Talk:Paul R. Ehrlich

No need to be lenient

I'm sure this man is a great ecologist, but his ventures into public policy and predictions are embarrassingly poor. He comes from a long line of similar false apocolyptic prophets, all of whom are duely hoisted by their own petards. Quoting him on his numerous incorrect predictions of doom is fair context for anything he says today. --12.22.57.126 (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist request

Paul R. Ehrlich biography is currently biased and has been vandalized with bias since 2003. Ehrlich is Stanford population biologist warning of overpopulation in bestsellers such as THE POPULATION EXPLOSION (1990). Look at long history of edits since 2003: Religious extremists against birth control, who deny existence of overpopulation, repeatedly vandalize with propaganda slanted against Ehrlich. I edited a dozen times before giving up. Current version is still biased POV: Biography barely mentions five decades of Ehrlich's accomplishments or other books written by Ehrlich. For instance, he is world's foremost expert on butterfly population dynamics. Biography is overwhelmed by several paragraphs of "criticisms" of overpopulation theory. Criticisms should be limited to one paragraph, yet criticisms can be found in every sentence throughout biography, and CRITICISMS section is biggest section of biography, and centered on webpage. I re-wrote it several times but religious extremists repeatedly vandalize and revert. It should be re-written with more objective point of view and include subject's five decades of accomplishments. It needs warning flags and should be locked to prevent future biased vandalism. 209.78.98.26 22:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Could we please have some citations to support this assertion:

The U.S. fertility rate dropped from 3.4 children per woman in the early 1960s to 1.8 by 1975, and many credit Ehrlich's influence for helping to bring this about. One man cut fertility in half in a decade? That sounds like a tall boast. Please, exactly who credits Ehrlich with significant responsibility for this achievement? Willmcw 23:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"many credit Ehrlich's influence for helping to bring this about" does not equate to "one man cut fertility in half in a decade". The history of ZPG on the Population Connection website credits a number of factors including ZPG (which Ehrlich founded), The Population Bomb (which Ehrlich wrote), the popularity of the "stop at two" message (which ZPG promoted), along with many other factors independent of Ehrlich's influence, in making birth control much more widespread. Kaibabsquirrel 03:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In other words, ZPG credits themselves, their founder, and an entire progressive coalition with helping to accomplish the fertility reduction. Let's change it to indicate what ZPG actually says. Willmcw 04:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Willmcw and think that the changes made have improved the NPOVness of the article. Jacob1207 18:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich

Mention of the wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich does not belong under "critics". It was a famous incident in Ehrlich's career and deserves separate mention. And of course, it has an article of its own too. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 23:06 (UTC)

I would say it does belong under "critics" because it pertains specifically to Julian Simon, who was a critic of Ehrlich. If you really think it is all that important, a separate subsection directly under where Julian Simon is mentioned would be okay - but since it already has an article of its own I don't see why it needs any further mention here other than a wikilink. Kaibabsquirrel 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

pretty famous come-uppance. Buried at the bottom. Should have brief mention as well as link. TCO (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions

I still think the recent additions, except for any verifiable cases where Ehrlich himself retracted anything he wrote or said, belong under the "Critics" section. Maybe the section should be changed from "The critics" to "Criticism" but my point still stands. Ehrlich is among those singled out by the wise use movement (as well as followers of Lyndon LaRouche, Ayn Rand and so on) to try and discredit, because those groups reject environmentalism and especially the notions of overpopulation and population control in their entirety, so any attempt to insert anti-Ehrlich bias or proclaim he was "wrong" is automatically suspect in my eyes. I'm trying to assume good faith but there is no reason why any "Ehrlich was wrong" material belongs anywhere in the article except a special section that is devoted to criticism of Ehrlich, otherwise it smacks of POV. I removed the Ron Bailey link in particular because he is a leader in the Wise Use movement which would automatically discount him from being an impartial source on Ehrlich.

Here is the recent addition as it stands, and my specific points of criticism: In that article, Ehrlich predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources, and declared that the battle to feed humanity was over. His predictions would prove false, though. The oft-cited cause of these famine aversions is the "Green Revolution", as it was called by the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1968 [1]

Ehrlich has stated that despite his other work, the predictions of his first book are regularly cited as proof of extensive flaws in the environmental movement. [2]

1. "His predictions would prove false, though." This makes it sound like all of Ehrlich's predictions proved false. Specifically, which ones? The world *did* experience famines between 1970 and 1985, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa, so that one didn't prove false.
2. My understanding of the Green Revolution is that it is widely considered a failure because of its reliance on monoculture, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides.
3. An earlier revision of the article said that Ehrlich removed some of his predictions from later editions of The Population Bomb. Which ones? I have seen two editions of the book, the original and a later 1970s edition, and the only thing I remember him revising was a section which he clearly stated were "scenarios", not predictions. Kaibabsquirrel 9 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Need sources

We need some sources for these two claims:

"According to Ehrlich, the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 years because of pesticide usage, and the nation's population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999."

