April 15, 2006
population bomb?
For decades, the world has been haunted by ominous and recurrent reports of impending demographic doom. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s neo-Malthusian manifesto, The Population Bomb, predicted mass starvation in the 1970s and ’80s. The Limits to Growth, published by the global think tank Club of Rome in 1972, portrayed a computer-model apocalypse of overpopulation. The demographic doom-saying in authoritative and influential circles has steadily continued: from the Carter administration’s grim Global 2000 study in 1980 to the 1992 vision of eco-disaster in Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance to practically any recent publication or pronouncement by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).What is perhaps most remarkable about the incessant stream of dire—and consistently wrong—predictions of global demographic overshoot is the public’s apparently insatiable demand for it. Unlike the villagers in the fable about the boy who cried wolf, educated American consumers always seem to have the time, the money, and the credulity to pay to hear one more time that we are just about to run out of everything, thanks to population growth. The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome’s disaster tale both sold millions of copies. More recently, journalist Robert D. Kaplan created a stir by trumpeting “the coming anarchy” in a 2000 book of the same name, warning that a combination of demographic and environmental crises was creating world-threatening political maelstroms in a variety of developing countries. Why, of all people, do Americans—who fancy themselves the world’s pragmatic problems-solvers—seem to betray a predilection for such obviously dramatic and unproved visions of the future?
more from The Wilson Quarterly here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 10:07 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d83482c4ee53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference population bomb?:






















Comments
At least part of the appeal is the end of history. If there is some cataclysmic event coming, you don't have to worry so much about getting up every morning, going to a job you dislike, and spending Sunday morning paying electricity bills. The antidote for a quotidian life is an exciting one where men of modest means can do great things. It's also related to the appeal of millenial cults in post-industrial societies and ones trapped in day-to-day concerns where there is little improvement, like say Iran or Japan.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Apr 15, 2006 10:20:09 AM
As long as you define doom strictly - as cessation, finality, irrevocable loss - there will never be a conversation about it that can't be ended with it's being speculative and unproven.Because when it happens there won't be time to talk about it.
This same conundrum works in favor of the men and organizations who bear the weight of responsibility for climate disruption. Until it's so severe that it's no longer theoretical, and deniable, it can be dismissed as conjecture. By the time it does get that severe everyone will be too busy ducking and running to worry much about culpability.
The loss of complex ecosystems, bleaching coral, fish harvests shrinking toward zero, Inuit hunters bereft of seasonal markers, the glaciers retreating, animals disappearing - from humble insects to the charismatic mammals, tigers down to 5K and shrinking, lions and elephants on the ropes - all as a direct function of amped-up human population increase, should matter, and does, to some of us, though it needs to be pointed out, and emphatically stressed, that this is a function of how we live more than how many of us there are.
With some others there's a sense of an almost vengeful triumph at the prospect of man so dominant he can wipe these great beings off the earth - and water the desert, tame the jungle, rule the seas! Most of the rest of us are just sitting there staring while people like Eberstadt twitter profuse nonsense based on cherry-picked statistics that are malleable and incomplete.According to the US census bureau in the 6 years since the world population hit 6 billion we've added another 525 million. That's nearly double the current US population. Nice to know it's half what it could have been.
I have no idea, and no readily available way to estimate, but my guess is far and away the great majority of that 525 million are not sharing what Eberstadt calls "our prosperity".
That phrase is key, and revealing.
Posted by: rollo | Apr 15, 2006 3:30:06 PM
In complete agreement with rollo. The population problem is not a 'bomb' which will detonate in one spectacular flash, but a multitude of issues connected with deforestation, soil erosion, over grazing, desertification, child poverty, unemployment and so on. The immense progress made by the Chinese economy in the past 30 years is largely due to strict 1 child per couple laws, which may seem inhuman to the West, but which have undoubtably helped China.
Posted by: aguy109 | Apr 16, 2006 2:11:27 AM
Coming Anarchy? I hear the blog is pretty good too.
Posted by: Curzon | Apr 23, 2006 8:46:11 AM
Post a comment