| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« old radicals | Main | sorta realism »

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

"demographic doom-saying in authoritative and influential circles"
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.
"As best we can tell, world population growth rates peaked in the late 1960s and are barely half as high now. The inexorable corollary to sub-replacement fertility is population graying and, absent immigration, population decline."
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






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

Our Science Prize

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Hamid on Abandon all hope, ye who enter this thread

Rebekah on Only Philosophers Go to Hell

Adrian Morgan on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Ruchira on The 10 Things Economics Can Tell Us About Happiness

Ruchira on Just Herself

matt on Friday Poem

Stefan on Questioning Willusionism

Saba R. on Saadia Toor and "The State of Islam"

Faisal K. on Saadia Toor and "The State of Islam"

Raza on Questioning Willusionism

Anand Manikutty on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Sandra on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Raza on Questioning Willusionism

DAS on Questioning Willusionism

Raza on Turning Scientific Perplexity into Ordinary Statistical Uncertainty

DAS on Turning Scientific Perplexity into Ordinary Statistical Uncertainty

John Ballard on Turning Scientific Perplexity into Ordinary Statistical Uncertainty

Chris Gudmann on How Bad Is It?

Cormac O Rafferty on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Renideo on Should Hate Speech Be Outlawed?

Renideo on Should Hate Speech Be Outlawed?

ajith on Science is Not About Certainty: A Philosophy of Physics

Ralston McTodd on The 10 Things Economics Can Tell Us About Happiness

Julian De Freitas on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Julian De Freitas on Sean Carroll to Judge 4th Annual 3QD Science Prize

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed