By Tom Quiner

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM&feature=player_embedded]

I still remember the day.

I was a junior in high school when we were introduced to Earth Day some 43 years ago.

Students made presentations about how man is polluting the planet. Example after example was presented. Chemicals are ruining our soil we were told. Factories are ruining the air that we breathe. Our beautiful landscape is being desecrated by development run amuck.

We were told that mankind would blow through the world’s supply of oil by the mid 80s. The biggest issue in the world, we were told, was overpopulation. The world had too many people. Population growth was out of control. Mass starvation was coming.

It made sense to impressionable minds, and a movement was born.

The bible of the era was a book written by Paul Erlich called “The Population Bomb.” Here is our fate, said Erlich:

“[By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

In other words, the only debate was when, not if, disaster would strike. We have too many people, said Erlich, and not enough food. His focus was on getting rid of people. Erhlich was certain of his facts:

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

Of course, it was all a bunch of nonsense, but a lot of impressionable young baby boomers became a liberal that very day. Erlich advanced solutions which included putting birth control in our water supply, forced abortions, coercive sterilization, punitive taxes on people who have children, and other heavy-handed government solutions that violate civil liberties and human dignity.

This idea that “people are bad” fed the notion that human abortion was a legitimate solution to save the planet. Ironically, liberal thinking that had always been defined as “looking out for the little guy” abruptly turned on the little guy, the preborn. Mother Earth became more important to them than the future polluters residing in the womb.

Although some good has come from Earth Day, the belief that viewed humanity as a disease has been toxic. Fifty-five million abortions later, the U.S. is waking up to the realization that we need more taxpayers to pay for the lavish entitlements liberals have voted into law.

Paul Erlich was wrong, monstrously wrong. Yet people still believe his hooey. To this day, liberals breathlessly listen to his latest pronouncements like this one:

“How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”

How do you feel about a guy who talks about “humanely” shrinking the population? You should be scared, because a whole bunch of liberals buy his act. A whole bunch of liberal thinkers, such as the President of the United States, considers unwanted humans as a disease.

For the record, credible demographers suggest that world’s population will peak in thirty years and begin declining without resorting to Dr. Erlich’s draconian measures. Watch the video above to learn more.

Then ponder how a guy who is so consistently wrong has so many followers.

20 Comments

  1. lj41 on April 27, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    Earth Day. Yet another liberal lie. Damn that socialist, Richard Nixon…

    • quinersdiner on April 27, 2013 at 4:23 pm

      Mr. Nixon was very liberal in certain regards, especially with his imposition of wage and price controls. Just another technocrat. Actually, though, I’m not sure what your point is. It is not Mr. Nixon’s pronouncements I am commenting on. It is Mr. Erlich’s, who missed the mark on about every prediction he ever made. Thanks for writing.

  2. tannngl on April 27, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    I remember a movie about the last plot of land (maybe an acre) available and there was some kind of contest to see who would win it. In the end a family moved in and had some open spaces while the rest of man kind behind a chain link fence ( as I recall) stared depressively at them. I remember thinking what nonsense but it made for good drama.

    The there was Soylent Green…

    • quinersdiner on April 27, 2013 at 6:09 pm

      Yes, I remember those movies. Hollywood loves environmental catastrophe as a movie theme, don’t they?

  3. violetwisp on April 27, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    Reblogged this on violetwisp and commented:
    I suspect there’s something not correct in here, but I don’t know much about it. Thought it would be nice to ‘share’ with my thoughtful readers.

  4. violetwisp on April 27, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    What interesting thoughts! I don’t know much about this area but it’s certainly a new angle on things for me.

    • quinersdiner on April 27, 2013 at 10:07 pm

      Hi Violet: Thanks for commenting. I suspect a lot of folks don’t make the connection I make, but I believe it is valid.

  5. Thomas on April 27, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    I respectfully disagree with your views. I don’t have enough knowledge at the moment to build a strong argument, but I doubt that the world will be able to sustain how much of WESTERN society lives. Many of my friends have presented me with statistics that the world’s resources are running out in some areas, though that’s more related to the environment. Furthermore, I disagree with the moral idea of pro-life having anything to do with overpopulation. People deserve a choice; I would bring in all sorts of arguments but I think the placement of abortion in this argument shows some shoddy rhetoric.

    • quinersdiner on April 28, 2013 at 7:58 am

      “People deserve a choice; I would bring in all sorts of arguments but I think the placement of abortion in this argument shows some shoddy rhetoric.”

      Thomas, first of all, thanks for writing. The connection between the Earth Day movement and abortion is direct, but certainly not out in the open. As I presented in my piece, Erlich and others in the movement viewed mankind as the source of all the problems. Erlich vocally proposed radical solutions to “humanely” shrink population growth, which included abortion. As far as Western civilization goes, we are slowly dying. Here in the U.S., 35 states have replacement birth rates which have dipped below replacement levels. In fact 48% of all nations in the world have sub-replacement birth rates, so population alarmists can relax. Erlich, like your friends, said we were running out of resources. He was proven wrong time and time again. And yet his minions keep spouting the same rhetoric. Go figure.

