Jump to content

Failed "Doomsday" biologist predicts massive human extinction.


Recommended Posts

This is too funny not to post:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/60-minutes-uses-failed-doomsday-biologist-predict-mass-extinction-humanity

'60 Minutes' uses failed doomsday biologist to predict 'mass extinction' of humanity

(For the Woke goose stepping CHILDREN here, who dropped out of the third grade recently, who probably weren't born before the turn of this century, this nut job predicted the expansion of population would outstrip the world's ability to feed everyone. His prediction came in 1968.)

 

Quote

 

CBS rang in the new year Sunday night with "The Population Bomb" author and biologist Paul Ehrlich continuing to warn Americans about the threat of "mass extinction" on "60 Minutes."

Journalist Scott Pelley spoke with Ehrlich on the subject of sustainability as Ehrlich repeated his claims that humanity is no longer sustainable as a species due to our increasingly high population. 

"The rate of extinction is extraordinarily high now and getting higher all the time," Ehrlich said.

He explained, "Humanity is not sustainable. To maintain our lifestyle (yours and mine, basically) for the entire planet, you'd need five more Earths. Not clear where they're gonna come from."

In Ehrlich’s 1968 book, he originally predicted widespread famine and the overall end of civilization within the next decade. Although Ehrlich was wrong on several accounts, the program continued to present him as a reputable source.

"The alarm Ehrlich sounded in '68 warned that overpopulation would trigger widespread famine. He was wrong about that. The green revolution fed the world. But he also wrote in '68 that heat from greenhouse gases would melt polar ice and humanity would overwhelm the wild. Today, humans have taken over 70% of the planet's land and 70% of the freshwater," Pelley remarked.

The segment also included a comment from Ehrlich’s colleague Tony Barnosky claiming that there isn’t a scientist who would state that "we're not in an extinction crisis."

 

From the article:

"90 years old and still crazy (60 Minutes spelled his last name incorrectly, of course, their usual attention to detail). Ehrlich said humanity was done in the 1970s. We were not done. We will not be done anytime soon, either," Washington Examiner columnist Nathan Wurtzel tweeted.

"When a 90-year-old man tells you there are too many people, you're allowed to ask why he's still sticking around," Substack writer Jim Treacher joked.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reader's Digest Version, for the uneducated blue staters here.

In the late Sixies (along with a bunch of other nutball causes and hysterical lies) the term "Population Explosion" was made popular. Ehrlich's book "The Population Bomb" helped propagate that ignorant lie.

Also, Ehrlich was one of the ORIGINAL climate change nuts, claiming that global warming would melt the poles. Of course, this didn't stop Barak the Imbecile from spending all those contributions on an OCEAN FRONT MANSION in Martha's Vineyard.

Supposedly, human population growth would outstrip the world's ability to FEED everyone.

Earth to MOE Ronz. The EARTH is a rock. It doesn't FEED anyone. THIS IS THE EARTH.

th?id=OIP.Ls0z_gY48kSg8Ud2p4av4QHaHk&pid

Most of the surface of the Earth is WATER. Most of the land surface is WILDERNESS. Humans make up a TINY fraction of that land mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and for some of our more educated posters here (what few I've been able to find) this idea of increased capitalism outstripping the ability to feed and sustain human life is not a new concept.

In the early 19 Century, there were two economist of obviously conflicting ideologies. There was the free marketer David Ricardo and the Marxist Robert Malthus.

(For anyone who wonders about the etymology of the word "Malthusian")

Here's the ideology breakdown. (You Woke goose steppers, this would be  a good time for you to go out and do a line of coke or smoke some meth. This CLEARLY is over your educational level.)

https://business-essay.com/economic-development-and-population-malthus-and-ricardo-views/

RICARDO

According to Ricardo, the value of goods in the market is regulated by capital and labor. He further argued that profits and wages are components of the price of commodities in the market. He believed that the cost of production is reflected by a process in the long run, which he called the Natural Price. This resulted in the Theory of Profit. According to the Ricardo’s theory of profit, an increase in real wages results in a decline in real profits. The reason for such a trend is that revenues that are generated from the sale of manufactured commodities are divided between profits and wages. Therefore, profits in an economy depend on the distribution of wages (SCARLETT para. 2-3).

