Talk:Paul R. Ehrlich/Archive 1

Watchlist request
Paul R. Ehrlich biography is currently biased and has been vandalized with bias since 2003. Ehrlich is Stanford population biologist warning of overpopulation in bestsellers such as THE POPULATION EXPLOSION (1990). Look at long history of edits since 2003: Religious extremists against birth control, who deny existence of overpopulation, repeatedly vandalize with propaganda slanted against Ehrlich. I edited a dozen times before giving up. Current version is still biased POV: Biography barely mentions five decades of Ehrlich's accomplishments or other books written by Ehrlich. For instance, he is world's foremost expert on butterfly population dynamics. Biography is overwhelmed by several paragraphs of "criticisms" of overpopulation theory. Criticisms should be limited to one paragraph, yet criticisms can be found in every sentence throughout biography, and CRITICISMS section is biggest section of biography, and centered on webpage. I re-wrote it several times but religious extremists repeatedly vandalize and revert. It should be re-written with more objective point of view and include subject's five decades of accomplishments. It needs warning flags and should be locked to prevent future biased vandalism. 209.78.98.26 22:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. fertility rate dropped from 3.4 children per woman in the early 1960s to 1.8 by 1975, and many credit Ehrlich's influence for helping to bring this about. One man cut fertility in half in a decade? That sounds like a tall boast. Please, exactly who credits Ehrlich with significant responsibility for this achievement? Willmcw 23:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Could we please have some citations to support this assertion:

"many credit Ehrlich's influence for helping to bring this about" does not equate to "one man cut fertility in half in a decade". The history of ZPG on the Population Connection website credits a number of factors including ZPG (which Ehrlich founded), The Population Bomb (which Ehrlich wrote), the popularity of the "stop at two" message (which ZPG promoted), along with many other factors independent of Ehrlich's influence, in making birth control much more widespread. Kaibabsquirrel 03:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In other words, ZPG credits themselves, their founder, and an entire progressive coalition with helping to accomplish the fertility reduction. Let's change it to indicate what ZPG actually says. Willmcw 04:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Willmcw and think that the changes made have improved the NPOVness of the article. Jacob1207 18:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Population Bomb
I have moved all the references to The Population Bomb book to its own page since one exists. Alan Liefting 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
Five years later, and this is still an extremely biased article. I will be tagging it so the casual reader will at least have some notice that it is slanted. W E Hill (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made some modifications to the article, but I still believe it is not balanced because of cherry picked quotes from the Population Bomb and biased or very limited sources such as the 2 or 3 page review of the Population Bomb found in the Knudsen's book, Knudsen's feminist POV and the fact that she is judging the book nearly 40 years after it was written. Other sources such as Tierney are also biased but in a more ideological way -- which of course is worse. Nonetheless, I believe have made the article a little more balanced and objective.W E Hill (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the tag because you have shown no cause here. ► RATEL ◄ 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored the tag. The history of talk page documents considerable concern over slanted coverage within this article.  While some of the older comments reflect a concern that the versions at the time were overly negative, the current version significantly underrepresents the preponderance of negative coverage about Ehrlich's track record as a futurist.  (Here and here for two examples that showed up in a cursory google search.) Even more worrying, the current version of the Overpopulation debate section contains extensive quotes of Erhlich's rebuttals to his critics without ever explaining the criticisms.  A man who had deliberately put himself into such controversy deserves to have that controversy adequately covered.  Rossami (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it reads as if his wife took the suggestion up this page to write it herself. If it was ever POV against the man, it's certainly swung too far the other way at this point. Also, it's funny that the wager is barely on this page, not on Holdren's page at all, and has its own section on Simon's page (and Simon's page includes a much less significant wager he lost).Demigord (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Final sentence of lead
This sentence correctly summarizes what the article has to say about The Population Bomb, and reflects the sources cited in the article: "In the years since, some of his predictions have proven to be correct and some to be incorrect, but he stands by his general thesis that the human population is too large and is a direct threat to human survival and the environment of the planet."

