Kulturkampf

[DavidCroquet]

Aw, 1970s Bire would've had so much fun with this guy.

"On the topic of population growth, first let me say that I'm against government intervention, really in all cases. So with that in mind, to correct the problem, what we should do is have the goverment crack down on families from every imaginable direction, with the harshest possible consequences."

[Potato]

The problem with these future predictions is they always base them on current day technology. They never factor in the rapid technological advancement that humans have shown capable of when presented with major problems. 

This is the problem with many of the doom and gloom climate predictions that forecast the heat death of humanity.

Whatever happens, humans have a remarkable ability to adapt and we will adapt even to the worst climate predictions.

[benji]

I don't think people still understand just how wrong the book was, this is from the first page:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.

And it looked exactly like what progressives today talk like:

They believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world, in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[10] The Ehrlichs float the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, they reject the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[11] They suggest a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. They suggest incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. They propose a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[12]

They advocate a system of "triage," such as that suggested by William and Paul Paddock in Famine 1975!. Under this system countries would be divided into categories based on their abilities to feed themselves going forward. Countries with sufficient programmes in place to limit population growth, and the ability to become self-sufficient in the future would continue to receive food aid. Countries, for example India, which were "so far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency" would have their food aid eliminated. The Ehrlichs argued that this was the only realistic strategy in the long-term. Ehrlich applauds the Paddocks' "courage and foresight" in proposing such a solution.

And as that quote indicates, they weren't the only "scientific consensus" of the era arguing for this:

They believed that widespread famine would be the inevitable result, by 1975.

The basic argument of the book is summarized in a 1969 review by Bruce Trumbo:[2]

1. The underdeveloped nations have exploding populations and static agricultures.
   
2. The "Time of Famines" will be seriously in evidence by 1975, when food crises will have been reached in several of these nations.
   
3. The "stricken peoples will not be able to pay for all their needed food imports. Therefore the hunger in these regions can be alleviated only through the charity of other nations" (p. 205)
   
4. The only important food in famine relief will be wheat, and only the United States, Canada, Australia, and Argentina grow significant amounts of wheat.
   
5. The United States, the only one of these four countries that has historically given wheat to hungry nations, is the "sole hope of the hungry nations" in the future (p. 206)
   
6. "Yet the United States, even if it fully cultivates all its land, even if it opens every spigot of charity, will not have enough wheat and other foodstuffs to keep alive all the starving" (p. 206)
   
7. "Therefore, the United States must decide to which countries it will send food, to which countries it will not."[2]

If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.[c] The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
...
These conclusions are so far-reaching and raise so many questions for further study that we are quite frankly overwhelmed by the enormity of the job that must be done. We hope that this book will serve to interest other people, in many fields of study and in many countries of the world, to raise the space and time horizons of their concerns, and to join us in understanding and preparing for a period of great transition – the transition from growth to global equilibrium.

"What emerges is a set of global problems of fairly alarming proportions. Serious stresses by the year 2000 are clearly visible in a world more crowded (6.35 billion as compared to 4 billion population in 1975), far more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption. The progressive impoverishment of the world's natural-resource base raises concerns about the earth's capacity to continue to provide for human needs."

When the earth's deposits of fossil fuels and mineral resources were being laid down, Homo sapiens had not yet been prepared by evolution to take advantage of them. As soon as technology made it possible for mankind to do so, people eagerly (and without foreseeing the ultimate consequences) shifted to a high-energy way of life. Man became, in effect, a detritivore, Homo colossus. Our species bloomed, and now we must expect a crash (of some sort) as the natural sequel.
...
From about 1980 onward, my writing, either solo or in tandem, has sought to spread awareness of the urgent need for everyone, including sociologists, to recognize that our lifestyles, mores, institutions, patterns of interaction, values, and expectations are shaped by a cultural heritage that was formed in a time when carrying capacity exceeded the human load. A cultural heritage can outlast the conditions that produced it. That carrying capacity surplus is gone now, eroded both by population increase and immense technological enlargement of per capita resource appetites and environmental impacts. Human life is now being lived in an era of deepening carrying capacity deficit. All of the familiar aspects of human societal life are under compelling pressure to change in this new era when the load increasingly exceeds the carrying capacities of many local regions — and of a finite planet. Social disorganization, friction, demoralization, and conflict will escalate.

This wasn't the only kind of predictions that Ehrlich made:

On the first Earth Day in 1970, he warned that "in ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."[40][41] In a 1971 speech, he predicted that: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." "If I were a gambler," Professor Ehrlich concluded before boarding an airplane, "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

Ehrlich's 1970 statement that "When you reach a point where you realize further efforts will be futile, you may as well look after yourself and your friends and enjoy what little time you have left. That point for me is 1972."