  6. xPraetorius on April 28, 2013 at 1:56 am

    This is amazing! I’ve been using the “Every Man Woman And Child on Earth In Texas” image for years when talking about over-population alarmism.

    Like the guy in the video, I did the math, and found that every man woman and child on the face of the earth, if moved to a livable place the size of Texas could have a plot of land approximately 34×34. (6.5 billion divided into 7.5 trillion sq. ft. in Texas = 33.95) That meant that my then family of four would have a plot of land measuring 68×68, or a bit larger than what I already had…and I had a “house with a yard,” as the video says.

    There are more people now, but the simple fact is that there is plenty of arable land and plenty of water and resources to feed a population 10 times the size of the current world population.

    The main reason for income and food inequality worldwide and throughout history? Highly centralized governments controlling the distribution of resources and labor. This system, fatally prone to corruption of all the worst possible kinds, has been around since Man lost Eden.

    In the 19th century Karl Marx wrapped it all up in a pretty package with a bow and called it “Socialism.” Today’s 21st Century leftists — realizing that with 120 million violent deaths to its credit in the 20th Century, the word “socialism” had lost some luster — began to call it “Progressivism.”

    But, really, it’s the most reactionary possible system; one that agglutinates power — both military and political — wealth, control, and corruption in the hands of a tiny élite at the top of a country’s power structure. It’s a system that has been tormenting mankind for the entirety of his existence.

    Best,

    — xPraetorius

    • quinersdiner on April 28, 2013 at 8:16 am

      As usual, you have nailed it xPraetorius. To build on your premise, the late economist, Julian Simon, called human ingenuity “The Ultimate Resource,” which is the title of a book he wrote. Man’s ability to innovate is what allows us to grow and to thrive when allowed to freely operate. It is when elites control a country’s power structure that resources become misallocated to the detriment of many. Mr. Erlich and his minions call for the very same top-down solutions that cause displacement. Your example is outstanding. Thanks for writing!

    • Shawn Pavlik on April 29, 2013 at 11:13 am

      Sorry, the math teacher in me can’t let that fly. If you had a plot of land that was 34×34 feet, it would actually have an area of 1156 square feet. If you want a square area of 34 square feet, it would have to be about 5 feet 10 inches on a side.

      • xPraetorius on April 29, 2013 at 12:05 pm

        Shawn: you’re exactly right – each man, woman and child would have a plot of land just a tad shy of 1,156 square feet, or 34×34. (6.5 bllion people divided into 7.5 trillion sq. feet in Texas]) A family of four, therefore, would have four such squares, or a plot of land 68×68, or about 4,624 square feet..

        Best,

        — XPraetorius

  7. cindy0803 on April 28, 2013 at 5:31 am

    I, like Violet, have never heard of this.

    I was born in 1965, so I suspect we had some of the same social and political experiences shape our lives.

    But it is a very common tactic to take the nuttiest, nutjob on the side we don’t like and hold them out as the messiah of that group. Can I please call your attention to Glenn Beck?

    I can find no evidence that anyone took Mr. Erlich’s book (written in 1968) and then decided to create Earth Day. I can find no evidence that Mr. Erlich’s book caused anyone to change their mind about abortion, even if he was trying to make a case for abortion and all sorts of other wacky ideas like being able to choose a male baby somehow in the prenatal process so couples would stop having children after getting their precious boy baby. He sounds like just another happy misogynist to me.

    I don’t know about you, but the crying Indian Chief did more to shape my ideas about trying to protect the Earth than some guy who believes in forced sterilization that I’ve never heard of.

    I had a creative writing class in college. One of the women wrote a poem about a tomato which turned out to be symbolic of an abortion she had at the insistence of her husband. They already had three children. I remember asking her, “why didn’t you just leave him?” The question held all the undertones of my disapproval, but I’ll never forget the hurt on her face. I was stupid and I wish I could apologize. The fact is, women have all sorts of reasons for having abortions, and none that I have ever heard of have anything to do with some book some fringe nut with an agenda wrote in the 60s.

    Liberals are convinced that being pro-choice is good for the individual. And if conservatives would get down off their high horse and actually start talking to individuals while making sure that every child that IS born has what they need, then perhaps there would no longer be a need for abortion, ever. Sure, that is a lofty goal, but it is a worthy road towards ending abortion. Making women and their children pay the entire price for what a man contributes equally to is the immoral way to end abortion.

    • quinersdiner on April 28, 2013 at 8:51 am

      “Liberals are convinced that being pro-choice is good for the individual.”

      Mr. Ehrlich’s book has sold millions of copies. He was in the news. He was on the radio. He was on the Johnny Carson Show many times. His book was quoted to my class in high school. His environmental theology was embraced by the Earth Day movement. To this day, he still serves as President of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology. Amongst environmentalists, he is certainly revered, notwithstanding the utter inaccuracies of his prognostications. Perhaps you haven’t heard of him, but I assure you, millions have, and his influence was profound.

