Ehrlich, Holdren, and Flawed Thinking

My goodness, I just read a CNS News article (Obama Adviser Argued: Kids from Big Families Have Lower IQs) released last week concerning Pres. Obama’s top science advisor John P. Holdren. This guy hangs out with one of the biggest lunatic frauds of the 20th century, Paul Ehrlich.

Paul Ehrlich is the author of the 1968 best-seller The Population Bomb. University types love to stand by Ehrlich’s claims in the book – claims that have all (emphasis…all) been debunked. Wendy and I write about him in Love Another Child:

We are amazed at how many still hold onto the outdated notion that the world is overpopulated. The cry from the wilderness has been coming from academia for decades, like Chicken Little crying “the sky is falling.” According to progressive thought, we’re at a tipping point where the world’s resources are not sustainable for an increasing population. Trouble is, this tipping point has been falsely predicted for the past half-century. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich predicted all sorts of catastrophes in his book The Population Bomb:

    • Famines would cripple the world in the 1970s and 1980s. 
    • Natural resources would be depleted from the world’s demanding population. 
    • Hundreds of millions of people would starve to death. 
    • Food riots would force world governments to take drastic measures to reduce population. 
    • By 1985 enough death would lead “the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”

As of last year, the world’s population sits at 6.8 billion. None of these catastrophes have come close to occurring. What should reasonable and scientifically mature people do with such modern prophets? Leftists put them in charge, as Ehrlich is sitting as a tenured professor at Stanford, and they have showered him with honorary degrees and awards. He’s a frequent lecturer at universities around the world, heralded by some as a great environmental prophet. They should be embarrassed, really, for none of his predictions of disaster have come close to coming true. An analysis of them shows utter nonsense, yet the beating drum of progressives keeps telling us that a rising population is bringing doom to the planet.

Seriously, Ehrlich has issues. He’s no different than the likes of Harold Camping, crying from his narrow worldview that the sky is falling and that doom is eminent. Ordinary folks like you and me could just chuckle at his wacky worldview, but Ehrlich has teamed up with Holdren. And Holdren has power.

Please read this article. And tell me what you think. I’m curious to know.

About Chris Jeub

Chris is the father of 16 children, busily running the family businesses and learning the depths of love along the way.

  • Kath

    Honestly, I tend to listen more to a tenured professor at an Ivy League school. When you have those credentials (or any credentials) I’ll be more inclined to consider your opinions.

    • Chris Jeub

      So, you believe in the population bomb? That overpopulation will cause mass global famine and starvation? That major sterilization and forced abortions are necessary? That natural resources will be depleted if we don’t get ahold of our population?

      By 1970? By 1.5 billion world population?

      If you follow someone with that kind of track record because they wear the religious robe of an Ivy League school…well, you have more faith than I do.

      • Kath

        I do indeed believe we are overpopulating the planet. But then, I have traveled the world and seen it for myself. And I don’t have a vested interest in believing that everything is OK, and I can have 20 kids without harming the planet. You do have a vested interest in believing this. Who would buy your books if what you were doing was harmful to the planet.

        • Chris Jeub

          There you go again, Kath, claiming I have a “vested interest” as if all I’m trying to do is sell our books. Like most authors, Wendy and I sell what we love first, not first love what we sell. You’re assuming the worst, and you’re going to have to stop that if you want to open your mind to alternative ideas.

          But back to the point: You are CHOOSING to believe in the robed elitist, Ehrlich. The more honorary clokes the educational establishment throws around his neck the more they indict themselves and their fraudulent teachings. It certainly doesn’t indict me; I’m just reminding people that folks like Ehrlich are no different than religious fanatics like Harold Camping.

          • Kath

            Actually, I’m choosing to believe the educated.

        • Bernadettelock

          Just one quick question i would like to ask you Kath. Did or did not Mr Ehrlich sell a book sharing his “view points” all those years ago?  (which was a good read if your into fictional sci fi lol!!) So therefore didnt he profit from what your accusing the Jeubs of? And still you believe these learned folk…….

          • Chris Jeub

            Now THAT’S a good question! I’ll tuck that one away for the future.

          • Kath

            Mr. Ehrlich earns his living through his professor’s salary. He is therefore free to write what he believes in his book. He is not dependent on the income from his books.

            • Chris Jeub

              Following this logic, count me as just as credible at Ehrlich. I don’t make a living off my books, either!

              I don’t make predictions of the end of the world, but that’s beside the point. Right?

            • Bernadettelock

              I truely wonder if he would in fact be in the position he is in if he hadn’t sensationalised a theory he had “borrowed” from elsewhere!!!

        • Bernadettelock

          Ok so you’ve travelled around the world, have you given any thought to your own carbon footprint you are leaving in your wake??? Just one overseas trip via plane and the Jeubs could all travel around in their van for atleast a month or more. How often do you recycle, reuse and repurpose??? I am absolutely certain it would not be as often as a large family. So before you get high and mighty about whome is causing such “harm” to our planet and using all its resources think long and hard about your own contribution.

    • Michaelchapman_27

      Why would you read this blog if you don’t respect his opinion?

    • Bernadettelock

      Good for you Kath, keep those well oiled cogs of the propagander machine turning!! Believing whatever comes out of the mouths of people of influence, even if they have a few extra letters in front of their names, and not having a well informed opinion is always a good thing lol Do yourself and your nation a favour and NOT believe all you hear as gospel.

  • Justine G.