MALTHUS

According to Barbier (4), both economists expound on the issue of scarcity of natural resources in the economy and its impact on the supply and growth of population. In his argument, Malthus pointed out that the unevenness and limits in terms of the size and supply of land as a natural resource is a determinant of the rent that is set by the landlords in an agricultural society. According to Malthus, population growth in an economy often supersedes the subsistence growth (Barbier 6).

MARX

Contrary to the argument presented by Ricardo, Marx argued that the production price was equal to dead labor plus living labor. Therefore, it has been observed that the labor theory of value, as expounded by Marx, utilizes the simplest explanation to bring out the issue of origin of profits. Rather than bringing out the difference between the various types and qualities of labor, Marx concentrated on the abstract labor and reduced skilled labor to different types of unskilled labor in what is referred to as homogenous labor. He further made a suggestion that production prices would eventually align with the natural market equilibrium prices as competition would result in the equalization of profits. This implies a redistribution of the surplus values generated in the economy

Those of you with an education might notice the term "surplus value" which Marx brings up quite a bit. To him (and to most REALLY ignorant liberals here) surplus value is ANY profits that are not immediately shared to the workers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rebound said:

If overpopulation is not a problem, then why the opposition to more immigration? 

There is ZERO opposition to more immigration. LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP even called for INCREASING the quotas for LEGAL immigration, once the wall stopped the animals from violating our borders.

Most of America WANTS legal immigrants, those who are educated, who have skills, who speak English, and who obey the law.

By the way, illegal immigrants is NOT the subject of this thread. Once again, an uneducated blue stater tries to change the subject.

Earth to Moe The Ronz:

The subject is about  Paul Ehrlich, a disgraced doomsday pusher who had been completely HUMILIATED by his totally WRONG predictions.

The thread even traces back to the 19th Century, where free market capitalism went up against left wing Socialism, where Malthus was proven WRONG by the facts.

If population growth outstrips the world's ability to feed everyone, WHY IS EVERYONE ON A DIET?

Explain these poor food stamp people. None of them look like they've missed too many meals.

people_in_line_to_receive_food_stamps.jpg

 

If MEXICO is such a poor starving country, explain this.

th?id=OIP.3m-W2Yz_Ca-TzJtsKypIrAHaFP&pid

 

Doesn't look like anyone here is starving, and I'm pretty sure people are still reproducing.

Edited by reason10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Tying this error prone futurist to 'liberals' is a stretch at best.  Not sure what this has to do with anything really.  An old man said something.

*shrug

You must have been around when Rush Limbaugh (AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN) first mentioned Ehrlich. It was during the Algore OZONE MAN reign, (back when major chemicals companies were able to get majorly rich by having Government wipe out the ONE coolant that wasn't backed by an active patent. In the event you're wondering what market forces drove the Ozone Hole hoax in the first place.)

Global Warming, Acid Rain, and overpopulation made all the talk shows. (This was around the late 80s, early 90s when the PARENTS of the woke goose steppers were probably still in elementary school). Ehrlich's name came up several times, most of which were in context of the Chicken Little anti Capitalism movement of the left.

Ehrlich's name only comes up again thanks to the left wing Sixty Minutes.

Sixty Minutes made Ehrlich relevant, in a way he never could have accomplished. And FoxNews actually gave the story an audience, (since so few people watch Sixty Minutes any more.) And this bozo is tied to liberals because of the Marxist angle. I know you've read The Communist Manifesto, so you know it is true. The Planks of the Communist Party are practically the building blocks of the modern Democrat Party.

Edited by reason10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

In this world, starvation is ONLY possible in areas where the government imposes it on the populations. And those areas do not need any more American tax dollars thrown at their problem. They need a massive dose of CAPITALISM.

In CAPITALIST America, everyone is on a diet. Starvation HERE is always a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predictions that are to take place at a specific time are fun but usually unreliable with regard to the date. I predicted Presidnt Trump would be re-elected in 2020. But I also predicted Secretary Clinton would win in 2016. Ehrlich was not percieved to be very credible back in the day but he did get one thing right. Homo Sapiens will go extinct. We just don't know when. Every species goes extinct at some point. It is like predicting an specific individual will die. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making  predictions can be improved when it is based on experience. Climate change is a prime example. You can confidently predict the climate will change. It always has. Experience shows that sudden changes in climate have bad outcomes on people. The classic example, but not the only one, was the "little ice age in Europe when the climate cooled rapidly, within just a few centuries, and that caused the collapse of Western European civilization in the 5th and 6th centuries.