      Regarding your comment that being pro-choice is good for the individual, I would ask which individual? It’s not so good for the individual whose life is sacrificed on the altar of choice, is it? The aborted person has no say in the matter, no choice. How heartless.

      “And if conservatives would get down off their high horse and actually start talking to individuals while making sure that every child that IS born has what they need, then perhaps there would no longer be a need for abortion, ever.”

      Not sure what you are saying here. Pro lifers are on the front lines helping women and their babies AFTER they are born. Pro lifers are on the front lines arranging adoptions. Pro lifers are on the front lines helping poor women find apartments. One of the most prolific pro life organizations in the world is Catholic Charities. Perhaps you should get down off of YOUR high horse and compare the good they’ve done compared to the carnage done by Planned Parenthood. I am very tired of human abortion advocates deriding pro lifers as not caring for the the post born. It is a laughable lie.

      Cindy, I hope I have clearly answered your questions. Thanks for the visiting the blog. Thanks for writing. Please come again.

      • cindy0803 on April 28, 2013 at 11:18 am

        The Catholic charities have done admiral work in many areas. You’ll get no argument from me. But I will place the lives of individuals born above those unborn and I will work to ensure, to the best of my ability, that women and children do not continue to suffer at the whim of men and their lustful choices.

        Can you please address that issue?

        • quinersdiner on April 28, 2013 at 12:20 pm

          “I will work to ensure, to the best of my ability, that women and children do not continue to suffer at the whim of men and their lustful choices.”

          Cindy, you’ll get no argument from me on this last statement of yours. That is why I advocate on behalf of traditional marriage, and chastity before marriage. Men and women are each 100% responsible for creating a life. They are each 100% responsible after the birth of that human being, who became a person at the instant of conception. Your value at conception was the same as it is today, and the same it will be when you’re 99 years old. The only difference is your state of development. It is unjust to discriminate against a person based on their level of development.

          • cindy0803 on April 28, 2013 at 8:09 pm

            The problem with only working toward abstinence and traditional marriage when addressing the issue with young men is it doesn’t work. And it doesn’t address any male responsibility if a girl becomes pregnant.

            If you want to do something that might stop women from becoming pregnant out of wedlock, thus making them less susceptible to seeking an abortion, then make men financially, legally, and morally responsible for the child from the moment their sperm fertilizes an egg and publicly shame and humiliate them until such time as they can provide adequate support for the mother and the child (without needing help from the government).

            Let’s try, just once, legislating something punitive and choice limiting for young men. Deny access to college for these young men to force them to get a job and take care of the mother and child. Yes, it is very, very sad that a young life (the boy’s) is interrupted with such burdensome responsibilities, but he is, in fact, entirely responsible for his sin and should be punished as much as possible; the child, too. Yes, it would be nice if the child had an educated father who might be able to earn a decent living and provide enough food and clothes, but giving handouts does not help anyone learn how to take care of themselves; it only makes the problem worse. If the fathers just use a little determination, they can support their families with a minimum wage job.

            If the young men decide that they don’t want to be forced into marrying a girl and taking care of a baby and will take their chances on not going to college, then stand outside their places of employment and hold up signs identifying them as deadbeat dads. Remind them as often as possible that they are going to hell for their actions. Make sure that these signs include pictures of abused, neglected, underfed, poorly clothed, dirty and even dead children who become victims of this vicious cycle because it is important that these young men get a visual picture of just how serious their sins are. Make these men take regular drug tests and if they fail, take away their minimum wage jobs. Tell them to live in their parents’ basements. Also, make sure you lay all the blame for these young men not doing what is theologically righteous on the shoulders of the churches because if they were doing their job, then these young men would not be such whore mongerers.

            Maybe these punitive measures will lead young men to stop pressuring young girls for sex (trust me, this is the reason most young women have sex for the first time).

            I do not mean to make light of such a weighty topic. But I have tried to make what I believe are valid points using parallels to what single moms and their children face.



          • quinersdiner on April 28, 2013 at 10:14 pm

            You make an interesting point, namely, that stigma has been removed from out of wedlock births. You ask if we should be less tolerant of such births, and perhaps inject stigma back into the equation. It seems to me like a legitimate consideration. I’m not unsympathetic to your complaint about letting men off the hook when they bring a child into the world. In fact, I’m very much in your corner. However, the answer is not to punish the baby in the womb, who is a human person by killing her via human abortion. I am very much for social policy that forces men to be responsible to their progeny. Thanks again for responding.



      • Shawn Pavlik on April 29, 2013 at 11:00 am

        Cindy-
        Why should the man be in any way responsible for the child? He certainly has no rights as to whether that child is born. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn’t, that’s just too bad. If the woman wants the child and the man doesn’t, that is also too bad. How can you advocate holding the man financially responsible when he has no rights as to the life of the child?

        By the way, I am not advocating doing away with child support or any such thing, but I am trying to show you the unfairness of the situation. IMHO, men should be financially accountable for their progeny, intended or otherwise. But abortion should not even be an option, except to save the life of the mother.

Leave a Comment