Sources for these?

Providing weblinks to anti-environmental sources, hate groups, and cornucopians is not sufficient. (e.g., Reason Magazine, Ron Bailey, Ron Arnold, Julian Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, and their ilk.) I want to know where Ehrlich said these things and exactly what he said and in what context.

Unless somebody can source these directly to Ehrlich books by title and page number so the exact quote and context can be looked up, I am going to delete them. Kaibabsquirrel 02:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• This sounds a lot like Kent Hovind's wager to "evolutionists". He gets to define what is considered irrefutable evidence (in your case, defining what is considered anti-environmental), so he always wins. Anyways, it took me 30 seconds on Google to find the answer (why you chose to delete rather than investigate, I'm not sure):

  Paul Ehrlich wrote these predictions in an article titled "Eco-Catastrophe!" in the magazine Ramparts, September 1969, pages 24 to 28. [1] [2]

  • What does this possibly have to do with some creationist attacking evolution? I'm trying to keep anti-environmentalist pseudoscience (as well as the mis-use of legitimate science - such as Borlaug's work - as a platform for attacking environmentalists) out of Wikipedia just as I would want to keep creationist pseudoscience out of Wikipedia. What I was asking for here was a specific reference from Ehrlich's own writings where he actually said these things? It was a fair question, given that the person who originally added them to the article has a history of adding dishonest, out of context, and nonexistent quotes he attributes to people he is trying to discredit. Kaibabsquirrel 02:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, both of those links you provided are anti-environmentalist slanted articles. Kaibabsquirrel 02:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for defining them as such. Get the back issue of the magazine through your library's interlibrary loan service (they'll get anything for anyone), if you want to know for sure. --brian0918™ 03:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is I=PAT ??

This article seems to leave out large sections of Ehrlichs work. What is his scientific interest? What happened with Simons? Where is I=PAT. This article needs a more complete coverage of events. This too limited to get a good picture of this person who made several important contributions to science and to the discussion of environmental science issues.

• See The Population Bomb article. Alan Liefting 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Biography needs Wikipedia Webmaster/ Moderator Lockdown

As of December 2005 this biography is still slanted against this great ecologist. Dr. Paul Ehrlich has been a respected Senior Professor of Population Studies at Stanford University for over three decades. This bio makes him sound like some weird insect specialist shouting "Everyone will die at age 42...."

I tried several times to edit this article with a more accurate biography, and each time, the same neocon extremist blogger reverted article to his own hateful inaccurate version. This ability to distort biography is a flaw of Wikipedia.

I have reviewed WikiQuote page, and these quotes are accurate as of December 2005-- I have tapes of these lectures from PBS and National Public Radio. Problem is prose of main article. Part of problem is Ehrlich's famous big-mouth. In heat of debate he often says deliberately alarming things for dramatic effect. Such alarmist claims should not be mistaken for scholarship. He is an easy target because it is easy to quote him out of context in such debates. I could write a more accurate article myself but I know that same neocon extremist would just vandalize it again.

To get a better definitive biography and meaning of his work I would say Ehrlich himself or his wife or staff should write it or approve it-- then Wikipedia should lock it to prevent further neocon anti-ecology vandalism.

Your comments are not based in reality. First, this article has rarely been edited since the summer. Second, I don't see who this "neo-con blogger" is or where he has made a habit of reverting your edits. Third, I don't see where yo've ever edited this article. Fourth, your suggestion for moving forward is entirely inappropriate and violates everything that Wikipedia stands for. -Willmcw 22:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This biography is a lot better today than it was a year ago. I still feel article content focuses too much on Ehrlich's "failed predictions" rather than his basic warning about ecologically sustainable Carrying Capacity. By steering content towards his failures, one still gets the impression that he was basically wrong, just some extremist shouting "We're all going to starve and die at 42!" If he was such an extremist, Stanford University would not have kept him as tenured professor for three decades, he would not have won so many awards, and would not have found an audience for so many books. In fact, Ehrlich is basically right: Our species should live within our ecological Carrying Capacity based on the I=PAT formula and voluntarily stop at two children per family. I feel his basic message should be more obvious, considering it is the single most important message of the 21st century.

Such a message, that we should stop at two children, is controversial and serves as a lightning rod for his enemies. Ehrlich's message is correct but I readily admit Ehrlich has a big-mouth--When Ehrlich rants on public lectures and forums, he often shouts alarmist exaggerations and glaring howlers for dramatic effect.

Search "Overpopulation" on Yahoo and the top result is Overpopulation.com, a neocon extremist group which openly claims "overpopulation does not and will not ever exist!" Its Discussion chatroom is filled with hateful threads against Ehrlich and ecologists.

My running battle with a neocon occured in December 2004: Click Article, click History, scroll to December 30 2004: I was 63.231... and neocon was "TDC." Take a look at User Info for TDC: He describes himself as a "neocon troll" who vandalizes websites. Ehrlich's biography at that time said absurd stuff like, "Ehrlich, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU ruined America's population." That's troll vandalism. I tried to get rid of it a few times then gave up. Neocon troll won that battle.