    I recently heard someting similar to this, that world overpopulation is a myth. For those of us who are people of faith, we surely must believe that God creates every life with a plan and purpose. He does NOT make mistakes, and would never “accidentally” overpopulate the earth that He created. But, we cannot expect non-believers to behave like believers or have the same types of thought processes. I love reading your posts and your opinions on these subjects as matters of FAITH, and I don’t really understand why people who disagree with your lifestyle even read your posts, whats the point?

  • Ninabi

    We live in interesting times.  Overpopulation?  There have never been so many humans living on this earth at one time and we’ll learn in the years to come what the carrying capacity is. Might be more.  Might be less.  So far, so good, right?

    We have souls, but we also have bodies that require food, clothing, shelter, air and water.  Advances in science have allowed for more food to be grown more efficiently and modern medicine and sanitation have allowed for more children to survive to adulthood- a walk through an old cemetery is a sad reminder that growing up was not a given for many little people even a century ago.  We have the ability to raise healthy children on good food and know that they won’t die of diphtheria but grow to adulthood and have children of their own.

    We are using some resources more quickly than they can be replaced.  We lived in Colorado Springs and while we were on city water (piped in from the mountains) I knew people living on the eastern plains concerned about the Ogallah aquifer going down, a local issue particularly for those who got all their water from wells.  As we lose the water and gain people, how will we solve the problem? Is it actually a problem?  Could more people be accommodated on the eastern plains with less water?  

    I’m not looking at gloom and doom, but at facts (like the water table dropping) and wondering what solutions people will come up with.  We are innovative and creative, to be sure.

    • Chris Jeub

      Good points, Ninabi, and they’re respectfully received, but I just don’t buy into these popular notions. Really, I read Ehlrich and think, “This guy’s as loony as Harold Camping!” Then all the claims about depleting water and global warming and deforestation and acid rain (I could go on) never come to pass.

      So I dig deeper. And I discover the truth. The claims so many presume to be true really aren’t true. The underlying assumption of folks like Ehlrich is this: human beings are a detriment to life on earth. The opposite is true:

      Children. They’re Blessings. Always.

      Which is the subtitle of our book.

      • Razingruth

        I think it gets pretty simple.  Since you’ve had sixteen children, you have a responsibility to make sure there are enough resources to provide for them on your own.  Is there enough water on your land to provide for their dietary and health needs?  Or, are you draining that water from elsewhere?  Do you have the necessary land to grow nutritious food?  If not, then you’re depending on other resources.  While this may seem like a silly question, I would counter that it’s a necessary question.  We happen to live in a place where resources are shared easily.  That’s not the case in other parts of the world.  Be it political or natural, famines happen and shortages occur.  They occur because, for whatever reason, the demand is greater than the supply.  Your solution seems to be “increase the supply”, but at some point, we need to take responsibility for decreasing our demands on the planet because supply is finite.  Supply is dependent on a variety of factors.  We can’t control many of those factors (weather, soil types, availability, etc.,.).  We can control our reprodution and therefore help with the demands.

  • DavidS

    I’ve always wondered why those who have concerns about overpopulation never see themselves as a part of the problem.  If it is really that bad, they could take action and reduce the population by the number of people who seriously believe that overpopulation is a problem.

    I say this not to seriously advocate these people committing suicide, but to point out the hypocrisy of the Overpopulation crowd who would like to force everyone else into restrictions, while removing themselves from the solution.

    Furthermore, mass murderers, like Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler, should actually be heroes to those who believe in the crisis of overpopulation, if they follow their philosophy to its logical ends.

    On the flip side, the problems we see that are often attributed to overpopulation are not the result of overpopulation, but of coercive intervention (see governments) in the freedom of people to pursue new technologies and innovations.  Take water for example.   This planet isn’t lacking for water, but the supply of fresh water is restricted by a limited cartel of state groups who have little interest in innovating, but rather prefer restrictions.  If the provision of water becomes a function of a truly free market, it would be plentiful and cheap.

    • Chris Jeub

      “I’ve always wondered why those who have concerns about overpopulation never see themselves as a part of the problem. ”

      LOL! Now that’s funny!

      • Razingruth

        You think that was funny?  Surely someone who advocates debate and reason can see the flaw with that argument: those commenting here didn’t put themselves on the planet, that was the choice of our parents- we can, however, choose how many more we will contribute.

        • Kath

          Chris doesn’t advocate debate and reason. He blocks those who disagree with him, and ignores questions he doesn’t want to answer.

          • Chris Jeub

            “Chris blocks those who disagree with him…”
            1. You’re still posting, aren’t ya.
            2. I only block crass or rude trolls. You are cordially polite most of the time.
            3. Read the SEVERAL comments on this blog that are allowed.

            “…and ignores questions he doesn’t want to answer.”
            Partially true, simply too busy to answer all of them. In general I welcome the discourse. You caught me at a good time.

    • Razingruth

      Logically, however, this argument misses a key point: those of us who are concerned with the population issue didn’t put ourselves on the planet.  That was the choice of our parents.  We can’t control our parents decision to reproduce.  We do, however, control our choices.  While you may not have been advocating suicide, I find it less than funny and logically flawed to equate people who believe in over-population to Hitler.  You can do better than that, I think.

  • Lara

    I too believe in large families but we also cannot continue down the road of oil dependency. In order for the earth to remain a healthy place to raise our children, we must find other sources of energy, it would be CRAZY not to:( So the elite left has a point that we cannot dismiss and yet of course abortion and population control is crazy…we just have to live more sustainably…