Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- GW on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on COP29 Preview
“or may not”
A clever vocabulary seemingly allows people to make all sorts of cretin predictions, only to call them “scenarios” or “projections” later on.
These were either what if possible situations that “Might” happen. Or the rantings of a Lunatic!
From what I read about what he wrote I take door number two!
The local palm reader can probably make better forecasts.
And why is Mr. Erlich explaining this to “Planned Parenthood” (Since they are a US organization, and we have plenty of food here)? It’s so that Planned Parenthood can rest assured that all the babies would have died anyway. I have never been one to believe that life begins at conception… mainly because sperm and egg are already living.. And I’ve actually supported Planned Parenthood’s existence most of my life.
But it’s an eye opener to learn that Planned Parenthood was created by a woman, Margaret Sanger, who believed in Eugenics. I haven’t studied this extensively, but she is attributed thusly:
In her 1920 book, Woman and the New Race, Sanger explicitly called her work “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or those who will become defectives.” As she wrote in The Birth Control Review, “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
Now “the climate” is going to kill them, so I can only imagine that someone has a bazooka somewhere to help the environment along when it falters.
The likes of Paul Ehrlich, Margaret Sanger (Planned non-Parenthood), and the warmist “Intelligencia” like Hans Joachim “John” Schellnhuber are inextricably joined together at the hip. They’re known as the culture of death. When you boil all of their schemes down to their essence the schemes are basically a campaign against humanity or shall we say the wrong kind of humanity as they see it.
You can throw people like Teresa Heinz Kerry, Margaret Mead, and George Soros in the mix as well.
Here are some other things Margaret Sanger said:
“The mass of Negroes, particularly in the south, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit”.
And …
” The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”.
Not only was she a eugenicist, she was a blatant racist too. Sanger, H.G. Wells, Ehrlich, etc are all cut from the same elitist cloth … sacrifices have to be made, as long as it is those who are least fit that have to make them.
Paula Ehrlich and Planned non-Parenthood, two bad things that go even worse together
Planned Parenthood kills 70% of blacks while still in the womb, so blacks are currently being subjected to an extreme genetic selection process away from inherited impulsivity. Where will we get our rap music from a century from now?!
You can’t argue the huge divide seperating us from third world starvation and misery.
The chance to offer the poor some hope is why I strongly object to the AGW alarmists.
We have – AGW, an unproven and extremely unlikely theory whose proponents suggest we give up current energy forms which will undoubtedly impinge on food production in negative ways BUT the media keep pounding the drum.
Then we have the poor of the world – a simple proven fact whom the media choose to ignore and flounder in hopelessness.
Come on – show some compassion – there is a humanitarian crisis equal to any of the worst genocides ever and our governments talk about global warming – sorry climate change ???
I want some justice – I want to see the proponents of the myths and the ideological “religion” associated with a trace gas identified with the callous disregard their stupid theory will compound and the removal of hope for billions of humans.
@ Ross. you’re going off message there a bit, mate. Erlich’s highlighting the plight of the “poor of the world” “whom the media choose to ignore” and that’s BAD apparently.
No, Erlich delights in the misery of the poor and wishes to make it worse in order to reduce the population of this world. He’s the ultimate misanthropist. He offers no hope for the poor and disenfranchised, he only wishes their death and inability to procreate.
Now, the fact that Erlich has summarily been wrong on virtually every prediction he ever made seems of little consequence to the Malthusian misanthropists, they still hang on every word.
In this article Ehrlich is saying that it’s too late.The poor are going to starve Don’t try to help. One is left to infer that Ehrlich prefers that “nature” should run its course.
That’s hardly “highlighting the plight” of the poor, mate.
He pretty much states as much. And Andykn’s choice of words doesn’t go unnoticed,
“Erlich’s highlighting the plight of the “poor of the world” “whom the media choose to ignore” and that’s BAD apparently.
Apparently, he shares many of the same thoughts as Erlich.
Yeah, it does seem like he disdains the “poor of the world” as he puts it.