This sentence, otoh, is inflammatory and one-sided and breaks the policy about WP:BLPs: "In the years since, his dire predictions have proven incorrect, but he stands by his general thesis that the human population is too large and is a direct threat to human survival and the environment of the planet."[6] The reference is to a blog post which is not a reliable source, and should not be included in a BLP. LK (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, he did make some claims correctly: there were in fact famines. There has been the emergence of new diseases and climate change. You can argue some of the details, but he was not 100% wrong, as implied by the anon's preferred wording. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * He was incorrect in his overall prediction of impending doom. Famines happen throughout history and will probably happen in the future.  Saying he was right because of famine is like me saying "Winter is coming" and i get credit for being right because of a abnormally cool day in summer. On the whole the most dire of his predictions were wrong and it is not incorrect to point that fact out.  Should we edit an article on the invasion of Iraq to not mention the WMDs just because we don't want incorrect predictions to be pointed out? 65.245.102.10 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The article discusses his incorrect predictions at some length, so I don't think this is really a fair criticism. Nonetheless, have tried to make the lead more reflective of this fact. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The article should actually be renamed, Criticism of Paul Ehrlich's population theory, since most of it is criticism, including a number of sections for that purpose. This is a misuse of a biography, which should aim for neutrality. It's a poorly written biased synthesis with a lot of he/she believes," often supported with snippets from his critics and mis-statements. --Light show (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please make constructive edits that add to the article, rather than removing sourced, germane material. Just because it is a bio does not mean that we do not include criticism, even a lot of it. The fact is that Ehrlich has been heavily criticised, and that should be reflected here. Doesn't mean you can't add other material, please do. But please do not remove sourced, relevant material. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Each edit was explained in the summary. Criticism is fine, undue weight is not. --Light show (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The abortion charge is clearly supported by the ref in that section; change wording rather than wholesale removal of abortion section; removal of Ehrlich's own defence of his "predictions" seems very odd given your charge that you think the article is slanted against him. The abortion charges are a common meme, so should be addressed by this article. The quotes removed about "scenarios" give a clearer defence of the book than anything else. Undue weight is a rather nebulous concept to prove, so I think you should rather try to add material dealing with other issue, than trying to remove material that substantively deals with the subject. This article is not overly-long. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * True, the article is not that long, and 900 words devoted to criticism of just one of his numerous books seems more than undue, and if anywhere, it belongs in the article about the book. The first subsection under "Career" is "Over-population debate," and the second is the book, The Population Bomb. I have a feeling that somewhere buried in there is something about his career, but I'm still looking. --Light show (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So we're agreed. You'll expand the article and coverage of other aspects of his career. I'm glad that we were able to find a constructive solution rather than removing valid material. Cheers, Peregrine981 (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And we're also agreed that this bio should not be overweight criticism or "debate" about a book, which should be in the book's article, if anywhere. I also assume you don't approve of misquoting sources or adding unsourced allegations, which violate guidelines. --Light show (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am certainly fully in agreement with the undue weight policy. However, I think it is usually preferable to add more material to an article rather than removing potentially useful information. It is true that as this article stands it is unbalanced. But rather than removing the material I would much rather see other issues fleshed out. The problem in this case is that the vast majority of the secondary sources discuss population issues/The Population Bomb so they will naturally receive an outsized proportion of the article. Ehrlich is far better known for this issue than for his other professional pursuits, so I don't think it is unreasonable for this article to focus on that to some extent.


 * Regarding the specific problems you point to, why not fix the quotation rather than removing the section outright? And the unsourced allegation should more correctly be attributed to Glenn Beck (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/), but it is a fairly wide spread meme; In any case, I don't think a wholesale deletion was warranted, given this source's presence in the citations. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * PS, I'm really not opposed to making changes, and reworking the text for balance, but I'm against wholesale removals of content. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Could some content be moved to book articles?
It seems like a large proportion of this article, and the accompanying figures, are about the The Population Bomb or its aftereffects and responses, and some seems a bit out of place. The Population Bomb currently has zero images aside from the book cover. The population growth rates, and especially the photo of the 2008 Summer Olympics, seem indirectly related to a biographical, and perhaps more appropriate to articles focusing on his works. More appropriate images to include in the biography article might be figures that Erlich created or inspired himself, or say, Erlich speaking. (I get that the Olympic photo is supposed to illustrate "overpopulation", but I feel it is misleading, both in context and time). --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. I've created Category:Paul R. Ehrlich on Wikimedia Commons.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

