Overpopulation guru Paul Ehrlich still ginning up fear at age 87: ‘It’s insane to have so many people alive at the same time’ – Claims: ‘Trump’s got a lot of blood on his hands’

By: - Climate DepotMay 19, 2020 3:38 PM with 0 comments


Tyler Prize Laureate Conversations

A Conversation with Paul Ehrlich
“COVID, Climate Change and Cherished Colleagues”
May 2020


Paul Ehrlich: First of all, one of the most ignored factors, certainly the most ignored major factor in the existential threats to our civilization is the size of our population, and it’s growth. From the footprint analysis, and so on, we’re already something like 50% over what could be sustained in the long run, in terms of human population. And nowhere is the population factor in our problems more obvious, than in the epidemiological department, in the area of emerging diseases.

Most of our infectious diseases all come from other animals. The larger the human population, the greater the chance of a disease of other animals getting into our population. The size of the population is important, because the more people you have, the more you push people into the habitats of other animals, and that makes the chances of a transfer being higher.

The more people you have, the more you tend to have large numbers of malnourished people. For example, current estimates are, there’s something like two billion human beings, who have micronutrient malnourishment, which makes them immune compromised, which makes them then receptors, good receivers for animal diseases.

When people say, “Oh, we don’t want to deny millions of people the chance to live by limiting the size of our population,” well it turns out, if you want to have a maximum number of people live, the way to do it isn’t to see how many can cram on the planet at one time. The way to do it is to have a sustainable society, millions, but not many billions, for thousands, or millions, of years.

So the science of the human population: when we were 100 gatherers there were no epidemic diseases, because if a disease got into a group, they all died, or became immune, and that was the end of it. They were not going to be flying in jets to other parts of the world. Now, you have almost eight billion human beings, all genetically very similar, and it’s a wonderful target for a virus, or a bacteria. And we’ve added to that gigantic amounts of biomass in cattle and chickens. Chickens are, I believe by far, the highest biomass of birds on the planet. And so with our domestic animals, and huge numbers of chickens, pigs, ducks in China, again, you have a population-related generator of viruses.

When you ask what we should be doing, the answer is: we’ve got to change the entire system. People don’t want to hear that, but for instance, there’s a lot of fuss in the US right now, because Trump is reducing the café standards, making cars more inefficient, so his friends in petroleum and the fossil fuel industry can make more money. And the answer is, of course, the problem is not so much making automobiles more efficient, it’s getting rid of most of the automobiles.

It’s not just the carbon dioxide you get out of cars, you get air pollution from the rubber rolling on the road, you get huge amounts of environmental destruction trying to mine the metals and all the things that go into automobiles, the cost of production, it’s just an insane way to move people around, and it’s insane to have so many people alive at the same time.

The health threat from the COVID-19 virus is trivial, compared to the health threat from climate disruption. In other words, yeah, we’re going to lose millions of people, particularly with people like Trump in charge, Trump’s got a lot of blood on his hands already, but that’s nothing, we could lose everybody to climate disruption. The entire world’s population. Certainly, civilization will go down the drain, if we don’t do anything about it, and it is possible that it will lead to the extinction of homosapiens, although not likely.


End excerpt


German Climate Advisor Hans Schellnhuber: Carrying Capacity Of The Planet Is Less Than A Billion – According to the New York Times, Schellnhuber also said at a plenary session at the international climate change conference in Copenhagen (emphasis added):  “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.”

Accurate Tribute to Paul Ehrlich: ‘Mad…Kook…Lunatic…Disgraced…Worse than Hitler…fear-monger…parasite on Academic system…Bernie Madoff of science’

1972 Article Unearthed: ‘Worse than Hitler’: ‘Population Bomb’ author Paul Ehrlich suggested adding a forced sterilization agent to ‘staple food’ and ‘water supply’ – Warned of ‘Unpredictable climatic effects’ — Called on U.S. to ‘de-develop’ – Feb. 19, 2010

Physicist mocks Paul Ehrlich as ‘mad’: ‘A kook, a lunatic obsessed with doomsdays, and a parasite on the Academic system…career built on making absolutely preposterous statements’

Paul Ehrlich called ‘Intellectual Moron’: ‘He’s the Bernie Madoff of science…Ehrlich has been wrong on virtually everything he has predicted about future state of the world’

2020: Envrio leftie George Monbiot takes on enviro leftie Michael Moore on overpopulation: ‘Why do so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth?’ Answer: ‘Racism’

How They Sold Paul Ehrlich’s ‘The Population Bomb’ – Threats of famine, dead children, bombs, nuclear war, & oblivion

Paul Ehrlich’s Epic Fail: Why The ‘Population Bomb’ Never Exploded

Flashback 1980: Paul Ehrlich calls oil ‘a resource which we know damn well is going to be gone in 20 or 30 years’ (By year 2000 or 2010)

Paul Ehrlich admits it: ‘I am an alarmist. My colleagues are alarmists. We’re alarmed, and we’re frightened’