|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 25, 2019 10:27:46 GMT -5
That's what was predicted back in the 1960's...for the 1970's.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2019 10:54:25 GMT -5
What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 27, 2019 15:37:38 GMT -5
Gee, I don't know. Maybe that some of those predictions of disaster may not be too accurate. Paul Ehrlich so far seems to have a score of Zero.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 3:34:23 GMT -5
So what's the point in talking in the 21st century about predictions made in the late 1960s?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 28, 2019 11:49:49 GMT -5
So what's the point in talking in the 21st century about predictions made in the late 1960s?
LOL! It's not just predictions made in the late 1960's. Those same predictions were being made by the same professor in the 1970's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, and in the present decade.
Well at least they're consistent.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 12:37:14 GMT -5
Okay, so why is this guy important?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 29, 2019 13:16:35 GMT -5
Okay, so why is this guy important?
Professor Paul Erlich is important because people in power listen to him, even though the "disasters" he predicted have failed to happen over the last 5 decades.
"Carl Haub observed that Ehrlich's warnings had encouraged governments to change their policies to avert disaster.[6]"
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2019 2:03:20 GMT -5
Which specific policies were changed and why is that important right now?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 30, 2019 13:47:17 GMT -5
Which specific policies were changed and why is that important right now?
Erlich's influence was not directly on specific policies. He had a more general effect as was recognized here when he won a $200,000 prize from Stanfor University:
" "The Ehrlichs have made exemplary contributions to understanding the environmental consequences of species extinction, habitat destruction and nuclear war, and they were among the first to effectively communicate how to apply science to the solution of society's problems," said Robert P. Sullivan, Ph.D., chair of the 11-member Tyler Prize Executive Committee, which annually selects the Tyler Prize recipients.
"By taking their findings into the public realm and the political arena, they have influenced more than a generation of scientists and policymakers as well as helped shape public opinion about the environmental impact of overpopulation," Sullivan said.
As for why that is important, Erlich's false "predictions" can still be influencing policymakers right now.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 1:33:32 GMT -5
So, no policies were changed based on his predictions. So contrary to your earlier claims, people didn't actually listen to him when it came to implementing material change.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 1, 2019 7:46:19 GMT -5
The question is: Were the predictions bad? Or did people recognize the problems and do things to avoid them?
I don't know about the others, but birth rates in advanced nations were greatly lowered over the 2nd half of the 20th century because at least some people were trying to avoid the over-population predictions. In the poorer, less-advanced nations, birth rates remained high and at least some of the negative predictions came true for those areas. That is, starvation currently exists in some parts of the world due to overpopulation in those areas. And them not having enough money to import food from other areas.
The trick with predictions is that they're based on things of that time. So if someone in 1960 looked at the world and said, based on what we're doing right now, such-and-such will happen. The prediction will only be wrong if people continue to do the current things of that time and the bad things don't happen. But if people change things and the bad things don't happen, then the prediction could have been accurate.
Not always easy to figure out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 10:04:49 GMT -5
Well, Fred, the predictions were bad from a libertarian perspective because he insinuated that the government should do something about the problems he raised.
As we all know, Market will always fix humanity's problems, no need to do anything ever.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 1, 2019 13:43:45 GMT -5
So, no policies were changed based on his predictions. So contrary to your earlier claims, people didn't actually listen to him when it came to implementing material change.
Well then Stanford University should take back the award they gave him. After all, they clearly said they gave him that award because he had an effect.
Why don't you contact that University and inform them about their egregious mistake?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 1, 2019 13:48:29 GMT -5
The question is: Were the predictions bad? Or did people recognize the problems and do things to avoid them? I don't know about the others, but birth rates in advanced nations were greatly lowered over the 2nd half of the 20th century because at least some people were trying to avoid the over-population predictions. In the poorer, less-advanced nations, birth rates remained high and at least some of the negative predictions came true for those areas. That is, starvation currently exists in some parts of the world due to overpopulation in those areas. And them not having enough money to import food from other areas. The trick with predictions is that they're based on things of that time. So if someone in 1960 looked at the world and said, based on what we're doing right now, such-and-such will happen. The prediction will only be wrong if people continue to do the current things of that time and the bad things don't happen. But if people change things and the bad things don't happen, then the prediction could have been accurate. Not always easy to figure out.
Fred, how many people do you know who avoided having children because they were afraid of overpopulation?
It's a fact that as people get richer, they tend to have fewer children. Fear of overpopulation has little if anything to do with it.
Birthrates remain high in poorer nations because they are poor. Poor people need to have enough surviving children to take care of them in old age. Rich people don't.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 1, 2019 14:00:22 GMT -5
Well, Fred, the predictions were bad from a libertarian perspective because he insinuated that the government should do something about the problems he raised.
As we all know, Market will always fix humanity's problems, no need to do anything ever.
Actually McAnswer, if you read the article, that's exactly what happened!
Free market advances produced new technology that raised food production. Ever hear of the Green Revolution?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 3, 2019 7:40:05 GMT -5
Bob wrote: > It's a fact that as people get richer, they tend to have fewer children. Fear of overpopulation has little if anything to do with it.
---To some extent, yes. But there are rich Catholics and Mormons who have lots of kids because of religion and poor folk who have only a few because most of them die. In many cases, it's educated women who make the difference, even if they're poor. Another factor in population control was the availability of free or cheap birth control offered by many governments in the late 20th century. High population nations with lots of poor people, like China and India, instituted government programs to decrease population growth. Individuals didn't make a choice not to overpopulate, but some nations did.