Sorry, didn’t realise that English wasn’t the furst language of so many on here. All Erlich says is that 3.5 million people will die of starvation that year, probably about correct and that the number starving in the next few decades may rise to 500 million. He doesn’t say anything about it being too late in the article at all or imply that we shouldn’t help. The only thoughts I share with Erlich are those in the article, the highlighting of which appears to be a Bad Thing. After all, if it was other opinions of Erlich that were Bad you wouldn’t be stupid enough to print the good ones, highlighting starvation and warning of worse to come, so that something can be done. It would be pointless to highlight something that most people would consider bad if you don’t want them to do anything about it.
Andy, this isn’t the only post on this site regarding Erlich. Sorry about the reception, but Erlich is a despised by many here.
I believe, the whole point of the post is to show how wrong Erlich was. Note the title and the highlighted prediction. I’ll try to explain a little more. Much of the hysteria about climate change is a thinly veiled, yet prevalent thought among the alarmists that the earth is overpopulated and only a select few should be chosen to continue to inhabit this earth. It is a form of misanthropy of the worst kind. Erlich is iconic among those circles, though much of the same thoughts are expressed by Malthus.
Hope that clears things up for you.
James
Yes, but the title doesn’t reflect the prediction very accurately, Erlich says “the number starving in the next few decades [from 1975] may rise to 500 million. And, as a broad brush guess he’s not miles out either:
http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/
“The number of undernourished people in the world remains unacceptably high at close to one billion in 2010 ”
Having just chanced on this particular post makes me wonder how badly he’s misrepresented elsewhere on here
Hmm, Well, undernourished and starved to death……… and you worry about the comparisons made here?
How do you believe Erlich is being misrepresented? He stated what he stated. Steve reproduces his statements.
Andy, defending the indefensible is a fool’s errand. Try something that may be more productive.
Andy, The article clearly states the number of deaths will increase ” from 3.5M to 500M”.
Please explain in what way Ehrlich was not miles out.
Andykn,
I just finished scolding a different moron for doing exactly the same thing you’re doing. Did you actually look at any of the actual data? Or did you just read the sensational headline?
The report’s figure 1: Here
Lets see…Using your “broad brush”, based on the chart, about 875 million people were “starving” in the 1969-71 era. So we have to use that number as a baseline. It looks like FAO’s 2010 estimate is ~925 million. Net addition of “starving” people ~50 million. Looks like Elrich was off by an order of magnitude! (that’s wrong by a factor of 10 if you’re playing at home)
The website’s own “undernourished” figures: Here
If the good Dr. Elrich didn’t consider the 848 million “undernourished” people in the 1969-1971 decade starving, why would it be fair to think these figures come into play now, even with your ridiculously “broad brush”.
Oh and as a percentage, the “undernourished” segment has been cut in half since 1969, from 26% to 13%.
Please before you come here and spout BS, please read more than just the scary headline.
Oh, one thing I almost forgot to mention. According to FAO’s own numbers, the number of broad-brushed-starving-to-death inhabitants of planet earth has declined by ~30 million in the last year FAO has actual data for (again 2009-2010 are estimates.)
Refer to my second graphic again and you’ll see that 1969-1971 had 878 million undernourished & 2005-2007 had 848 million undernourished.
In a way though, you have one valid point.
Elrich was not miles off. He was light years off.
You too, you can become your own Paul R Ehrlich.
Just write: “This decade may be worse than last one”.
See? Easy. And you will be shown, no matter what.
Andy
I presume you don’t agree with these statements from Ehrlich :-
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
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.
All these statements date to 1969/70.
As what you put in quotes from the article above (” from 3.5M to 500M”) wasn’t actually in the article at all you’re miles out to start with. Giiven such gross dishonesty I’d need to see more context for the other quotes, but I’m not that bothered, i just don’t like to sse such blatant dishonesty.
And the world has undergone famines.
And I think it is overpopulated, in the UK our fish stocks have become far fewer, and that’s despite following the warnings of people like Erlich and trying to conserve them.