New NYT article
The New York Times has a new article up (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html) which summarizes the situation around Ehrlich and the non-outcomes of his predictions. The whole article is how he was fundamentally wrong about everything he said. I think it's fair to say at this point that this article's lede is significantly too friendly to Ehrlich as he's presented in credible sources like the NYT. So I'm going to adjust it. Casimirin (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the impression I got from reading the article. More like: His predictions were right but on a different time-scale. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just got an email from Zero Population Growth that says, in part, "It is beyond me how any reasonable observer can ignore the avalanche of data about crises triggered by soaring population growth. They appear daily on the very pages of the Times itself. Instead, this piece presented distorted data to make a tortured case that all’s well. Have they not heard about the climate crisis, droughts, disappearing species, civil strife, and all the other consequences of rapid population growth?" The email is on their website. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure this one opinion should occupy half the lead, if any of it, specially if it isn't in the body. I'll move it there now; for reference, the lead should summarize the whole of the article in 3-4 paragraphs, mentioning the theme of every section, without introducing any new material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links section
I tagged this section since it seem bloated and list like and non EL spirit. --Malerooster (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions
I still think the recent additions, except for any verifiable cases where Ehrlich himself retracted anything he wrote or said, belong under the "Critics" section. Maybe the section should be changed from "The critics" to "Criticism" but my point still stands. Ehrlich is among those singled out by the wise use movement (as well as followers of Lyndon LaRouche, Ayn Rand and so on) to try and discredit, because those groups reject environmentalism and especially the notions of overpopulation and population control in their entirety, so any attempt to insert anti-Ehrlich bias or proclaim he was "wrong" is automatically suspect in my eyes. I'm trying to assume good faith but there is no reason why any "Ehrlich was wrong" material belongs anywhere in the article except a special section that is devoted to criticism of Ehrlich, otherwise it smacks of POV. I removed the Ron Bailey link in particular because he is a leader in the Wise Use movement which would automatically discount him from being an impartial source on Ehrlich.

Here is the recent addition as it stands, and my specific points of criticism: ''In that article, Ehrlich predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources, and declared that the battle to feed humanity was over. His predictions would prove false, though. The oft-cited cause of these famine aversions is the "Green Revolution", as it was called by the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1968 [1]''

''Ehrlich has stated that despite his other work, the predictions of his first book are regularly cited as proof of extensive flaws in the environmental movement. [2]''


 * 1) "His predictions would prove false, though." This makes it sound like all of Ehrlich's predictions proved false.  Specifically, which ones?  The world *did* experience famines between 1970 and 1985, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa, so that one didn't prove false.
 * 2) My understanding of the Green Revolution is that it is widely considered a failure because of its reliance on monoculture, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides.
 * 3) An earlier revision of the article said that Ehrlich removed some of his predictions from later editions of The Population Bomb. Which ones?  I have seen two editions of the book, the original and a later 1970s edition, and the only thing I remember him revising was a section which he clearly stated were "scenarios", not predictions. Kaibabsquirrel 9 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Your understanding of the Green Revolution is POV (as is my understanding of it, which is directly opposite to yours). You are really not prepared to give any credit to it for increasing food supplies? India is now a net exporter of food. Twr57 (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What does "overpopulation" even mean?
A clear definition of acute overpopulation is that a population is doomed to outrun its available resource base—prompt ingenuity notwithstanding—and will suffer famine, starvation, death, and decline.

I somehow doubt that chronic overpopulation has any clear definition, as a similar, sharp extremity.

Unfortunately, this wades into the same terrain as overweight. It turns out that a slightly tubby BMI is close to the peak of optimal future health relative to 21st century norms. At the same time, a slightly tubby BMI is an important warning flag of the risk of drifting into the more-than-slightly tubby demographic, where the risk of becoming pre-diabetic spikes dramatically upwards. Is a person in excellent health with a tubby BMI "overweight" merely because that person lacks an insurance margin of sliding down the slippery slope of metabolic syndrome?

I strongly disagree with giving Ehrlich a free pass to redefine his original (implied) "acute overpopulation" as "chronic overpopulation" amounting to much the same thing. Nearly every species deals with some degree of internal, competitive, population stress.