---Another factor is food. Like you said, the Green Revolution greatly increased food production, but even so there is still starvation because of economic systems. In most parts of the world the people who own farmland decide what to grow. So, for example, while Mexico increased food production, much of that food is shipped north to the US where it could be sold for higher prices. Local workers often can't afford to buy the food they help produce. Same for many other nations, where non-food crops are grown for export while locals go without. So many nations offer government food subsidies to their citizens. Yes, we can grow more food than we need in the world, but not everyone has the money to buy it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 5:59:35 GMT -5
Actually this doesn't have anything to do with wealth or poverty, just with the ability to easily afford contraception, as well as the education to apply it correctly. As contraception becomes easily accessible, birth rates drop.
Relative inaccessibility of contraception for teenagers and nearly non existent sex education are, for example, why the US is still among the first world countries with the highest numbers of teenage pregnancies.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 4, 2019 8:26:56 GMT -5
But, like Bob mentioned, poor folk in certain areas are more likely to want more kids since they may need them to do labor-intensive agricultural stuff. Used to be like that in Europe and the US before the industrial revolution and machines began to replace farm workers fishers, etc. Also, child mortality is higher in poor places, so to ensure that at least a couple live long enough to reproduce (grandchildren), it may be necessary to have lots of kids. Again, this used to be common in Europe and the US, where a woman with 10 kids might lose half of them before they reached puberty. And there's also a cultural factor. Like I said, Roman Catholics, Mormons and others may believe that it is their religious duty to have lots of kids.
And yes, the US has way too many teen pregnancies. There are several reasons. Varies from place to place, but ignorance and lack of access to birth control are certainly factors. Ironically, the US groups who demand total abstinence before marriage from their young tend to have a higher teen pregnancy rates than others. A small dig at Bob here, Republican politicians in Texas brag about their free market credentials, and we have (I think) the highest infant mortality rate in the nation. Partially because we have several million citizens living below the poverty line who can't afford proper pre-natal care. I don't blame capitalism for the problem, but it certainly isn't helping fix things, either. Like other cities in the nation, ours in Texas have homeless living in the streets, drug addicts, sex slaves, elder poverty, etc. All of which our Republi
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 4, 2019 8:30:39 GMT -5
Sorry - bumped the wrong key somehow. As I meant to say, all of which our Republican overlords blame on Democrats and socialism, despite the fact that not a single Democrat has held a state office since 1986 or so. We've been a conservative Republican, pro-free market state for over 30 years, and we still have more economic and social problems than most other states. Sigh. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 15:54:40 GMT -5
But, like Bob mentioned, poor folk in certain areas are more likely to want more kids since they may need them to do labor-intensive agricultural stuff. Used to be like that in Europe and the US before the industrial revolution and machines began to replace farm workers fishers, etc. Also, child mortality is higher in poor places, so to ensure that at least a couple live long enough to reproduce (grandchildren), it may be necessary to have lots of kids. Again, this used to be common in Europe and the US, where a woman with 10 kids might lose half of them before they reached puberty. And there's also a cultural factor. Like I said, Roman Catholics, Mormons and others may believe that it is their religious duty to have lots of kids. You are talking about a time when reliable cheap contraception did not exist for the vast majority of people in the world. In modern day Europe, where the overwhelming majority of the population has access to affordable and reliable contraception methods, even the most devout Catholics aren't going to pop out kids just because their religious figurehead says so - in fact, the Catholic Church has reversed its earlier condemnation of contraception over a decade ago, and now only condemns abortion for theological reasons.
Compared to the economic and technological factor, cultural influences are negligible in the developed world with regards to family planning.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 4, 2019 21:32:49 GMT -5
Actually this doesn't have anything to do with wealth or poverty, just with the ability to easily afford contraception, as well as the education to apply it correctly. As contraception becomes easily accessible, birth rates drop.
Relative inaccessibility of contraception for teenagers and nearly non existent sex education are, for example, why the US is still among the first world countries with the highest numbers of teenage pregnancies.
Huh? If what you claim here is true, then how come the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has been rising dramatically sine the late 1960's AFTER oral contraceptives came on the market?
"In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of “shotgun marriages.”"
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 5, 2019 7:38:50 GMT -5
mcans wrote: > even the most devout Catholics aren't going to pop out kids just because their religious figurehead says so
---Maybe not in Europe, but the US is still several decades behind Europe's drift away from religion. (Happening, but much slower). There was a court case here only a couple of years ago where a pharmacist at a drugstore was in court because she refused to fill birth control pill prescriptions. She said that, as a Catholic, it was against her ethics.
---So not only do we still have a large percentage of the population here doing crazy things for religious reasons, we still see them trying to force others to bend to those beliefs. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that the US has many more cults and weird sects that Europe does. Certainly we are the origin of things like Mormons, Scientologists, Branch Davidians, etc. As in Europe, mainstream religions are shrinking, but some of the crazies seem to be growing. And some of them promote having lots of kids. 8-<
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 10:24:26 GMT -5
Actually this doesn't have anything to do with wealth or poverty, just with the ability to easily afford contraception, as well as the education to apply it correctly. As contraception becomes easily accessible, birth rates drop. Relative inaccessibility of contraception for teenagers and nearly non existent sex education are, for example, why the US is still among the first world countries with the highest numbers of teenage pregnancies. Huh? If what you claim here is true, then how come the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has been rising dramatically sine the late 1960's AFTER oral contraceptives came on the market? "In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of “shotgun marriages.”"
Bob
I explained that in the post you responded to. Try reading for a change.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 5, 2019 11:08:10 GMT -5
Huh? If what you claim here is true, then how come the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has been rising dramatically sine the late 1960's AFTER oral contraceptives came on the market? "In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of “shotgun marriages.”" www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/Bob I explained that in the post you responded to. Try reading for a change.[/quote] And I explained in my post why your explanation makes no sense. Maybe you should follow your own advise and "try reading for a change." And BTW, you provided absolutely no supporting evidence in your original post. Bob
|
|