....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?
This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....
Because Erlich was a major, popular writer. Book for example, The Population Bomb.Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?
This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....
He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.
And he was wrong in everything he said.
As you could well be.
He was a single author.
He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that. (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently)
Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist.
I did google the book a bit. I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous.
btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling.
Wrong again. Paul's wife Anne (also of Stanford) co-wrote the Population Bomb. I know because I've read it (and the sequels).
The first time I read TPB I was a child and taken in by their catastrophism. Later as a young adult aware of Julian Simon I reread it and found their "ZOMG TEH END OF TEH WORLD IS COMING SOOOON!!1!!!1" panic inducement to be quite hilarious.
The Ehrlichs and Simon are emblematic of the neomalthusian vs extropian conflict. Their famous Bet is famous because it served as a microcosm of the widespread intellectual disagreement. I love your sour grapes excuses for why Ehrlich lost and Simon won. Such a sore loser you are. Typical, but 20 years too late.
You are trying to tell people who have studied and debated both sides of these issues for decades that your N00B ignorance makes your opinion superior.
Sorry my precious dear millennial snowflake, but that's not how it works.
That does not even touch upon the underlying scientific and philosophical debate which the Bet embodies.
Are resources limited, scarce? Or nearly unlimited? Is the planet fragile or robust?
Simons presented clear, convincing arguments as to why resources were nearly unlimited. Erlich argued that resources were limited, and that this would result in massive near term starvation. We know who was right, of course.
It's also true that many of Erlich's arguments are being repackaged in the form of Global Warming Hysteria.
The guy who won the bet would have lost it in many other timeframes. He basically got lucky. It happens. Welcome to gambling.
Limited or scarce? What does that mean? Fragile or robust? Something can be robust against decades of abuse, but not centuries worth etc. You need to quantify this with context for it to have *any* meaning.
Anyway, again you guys are just biased by your overriding hatred of government. Picking one bet between a couple of people proves little. It is nonsensical.
BTW, http://www.sciencealert.com/the-north-pole-is-36-degrees-hotter-than-it-should-be-right-now
^^ Lol the other idiot above you called me a millennial. This is always what you guys do. People who argue with you are too young, unemployed, marxists, or some other shit. The reality is they are simply right. Making up fantasies to belittle your opponent's view may help you feel smug, but you've accomplished nothing else. Let us be clear.