A catastrophic plunge in global biodiversity as a result of human influence would for me count as a form of acute overpopulation, viewed from a large lens. The precautionary people will insist that any plunge in global biodiversity is necessarily catastrophic. Some people hate change. I personally don't use "catastrophic" as a synonym for "risky and uncertain". All futures are risky and uncertain. This tends to devolve into a debate about which kinds of risks a person is more willing to bear. Some people are willing to bear extremely high intervention risk (deflecting what seems to otherwise be the default course) for nostalgic continuity. Name ten global interventions by humanity that have ever worked (where the unintended harms don't exceed the intended benefits). We had some success against smog (select locales), acid rain, repairing the ozone layer, public sanitation, medical reform, and eliminating a few horrific diseases, but then my list grows thin. Despite robust efforts of our wealthy enlightenedmost, poverty, the sex trade, the drug trade, and human tyranny remain in the pink of health (perhaps the endangered species trade is now looking a bit jaundiced, though far from bed ridden).

The word "overpopulation" almost seems to imply that there's some low-risk intervention we could contemplate, such as getting one's teeth cleaned on a regular basis, that would lop the prefix "over" off.

With a fat person, if the doctor recommends dietary restriction, the person probably doesn't end up addicted to fentanyl as a result of the compliance stress. I'm not sure one could say the same about an intervention designed to impose a dietary restriction on human reproduction. The Chinese did this, and now have some unsettling (and potentially perilous) demographic consequences to navigate.

There are so many metaphorical frames that potentially attach to this tiny prefix "over"—not the least of which is "something can and must be done (something that can only go well if sober adulthood prevails among the global collective)—and I'm not sure any of them are accurate in the frame of this article. Finally there's the truly appalling rhetorical dodge "my prediction would have been true if my prediction hadn't precipitated the required corrective action" (what an ironic mathematician might dub as "proof by constructive counterexample"). It's reprehensible on an even deeper level than one at first notices, because it presumes that humans never deal with a problem without a giant throat-clearing in advance—all human responsibility begins with a giant throat clearing. Thus it is only necessary to debate, in the great priority assignment, who cleared their throat first-est or loudest.

Gradually Ehrlich seems to have walked his original attention-grabbing throaty expectoration back from diabetic to pre-diabetic to borderline pre-diabetic. After all, "over" can easily be stretched to mean any damn thing at all (every anorexic supermodel believes she is overweight.)

Merely pointing out that rapidly adding two billion people to the earth's population would prove problematic on many dimensions does not exactly qualify one as a great seer. Any educated person not able to see this rates no higher than a 6 on the Glasgow Coma Scale. (For bonus marks, let's whisper to a man who just fathered his twelfth child that's he's surely in for a life of long toil.)

The only other clear definition of "overpopulation" is eugenic or genocidal in nature. That's not even worth commentary. Rare are the harmonious human societies who applaud the heroic arrival of Yersinia pestis or lampshade calculus.

I was listening to a podcast recently concerning the Spanish–American War. The Philippine–American War represented a psychological turning point in American history, as much of the population was still thinking in the old "spill west, young man" terms (there's always more to exploit) but the point had clearly been reached where "more of the same" had taken on an imperial cast.

Clearly by the 1960s, earth had arrived at a place where we were going to have to contend for resources with far less insouciant swashbuckle. If one was nostalgic for that era of "go west, young man" (I never was), I guess you could say that the earth was now "overpopulated". This is the moral equivalent of someone who just turned 23 complaining that they are now "so old". Yes, adulthood sucks, but "overaged" does not begin nearly as soon as your formerly free spirit wishes to pretend.

That's the most charitable definition I've ever been able to give this term: that the world was just beginning to realize that we had all turned 23, that life would be harder now, and God knows how we would ever afford to pay our first mortgage—and if only other people hadn't humped like bunnies, this whole sordid tale could have been happily averted.

Unless Ehrlich was willing to own the acute definition, which I don't think he finally did. &mdash; MaxEnt 22:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Civil rights work
Was Ehrlich an organizer of the sit-in to desegregate restaurants in Lawrence, Kansas in the late 1950s? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)