This Malthusian was as anti-humanist as they come. Ironic that he lived to 93, well past the median age. Thank God we had/have people like humanist economists Julian Simon and Thomas Sowell in the US to provide counterarguments to the horrible theories/policies people like Ehrlich push(ed) on society. The poor Chinese and Indians that were literally killed by the ilk of Ehrlich Malthusians didn't have that support.
Is there an equivalent in our modern era? Maybe MSNBC writ large from 2014-2024?
Clearly millions upon millions of people are on SSRIs and benzodiazepines because of their breathless reporting that totalitarianism was upon us.
Earlier this week, I saw Heather Richardson say local zoning laws were preventing the Trump administration from building concentration camps. That was the single most boomer thing I’ve ever heard.
It's overly simplified and probably wrong, but I blame a lot of this on the bastardization of expertise. The social sciences leveraged the goodwill built up over decades from the hard sciences and started leeching off their credibility for their own ego/prestige/$$.
An expert in physics is different than an expert in psychology.
Now 80% of my family members mock the word "expert" at any opportunity, and the others breathlessly hang on every word from Heather Richardson-types because "SHE HAS A PHD FROM HARVARD!!!"
Yes, the modern equivalent is Andrew Wakefield and his fake autism/vaccines claim. It's leading to resurgence in otherwise managed diseases and a horrible reversal of the public health gains of the last 50 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
Ehrlich was wrong, very wrong, but not for the reasons you say here. The Ozone layer really did have a hole in it, and thankfully the world rose to the occasion to address it. That doesn't mean there never was any hole! When Ehrlich originally wrote the book, before many of the crop sciences had been developed, he was right about the path we were on. Thankfully the world rose to the occasion.
He should have admitted the inventions negated his ideas but he never did so. Many public faces do that because once they do no one pays attention to them anymore. That's the influencer economy problem. Best to just disregard them.
But I also disagree that he was the most influential crank. There were cranks that tried to codify racism and sexism in pseudo-science, and of course Andrew Wakefield and his war on vaccines that is already killing people. The problem is we have too many cranks and give them platforms to enact bad ideas. What we need is a return to expertise, instead of these anti-expert ideas that appeal to "common sense".
Since the world did address it (the green revolution was already well underway when he wrote his most famous book - so really he was a poor observer of reality) the point that's especially irksome is what you note here - he wouldn't admit the human progress and ingenuity part. Shows a real hubris I think unbecoming of a public intellectual.
This Malthusian was as anti-humanist as they come. Ironic that he lived to 93, well past the median age. Thank God we had/have people like humanist economists Julian Simon and Thomas Sowell in the US to provide counterarguments to the horrible theories/policies people like Ehrlich push(ed) on society. The poor Chinese and Indians that were literally killed by the ilk of Ehrlich Malthusians didn't have that support.
Is there an equivalent in our modern era? Maybe MSNBC writ large from 2014-2024?
Clearly millions upon millions of people are on SSRIs and benzodiazepines because of their breathless reporting that totalitarianism was upon us.
Earlier this week, I saw Heather Richardson say local zoning laws were preventing the Trump administration from building concentration camps. That was the single most boomer thing I’ve ever heard.
Richardson is an insane person and also a liar, good stories about this here:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/what-is-heather-cox-richardsonism
https://www.piratewires.com/p/heather-cox-richardson-revisionist-history
It's incredible how people believe not only cable news but also the histrionics of their online counterparts. Truly we live in an absurd timeline
It's overly simplified and probably wrong, but I blame a lot of this on the bastardization of expertise. The social sciences leveraged the goodwill built up over decades from the hard sciences and started leeching off their credibility for their own ego/prestige/$$.
An expert in physics is different than an expert in psychology.
Now 80% of my family members mock the word "expert" at any opportunity, and the others breathlessly hang on every word from Heather Richardson-types because "SHE HAS A PHD FROM HARVARD!!!"
So, so, so absurd.
Yes, the modern equivalent is Andrew Wakefield and his fake autism/vaccines claim. It's leading to resurgence in otherwise managed diseases and a horrible reversal of the public health gains of the last 50 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
Being a perma doomer sounds like a terrible existence. Ehrlich was one of the worst.
Ehrlich was wrong, very wrong, but not for the reasons you say here. The Ozone layer really did have a hole in it, and thankfully the world rose to the occasion to address it. That doesn't mean there never was any hole! When Ehrlich originally wrote the book, before many of the crop sciences had been developed, he was right about the path we were on. Thankfully the world rose to the occasion.
He should have admitted the inventions negated his ideas but he never did so. Many public faces do that because once they do no one pays attention to them anymore. That's the influencer economy problem. Best to just disregard them.
But I also disagree that he was the most influential crank. There were cranks that tried to codify racism and sexism in pseudo-science, and of course Andrew Wakefield and his war on vaccines that is already killing people. The problem is we have too many cranks and give them platforms to enact bad ideas. What we need is a return to expertise, instead of these anti-expert ideas that appeal to "common sense".
Since the world did address it (the green revolution was already well underway when he wrote his most famous book - so really he was a poor observer of reality) the point that's especially irksome is what you note here - he wouldn't admit the human progress and ingenuity part. Shows a real hubris I think unbecoming of a public intellectual.
He looked at humans as parasites.