be the poorest countries on Earth. Again, the real world shows that Ehrlich is wrong. Again, Ehrlich has not done the proper research.

Ehrlich claimes that a lack of natural resources causes poverty. If this were ture, then Hong Kong and Japan would be the poorest countries on Earth. Once again, Ehrlich has not done his homework.

Ehrlich claims that as population goes up, the quality of life would get worse. According to Ehrlcih, during the 10 year period from 1980 to 1989, four billion people were going to starve to death in the world. And this number was to include 65 million people in the U.S. According to Ehrlich, by the year 2,000, the world was going to run out of oil, copper, iron, aluminum, coal, and many other resources. And according to Ehrlich, life expectancy in the U.S. was supposed to drop to about 40. According to Ehrlich, pollution was going to be so bad that everybody would have to wear a gas mask.

Fortunately, the U.S. government keeps statistics on all of these things. And fortunately, the evidence shows that Ehrlich was wrong in all of his predictions. Today people have more calories per capita and a higher life expectancy than ever before. Natural resources are more abundant than ever before, and this is reflected by the fact that their prices are at historic lows. According to the EPA, pollution levels have fallen substantially since Ehrlich wrote his book.

Today the world has more people than ever before. And today the standard of living is higher than ever before. So in reality, as the population goes up, the quality of life actually gets better! And there is a reason for this. When you have more people, then that means that there will be more minds to invent technology. More scientists. More inventors. More engineers. Etc. All of these things make life better.

During the past two decades, the country Bostwana in Africa has had a relatively strong amount of private porerty rights and economic liberty. This is one of the few countries in Africa that seems to appreciate the economic system known as capitalism. And during the past 20 years, the GNP in that country has more than tripled. So really, if the people in Africa want to bring an end to their massive poverty, they really ought to consider adopting the ideas of private property rights and economic liberty.

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!

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."