The maximum human population the earth can sustain over the long term, is 1.5 billion (Quirks and Quarks). Above that, the resources required to sustain life are consumed faster than they can be replenished, and the build up of greenhouse gases due to human activity, will cause the planet to warm faster than the earth can adapt. I am not predicting this will cause human extinction, but past experience with rapid changes in climate, indicate it will likely have a significant negative impact on humanity. If I were to predict a timeline, (which I won't) I would say within the next 500 years. 

Disclaimer: My education was in history, not physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

In the early 19 Century, there were two economist of obviously conflicting ideologies. There was the free marketer David Ricardo and the Marxist Robert Malthus.

Of the three economic phiosophers you mention, Malthus was perhaps closer to the mark. Marx has been thoroughly discredited and only 3rd year Arts students support him. Ricardo's theory presumes unlimited resources. Oil and coal resources are finite and when they run out, nothing moves and you cannot harness energy. Malthus was correct but he was unable to force the untapped resources in the New World and Africa. That led to an extention for civilization. The exhaustion of coal and oil resources will have a dramatic impact on humanity's existance. So, while Malthus was right about the outcome, the question of when remains unanswered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 1:56 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Predictions that are to take place at a specific time are fun but usually unreliable with regard to the date. I predicted Presidnt Trump would be re-elected in 2020. But I also predicted Secretary Clinton would win in 2016. Ehrlich was not percieved to be very credible back in the day but he did get one thing right. Homo Sapiens will go extinct. We just don't know when. Every species goes extinct at some point. It is like predicting an specific individual will die. 

 

Homo Sapiens going extinct is a distinct possibility. It is such a small and insignificant group of mammals on a planet where most of its creatures live under water.

Even the Christian Bible has a scenario for Homo Sape leaving this rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 2:39 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Of the three economic phiosophers you mention, Malthus was perhaps closer to the mark. Marx has been thoroughly discredited and only 3rd year Arts students support him. Ricardo's theory presumes unlimited resources. Oil and coal resources are finite and when they run out, nothing moves and you cannot harness energy. Malthus was correct but he was unable to force the untapped resources in the New World and Africa. That led to an extention for civilization. The exhaustion of coal and oil resources will have a dramatic impact on humanity's existance. So, while Malthus was right about the outcome, the question of when remains unanswered.

Look at when Malthus was alive. 1766-1834. There was no longer a New World. It was called the United States of America. The economy of this fledgling society was expanding so fast that Democrats had stepped up the need for buying more slaves. Africa was cashing in on the slave trade. Hell, even freed slaves in America got their own farms and BOUGHT THEIR OWN SLAVES to run them.

At that time, transportation was fueled chiefly by crops that took ACRES to grow.

Michael Crichton once said that fossil fuels replaced hay as a fuel for transportation and it didn't take any massive government programs or actions to carry that out. The market was ready. Crichton said that when the market is ready (AND NOT BEFORE) alternative means of fuel will replace fossil fuels. (And the earth has 200 years worth of oil, by the way.)

The closest human life came to extinction was NOT due to food issues but rather the incompetence of the American Democrat Party. Presidents like FDR gave the Soviet Union most of eastern Europe. Incompetent presidents like Jimmy Carter allowed the Soviets to advance their causes and their nuclear weapons arsenal and the end of all life on earth could have been a flick of the switch away had Ronald Reagan not been elected in a historic landslide.

I agree there are scenarios for the end of humanity. Malthus and Ehrlich were proven incorrect in their assumptions. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 2:36 PM, Aristides said:

That article is ludicrous and not based on ANY reliable science whatsoever. It assumes whoever read it has a third grade education and has NEVER opened a history book.

Humanity has become so prosperous (at least in the United States) that it has decided to PAY the absolute DUMBEST individuals of all time to have babies and lose the father. Failing to get a large enough underclass to elect Democrats every season, the politicians have actually invited the dumbest, laziest, (and usually criminals) to violate our borders, so they can get welfare checks and Democrat voting cards.

I agree such a scenario may present a challenge to the continued survival of humans on the earth (when the absolute DUMBEST are being put front and center)  but you never know.

For every Joy Behar, there is an Elon Musk. For every unelected Biden, there is a LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

The planet may not be as bad off as you think especially considering that most of the living species live UNDER WATER, since most of the surface of the planet IS WATER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You appear to be fixated on one nation and the politics of that one nation, rather than a global view. 