And Ehrlich never believed he was proven wrong, he believed he was proven right:

He noted that, "Fifty-eight academies of science said that same thing in 1994, as did the world scientists' warning to humanity in the same year. My view has become depressingly mainline!"[12] Ehrlich also asserted that 600 million people were very hungry while billions were under-nourished, and insisted that his predictions about disease and climate change were essentially correct.[12] Retrospectively, Ehrlich said that The Population Bomb, which predicted a widespread famine by 1985 that never materialized, was actually "way too optimistic".[22][23]

In a 2008 discussion hosted by the website Salon, Paul Ehrlich was more critical of the United States specifically, claiming that it should control its population and consumption as an example to the rest of the world. He still professed a belief that governments should discourage people from having more than two children, suggesting, for example, a higher tax rate for larger families.[34]

In 2011, as the world's population passed the seven billion mark, Ehrlich argued that the next two billion people on Earth would cause more damage than the previous two billion, as humans now increasingly would have to resort to using more marginal and environmentally damaging resources.[35]

Ehrlich continued to stand by his general thesis that the human population is too large, posing a direct threat to human survival and the environment of the planet. Indeed, he stated in 2015 that if he were to write the book then, "My language would be even more apocalyptic today."[3] In 2018, he emphasized his view that the optimum population size is between 1.5 and 2 billion people.[37] In 2022, he was a contributor to the "Scientists' warning on population", published by Science of the Total Environment, which estimated that a sustainable population would be between 2 and 4 billion people.[38]

[HaughtyFrank]

Taylor Lorenz praising Houthi videos and unable to identify obvious AI slop

[DavidCroquet]

When Ehrlich says he was "way too optimistic" in his original predictions, has anyone asked him how he then explains the continued survival of sea life and the entire nation of India?

[benji]

When Ehrlich says he was "way too optimistic" in his original predictions, has anyone asked him how he then explains the continued survival of sea life and the entire nation of India?

"Just you wait, the die off is going to be even worse!"

[benji]

[benji]

Nearly every movie coming out of Hollywood at this point is unwatchable.

No story whatsoever.

No true conflict, no actual heroes or actual villains, no well written dialogue.

Pretty confident it's because Hollywood destroyed the "good vs evil" tension and decided everyone is complicated and if you just talk out your feelings all problems are solved.

You see it in nearly everything coming out of Hollywood.

There are no true villains anymore, that's why everything sucks.

[HaughtyFrank]

pizzagate still going

122k likes

[benji]

[HaughtyFrank]

Eating pizza? In this climate?

[Alpacx]

I don't think people still understand just how wrong the book was, this is from the first page:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.

TLDRing Potato & Benji:

[benji]

Eating pizza? In this climate?

Avoiding pizza huh? What are you trying to hide?

[Alpacx]

[benji]

Yud's main citation is his own amazingly awful Harry Potter fanfic:

[HaughtyFrank]

Hasan predicts Tucker Carlson vs Newsome in 2028 with Tuckee landslide win cause Israel

[Ethan]

Nearly every movie coming out of Hollywood at this point is unwatchable.

No story whatsoever.

No true conflict, no actual heroes or actual villains, no well written dialogue.

Pretty confident it's because Hollywood destroyed the "good vs evil" tension and decided everyone is complicated and if you just talk out your feelings all problems are solved.

You see it in nearly everything coming out of Hollywood.

There are no true villains anymore, that's why everything sucks.

How come TPUSA or a similar org hasn't organized non-woke Oscars yet?
Melania, Sound of Freedom and the God's Not Dead pentalogy deserve recognition! Real conflicts! Real heroes! Well written dialogue.

ETA: Apparently, they sort of exist already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Movieguide_Awards

Not sure why Paddington in Peru was nominated "Faith and Freedom Award for Movies" (Honoring movies that promote positive American values). It has nothing to do with the US and the nun in it is evil.

[NekoFever]

Paddington in Peru is about sending an illegal immigrant back where he came from

[Alpacx]

Update in the North London Coffee war column:

[HaughtyFrank]

[HaughtyFrank]

Guy was 26, she was 20. He was her TA. He waited until the course was over and asked her out. They made out but called it off after a few dates. 20 years later she says it was misconduct. 

[Alpacx]

Maybe they're just fat? Y'all screamed about Fatphobia and Healthy At Every Size for at least s decade.

Guy was 26, she was 20. He was her TA. He waited until the course was over and asked her out. They made out but called it off after a few dates. 20 years later she says it was misconduct. 

It's great how MeToo immediately went from being about predators to about women's dating regrets.

[Potato]

Even worse, it's become one of the progressive DLCs to help you get to the top of the stack quicker. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU'VE NEVER HAD TO ME TOO SOMEONE?"

[HaughtyFrank]

Same lady

[Ethan]

Oh, it's the guy that beat that new progressive superstar Kat Abughazaleh. That explains why the Bluesky people pretend to be outraged by this "scandal". 

According to wiki, she's Ben Collins girlfriend

[Alpacx]

Someone's about to get a six figure Human Rights Tribunal sum. 

[Ethan]

It's Canada. She'll get 2000$.

[benji]

[benji]

[Nintex]

I have had my genome sequenced and yes I am