Paul Ehrlich: Population surge leaves only a 10% chance of avoiding a collapse of world civilization [View All]

[GliderGuider]

Paul Ehrlich, a prophet of global population doom who is gloomier than ever

"Among the knowledgeable people there is no more conversation about whether the danger is real," Ehrlich told the Guardian. "Civilisations have collapsed before: the question is whether we can avoid the first time entire global civilisation has given us the opportunity of having the whole mess collapse."

The idea sounds melodramatic, but Ehrlich insists his vision only builds on famine, drought, poverty and conflict, which are already prevalent around the world, and would unfold over the "next few decades". "Of course a new emerging disease or toxic problem could alone (also) trigger a collapse. My pessimism is deeply tied to the human failure to do anything about these problems, or even recognise or talk about them."

Central to the argument of the book ("The Population Bomb")was the idea that Earth has a finite capacity to provide the resources needed to feed and protect a global population which was growing exponentially in numbers and its demands to consume. The book succeeded, slowly, in getting the issue of overpopulation into political and public consciousness, an idea now acknowledged by calculations of the "ecological footprint" of anything from nappies to nations.

Ehrlich accepts his prediction of widespread famine in the 1970s underestimated the "green revolution" which industrialised farming. But he still dismisses hope that technology will allow mankind to stretch resources ever further.

"Can we solve this technologically? Theoretically, since we can't know anything for certain, so we could come up with a magic way of producing food and that could save us. But my answer, always, to that is: we have all sorts of people in despair today. Don't tell me how easy it's going to be to feed nine billion people; let's feed seven billion first, then I'll be willing to talk to you about whether technology will take care of all those people. We could support a lot more people on the planet if humans were willing to share equally, but they don't: we want to design a world where everybody can lead a decent life without everybody being fair."

I've always been on Ehrlich's wavelength. Unlike him, though, I don't see the looming situation as being a "bad" thing. It just is what it is.

Each in our own way, we need to continue working for the higher good of humanity without tying ourselves to expectations of any particular outcome - whether that outcome seems "good" or "bad".