You are correct that we have only 200 years worth of oil remaining if we continue to waste it by burning it.

Leaving the issue of global warming aside, our technological civilization rests on three resourses. Iron ore, coal and oil. Without those compounds, we cannot sustain a modern lifestyle. We will return to a pre-iron age society. You cannot make steel without iron and coal. We have looked for alternatives to steel and no alternative is as viable. You cannot generate energy without steel and lubrication and the only economically viable source of lubrication is petrolum based.

We can preserve our petroleum and coal reserves by not wasting them to produce energy. This could extend their use for a thousand years, but then after that, we are screwed. We need to transition to nuclear energy as quickly as possible. While uranium reserves are also limited to two hundred years, there is also thorium as a viable alternative, and, God willing, fusion after that. 

The resourses we call ours are not just ours. We share ownership with future generations. We have a duty to prove Malthus wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

That article is ludicrous and not based on ANY reliable science whatsoever. It assumes whoever read it has a third grade education and has NEVER opened a history book.

Humanity has become so prosperous (at least in the United States) that it has decided to PAY the absolute DUMBEST individuals of all time to have babies and lose the father. Failing to get a large enough underclass to elect Democrats every season, the politicians have actually invited the dumbest, laziest, (and usually criminals) to violate our borders, so they can get welfare checks and Democrat voting cards.

I agree such a scenario may present a challenge to the continued survival of humans on the earth (when the absolute DUMBEST are being put front and center)  but you never know.

For every Joy Behar, there is an Elon Musk. For every unelected Biden, there is a LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

The planet may not be as bad off as you think especially considering that most of the living species live UNDER WATER, since most of the surface of the planet IS WATER.

You really do live under a rock. Do you seriously think the earth can support the 8 billion on this planet enjoying  the same standard of living and consumption as the average North American?

 

The oceans are warming which is affecting many species as well as weather  and increasing sea levels. Oceans absorb 25% of the CO2 we omit and that is increasing their acidification which among other things is destroying the planet's coral reefs. Those reefs are the home of millions of species.

Over fishing has decimated many fish species and affected other wild species which also depend on them as a food source. Pacific Salmon are the foundation of a whole ecosystem on the west coast. If they disappear because of warming oceans, habitat destruction and over fishing, that whole system would collapse.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

You really do live under a rock. Do you seriously think the earth can support the 8 billion on this planet enjoying  the same standard of living and consumption as the average North American?

 

The oceans are warming which is affecting many species as well as weather  and increasing sea levels. Oceans absorb 25% of the CO2 we omit and that is increasing their acidification which among other things is destroying the planet's coral reefs. Those reefs are the home of millions of species.

Over fishing has decimated many fish species and affected other wild species which also depend on them as a food source. Pacific Salmon are the foundation of a whole ecosystem on the west coast. If they disappear because of warming oceans, habitat destruction and over fishing, that whole system would collapse.

Mass extinction is already well underway. Most biologists acknowledge this. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Contemporary_extinction

 

Will this lead to human extinction? Doubtful, but possible.  We don’t fully control all of the complex biological mechanisms which create life. My thinking is that the bee is the biggest threat to human survival.  No bees, no humans. 

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming is the most likely cause of human extinction. Sea levels are rising now, but at a certain point, as the warming accelerates, the oceans will begin to evaporate. Imagine a planet too hot for water to exist in a liquid state. Most life cannot exist without water.

I have a secret super power. (well secret until now). My record of prediction is terrible. I predicted President Trump would lose in 2016, win in 2020, the Dogers would defeat the Yankees in the World Series, ...I can go on and on. My power is that if I bet on something, I lose. In the interest of using my super power for good, I predict most life on earth will go extinct and the earth will be a barren rock. 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Global warming is the most likely cause of human extinction. Sea levels are rising now, but at a certain point, as the warming accelerates, the oceans will begin to evaporate. Imagine a planet too hot for water to exist in a liquid state. Most life cannot exist without water.

I have a secret super power. (well secret until now). My record of prediction is terrible. I predicted President Trump would lose in 2016, win in 2020, the Dogers would defeat the Yankees in the World Series, ...I can go on and on. My power is that if I bet on something, I lose. In the interest of using my super power for good, I predict most life on earth will go extinct and the earth will be a barren rock. 

Cheers.

Or, they could become carbonic acid and we become like Venus. The fact is, we don't really know what the end result of ocean acidification will be.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...