Other neocon I disagree with is Willmcw. If he advocates "neo-confederates" as his User Info suggests, he is blood enemy of Ehrlich and ecologists. Willmcw wanted to place the bet with Julian Simon in its own section for maximum emphasis. This bet was Ehrlich's biggest public blunder, proving Ehrlich could be hoodwinked by the Cato Institute, Julian Simon's neocon think-tank. Any economist could see that harvesting natural resources is getting easier due to improving technology. Ehrlich was a fool for taking that bet. Anyone who wants to emphasize that bet is no advocate of Ehrlich. There is no mention of Ehrlich's second bet proposed in 1990's which focused on species biodiversity and habitat, which Simon refused to accept.

My last point, that Wikipedia is vulnerable to troll vandalism, is sad but true. Due to a recent famous Wikipedia biography scandal involving troll vandalism, my university just sent notice to all students, informing us to no longer use Wikipedia as a reference or resource in our papers, because content cannot be trusted. Due to troll vandalism, Wikipedia is now reduced to a minor diversion away from quotable Internet research. I don't see any solution except for Wiki webmasters to lock content when needed. As long as trolls are allowed to vandalize entries with subtle subversive point of view, any controversial article remains highly vulnerable to vandalism.

By the way, I only wrote this one "biography needs lockdown" discussion. Above criticisms come from other people. Anyone familiar with Ehrlich's work would find this current biography slanted towards his failures. I won't bother fixing article, since some neocon will just erase my fix again. Adios Wikipedia.

Geez louise...

Forget the Sierra Club. This guy is one freaking nut. It's a shame his chief opponent has no credentials.

It is slanted, though. That should be fixed *while preserving allusions to his nuttiness*.--74.134.218.76 10:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • This is exactly the kind of disrespectful input that will continue to vandalize and ruin Wikipedia in general and the Ehrlich bio in particular. Here we have Ehrlich's worst enemies, Catholics against birth control, being allowed to vandalize his bio. Much of the vandalism is subtle enough to escape a casual glance, but anyone familiar with Ehrlich's life and work would agree this biography is a travesty and an example of wikipedia's inherent flaw in which biographies are written and vandalized by the subject's enemies.... Ehrlich's theory of overpopulation is correct, making him one of the most important intellectuals of the 21st century. Those who dispute this are most likely Catholics against birth control.... If I despise Catholics, should I be allowed to write the Pope's bio? Should Noam Chomsky be allowed to write Donald Rumsfeld's bio, or vice versa? This current version is one of the worst biographies I've read on Wikipedia. I'll be happy to fix it if Wikipedia locks it to prevent future vandalism.206.170.106.40

I'm an ultra-left-winger, pro-environmentalist, anti-population-bomb, pro-rationality person, and I just read an Ehrlich article from 1969 that is simply stupid and wrong and I have no trouble saying so. He was a thirty-something alarmist, extrapolating from thin evidence to extreme conclusions. He deserves tremendous criticism and, yes, scorn, because he serves as the poster boy for bad PR by environmentalists. Ridiculous extremism does nothing good in the long run, because it provides ammunition for those who would ridicule rational assessments of environmental disaster. This Wikipedia article is much too lenient on Ehrlich. It is not a matter of "He made a few wrong predictions"; rather, his entire world-view was wrong, ignorant, and stupid, as revealed by the overwhelming percentage of wrong predictions he made. Again, he was a thirty-something extremist who lucked into great notoriety; anyone could have known that Africa would face famines in the following decades, so don't give me that one. His view was absolutely idiotic, and deserves to be presented in its full, embarrassing WRONG-NESS. HE WAS WRONG. Why is that so hard to accept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.182.232.135 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Conspiracy?

For what it's worth I am an atheist and would point out that Enrlich's own work is the best criticism of Enrlich. In Enrlich's 'best case' scenario he predicted that America would stop all food aid to India, Egypt and other countries it considered 'beyond hope' by 1974, and so on. Now he is preaching as a self proclaimed expert in global warming catastrophism. Given his past record, he would do better to keep his mouth shut on this subject as he is such an easy target to attack. The impression that he leaves by taking up this new agenda is that his own need for self promotion out weights any real concerns he may have for global warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.8.151 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Population Bomb

I have moved all the references to The Population Bomb book to its own page since one exists. Alan Liefting 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Too slanted in favor of the "great man"

This guy made predictions and he was WAY OFF. He may have been a good liberal and as such held in high esteem by the wiki community. But he was wrong! And hilariously so. And now the conservatives hang him around the liberal's necks like a tire with burning gasoline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This article certainly does not provide a balanced view. The discussion page does a much better job. Ehrlich is not now known for his perspicacity, in fact, he is mostly remembered for being wrong. You'd never know it from reading this article, though. Instead of having his embarrassing missteps hidden in the "see also" section, there should be a sentence or two with embedded wikilinks. --148.87.1.171 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)