The Population Bomb [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

However, because he was wrong about some things does not mean Ehrlich was wrong about everything. Every branch of science must undergo revision over the years. 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 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 Astronomy by reading Copernicus, this is only the beginning of the story. More recent works like "The Stork and the Plow" and "Betrayal of Science and Reason" provide a more enlightened picture. For a counterpoint, read Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource 2." He wasn't really the devil, but Simon did glue red horns to his head for a while.