The article clearly states that some 3.5M will die this year ( 1975) from starvation. It also states the number starving in the next few decades may rise to 500 million. Please tell me where my gross dishonesty comes in.
Did you really say earlier: “Sorry, didn’t realise that English wasn’t the furst language of so many on here.”
In that post you said: “All Erlich says is that 3.5 million people will die of starvation that year, probably about correct and that the number starving in the next few decades may rise to 500 million. “
Now in this post You say: “As what you put in quotes from the article above (” from 3.5M to 500M”) wasn’t actually in the article at all you’re miles out to start with.”
I now have to wonder if:
A: You have zero reading comprehension ability.
B: You are bi polar
C: You feel since you haven’t a clue about any of this, it really doesn’t matter what you say as long as it’s contrary to Paul’s view.
D: Beer is on sale in you neighborhood
E: You are the one supplying the “gross dishonesty”
F: All of the above.
andykn says:
June 8, 2011 at 7:23 am
As what you put in quotes from the article above (” from 3.5M to 500M”) wasn’t actually in the article at all you’re miles out to start with.
==================================================================
It’s called a paraphrase. and it accurates sums up what the article stated.
To refresh your memory, the aritcle stated:
“but starvation is already with us”
and “that some 3.5 million, mostly children, will die this year”. (this year = 1975)
since the subject is “starvation is already with us”, clearly (if you have any reading comprehension skill at all) they are refering to starvation as being the cause of the 3.5 million dying.
the article then goes on to state:
“the number starving in the next few decades may rise to 500 million”. Now ask yourself, what is ths number of starving “that may rise” they are refering to? Since they only gave one number previously (the 3.5 million dying) clearly (again if you are capable comprehending what you reading) they are saying that the rise is “from 3.5 mill to 500 mill” *DYING* from starvation.
really, it’s not hard to understand, so why is it so hard for *YOU* to understand?
(this year = 1975)
should read
(this year = 1968)
Bit of a brain-fart mixing up the years there.
@John Endicott
You can either paraphrase OR quote, anything inside the quote marks that you have changed is put in square brackets and is usually only for comprehension. But you can’t just change words inside a quote to what wasn’t quoted to make the meaning clearer to what you think the speaker meant.
andykn says:
June 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm
@John Endicott
You can either paraphrase OR quote, anything inside the quote marks that you have changed is put in square brackets and is usually only for comprehension. But you can’t just change words inside a quote to what wasn’t quoted to make the meaning clearer to what you think the speaker meant.
===============================
You continue to argue semantics having long since lost the arguement on what the article stated. You are really not helping yourself by avoiding all facts in favor of meaningless semantic arguements.
Ehrlich admits that he doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about yet in the same breath he proffers his expertise stating that the Earth’s population should optimally be at 1.5 – 2 billion. Somehow I don’t think Paul is planning on leaving the Earth at least voluntarily, mate.
So does Ehrlich have any regrets? Things he’d have done differently?
“I wish I’d taken more math in high school and college. That would have been useful.” And if he were writing The Population Bomb now, he’d be more careful about predictions. But he remains proud of the book and the controversy it stirred, the attention it brought to the issues discussed in the book, including population, consumption, and the overarching phenomenon of exponential growth. He still believes that the optimal population of the Earth would be 1.5 to 2 billion. Today, there are more than three times that many people alive, and the number keeps growing.
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/the_vindication_of_a_public_scholar/
@andykn: Where Ehrlich fails is that he presumed the 500 million starving to death would be due to lack of food and resources. However many people are starving now is not due to lack of food, but lack of access to it. We have more than enough food to feed everyone. Doing stupid things like growing corn to make ethanol to put in our gas tanks doesn’t help.
A fair point. But more moves to control population growth would still have been beneficial, after all, biofuels are only financially viable because there’s not enough oil to go around the present popluation.
I would argue that biofuels are only financially viable due to government subsidies.
Biofuels are financially viable? Oh… you must mean with massive tax subsidies and government mandates otherwise much cheaper petroleum fuels would force them out of the market.
The amount of taxes paid per gallon of gasoline in the UK is more than the total cost for a gallon of gasoline in the USA.
From 4th January 2011 the UK duty rate for the road fuels unleaded petrol, diesel, biodiesel and bioethanol is GB£0.5895 per litre (£2.65 per imperial gallon or £2.20 per U.S. gallon).[5] Value Added Tax at 20% is also charged on the price of the fuel and on the duty. [2.20 GBP = 3.60 USD]
I’d be curious to know which of Ehrlich’s policies the UK put into place as most of Ehrlich’s policies are quite draconian including ideas like one child policies and such. Heck, Ehrlich predicted the demise of the UK in the year 2000.
Ehrlich also thought the US would be decimated by 2000.
By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million.” (1969)
He has a plethora of prognostications that have never come true.
Andy, Are these the type of policies that the UK implemented?
What Ehrlich wrote is jaw-dropping. Dealing first with pesky Americans, he wrote (pages 130-31) [Population Bomb] :
“[T]he first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size. Those of you who are appalled at such a suggestion can rest easy. The option isn’t even open to us, since no such substance exists. If the choice now is either such additives or catastrophe, we shall have catastrophe. It might be possible to develop such population control tools, …
On pages 151-52, [Population Bomb] he favored “sterilizing all Indian males with three or more children,” and with the direct help of the U.S. government. “We should have volunteered logistic support in the form of helicopters, vehicles, and surgical instruments,” advised Ehrlich. “We should have sent doctors to aid in the program by setting up centers for training para-medical personnel to do vasectomies.” Was this “coercion?” asked Ehrlich. Of course, but it was “coercion in a good cause.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/21/sterilizing-those-pesky-humans-earth-day-with-paul-ehrlich/
@robcabb
The point you have missed is that there’s a difference between starving and dying of starvation.
And the bit in quotes isn’t in the article.
I agree Ehrlich’s statement is ambiguous. If there is any doubt as to what he meant I suggest you check the following quote from another interview :-
,i>Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, … The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.
That’s not the point I missed. It’s the point you missed by bringing up the FAO data and based on that saying ” And, as a broad brush guess he’s not miles out either:”
You’ve gone in a complete circle here. On one hand Elrich wasn’t “off by miles” because the FAO estimates ~925M are undernourished. (again they’re actual data finds 848m up to 2007). On the other, you now claim there’s a difference between starving & dying of starvation.
And just for the record, in 1975 there were 4 billion people on this planet, in 2007 there were ~6.75 billion. That’s a ~1.7X population growth. Yet somehow, 30m fewer people were in danger of dying from starvation. (Unless you think that well-nourished people are at high risk)
Also, you can parse words all you want, but the bit in quotes was what people with more than 3 functioning brain cells call paraphrasing. Maybe you’d probably get it if Paul used ellipsis in his quotes.
“3.5 million will starve…may rise to 500 million” .
There, that better? Bad Paul, even though the content and context of the “bit in quotes” was correct, you showed it in a grammatically incorrect way. No cookie for you!
We now know the answer to my multiple choice question is F: All of the above. You are clearly a grossly dishonest, bi polar, functional illiterate, with no clue and a penchant for cheep beer.
Hey!!! I like cheap beer!!!
But yes, this particular Andy seems hell bent on sniping about semantics and form and conflates it with content. But, he’s an Ehrlich defender. What more needs stated?
Starving……..wouldn’t that be the act of dying of starvation? Let’s check.
starve (stärv)
v. starved, starv·ing, starves
v.intr.
1. To suffer or die from extreme or prolonged lack of food.
“Or”
To suffer…from extreme or prolonged lack of food
andykn says:
June 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm
“Or”
===================
Unfortnely for you, from the context of the article, it’s rather clear which side of the “OR” applied in this case, and it’s not the side you keep insisting on.
What is it with you people, again what you put in the quotes isn’t in the article. And 1975 doesn’t directly relate to Erlich’s comments so I’m not sure how your figures work or relate to it. You can either interpret what’s written and argue with that or argue with what’s written. Be honest about which you are doing.
andy, you’re going to have to be clear on what quotes you are referring to. If its Robb’s, every time I scroll up and read the article, I see those 3.5 and 500 million numbers……. even when I click on the link and open the whole article…….. or his other quote, “broad brush…..” , was directly from you. Paul’s quote, does come from another source, but it is the same Ehrlich just spewing different numbers. Or are you referencing a different quote?
Sorry, @Robbcab “3.5 million will starve…may rise to 500 million” . is not in the article, the numbers are but not all the words he’s quoted. Erlich says 3.5 million dead, 500 million starving, there are now nearly a billion people short of food.
Andy
You can certainly interpret ” 500 million starving” as either dying of starvation or just malnourished. We are both wasting our time double guessing what was really meant.
However Ehrlich’s book ” The Population Bomb” clearly states
“in the 1970s, the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/1150847111.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+25%2C+2006&author=Jeff+Jacoby&pub=Boston+Globe&desc=The+population+pessimists&pqatl=google
I trust that you will agree that forecasts like these were “miles from the truth”!
Paul
Andy, it is Robb’s quote is right there. Please refer to his post, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/ehrlich-500-million-to-starve-after-1975/#comment-62914
It is within convention to use ellipsis. And it is also within convention to paraphrase when unnecessary language is used between the pertinent points.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing. The way I read the article, 3.5 million died one year(1968) 500 million may die (it isn’t clear if this is a per year or cumulative) in future decades. Would you agree that is the thrust of the article posted? And, would you agree that it is attributable to Ehrlich? I believe this is the point Steve was trying to make and the point many of us came away with.
Oh, I see what you’re trying to do now (in reference to your post: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/ehrlich-500-million-to-starve-after-1975/#comment-62928)
I guess now would be a good time to discuss inferring meaning.
If you’re going to accuse me of not being honest by leaving some words out, let’s go full monty with the quote.
You see it starts out with “The time of famines is generally put at around 1975, but starvation is already with us.” Elrich then goes on to say “…some 3.5 million people, mostly children, will die this year.” From this you can infer he means the will die from starvation. Unless you think he meant they’ll die from gunshot wounds or rabid dog bites. In which case, I can not help you.
He continues, “The number starving in the next few decades may rise to 500 million.”
You see, the part where he says “the number”, he’s referring to the 3.5 million in the previous sentence, as that is the only number in the quote up to that point. We’ve already established he thinks those people will are dead and starvation is the cause..
The “may rise” part means the number may get bigger, so it’s not a different subject. It’s clear he thinks the number 3.5m will grow to 500m. This 500m people are not a different group that may be really hungry in the next few decades.
Taking out all the flowery language that seems to be confusing you:
Starvation is already with us. 3.5 million will die from it this year. That number (of dead) may rise to 500 million in the next few decades.
There is no way to infer anything else unless you are delusional or being purposely deceitful.
Andy,
You have to be kidding me! I know you have no idea what you’re talking about, but now it seems you don’t even know what you’re saying (a fine distinction)
This: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/ehrlich-500-million-to-starve-after-1975/#comment-62743 is YOUR post:
“Yes, but the title doesn’t reflect the prediction very accurately, Erlich says “the number starving in the next few decades [from 1975] may rise to 500 million. And, as a broad brush guess he’s not miles out either:”
YOU quoted 1975 from the title. If you don’t like that start date I can use a different one (see below)
Since you are incapable of figuring it out on your own, I’ll spoon feed you “how my numbers work or relate to it” (don’t worry, I’ll go slow and use small words so you can keep up)
You see, the article was written in 1968 and since Elrich said “some 3.5 million people, mostly children will die this year.”, I used the closest number the FAO site had available hence 1969-1971.
I used the 1975 population (~4 billion) based on your post and the title of the article. But since you think 1975 didn’t “reflect the prediction very accurately”, I’ll start with the population when Elrich made this perdiction 1968. In 68 the world population was ~3.5 billion. Are you happy now? (BTW, using that start date means that the workd population doubled between 1968 and 2007.)
I then used 2007 to Illustrate (show) the almost doubling of population because that’s the most current year FAO had actual data for.
I then used this really cool thing called math to figure out that ~30 million fewer people were undernourished (really hungry), in 2007 compared to “the next few decades [from 1975]” (your words)
In conclusion (I’m almost done), You brought the FAO data into the conservation by attempting to show how Elrich wasn’t “miles out”.
Also, the bit in quotes you keep denying was in the article, in full reads:
“The time of famines is generally put at around 1975, but starvation Prof. Paul R. Elrich, Stanford University biologist, told a Planned Parenthood group in San Francisco Feb. 7 that some 3.5 million people, mostly children, will die this year. The number starving in the next few decades may rise to 500 million.”
Now you see, there are a lot of words in there. Not all of them are needed to convey the point of Elrich’s prediction. So what is sometimes done, to briefly convey a point is what I referred to in my last post as paraphrasing. Some call it truncating. This happens when the irrelevant bits are chopped off the quote and replaced by … For example if we don’t care where he works or who he was talking to, we can omit that information thusly: “Prof. Paul R. Elrich told…some 3.5 million people, mostly children, will die this year. The number starving in the next few decades may rise to 500 million.”
You see how that works? the concept and context of the quote remained intact but we got rid of some of those troublesome words.
We can then trim the quote even further by reducing it to:
Elrich said: “…3.5 million people…will die this year…may rise to 500 million”
Please go away now.
You are the one who is not being honest.
Square brackets are an accepted and universal convention for adding in words to quotes.
And I’ve still no idea why you are telling us all that fewer people are starving now.
And dieing and starving are still two different words very possibly used for two different things. By missing one out you risk misleading.
I am not saying fewer people are starving now. The FAO is saying ~30 million fewer people were undernourished in 2005-2007 then when Elrich made his claim (1969-1971).
I am not using the 2008-2010 (yet) numbers because they estimates
These are their numbers…their “facts”
1969-1971 – 878 million undernourished (26% of world wide population)
2005-2007 – 848 million undernourished (13% of world wide population)
That equals 30 million fewer undernourished and as a percentage of the population, it’s been cut in half! Taking into account that the population doubled from 1969-2007 it’s quite amazing.
It also highlights just how wrong a man who thinks the planet can only sustain 2 billion people is.
andykn says:
And I’ve still no idea why you are telling us all that fewer people are starving now.
And dieing and starving are still two different words very possibly used for two different things. By missing one out you risk misleading.
=========================================================
you were insisting that the article means a rise to 500 million starving (not dying) (from some unknown base number, since the only base number given in the article was for dying which you insist the 500 million number isn’t a rise from) and pointed to the FAO to “prove” that Elrich was not so far off the mark. So Robb took your source and showed that rather than a rise, the number of starving (not dying) decreased over the time period(s) in question. So Elrich was very much off the mark because he was going in the opposite direction! (if we go with your interpretation that the article meant starving but not dying).
@suyts
It’s certainly fine to use ellipsis. It’s also fine to paraphrase if required, it’s not allowed to paraphrase in quotes. Either quote OR paraphrase. Erlich uses two different terms for two different figures, die and starve. You can assume he meant the starving would die or you can assume he meant to use two different words for two different meanings. You could say “The number starviing [to death] in the next few decades may rise to 500 million”
Oh my, I’ll just leave you to Robb. I tried.
Andy, discuss the issues or disagree with the premise, but hanging your hat on semantics isn’t going to convince anyone of your POV. Robb was quoting the article.
He was quoting the article, incorrecltly:
RobbCab “3.5 million will starve…may rise to 500 million””
Article: “3.5 million…will die this year. The number starving may rise to 500 million…”
Dying and starving aren’t the same thing.
My POV is that Erlich may not have been accurate but wasn’t as far out as everyone on here is trying to make out.
This got posted above somehow, but just for you i’ll move it here.
Oh, I see what you’re trying to do now (in reference to your post: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/ehrlich-500-million-to-starve-after-1975/#comment-62928)
I guess now would be a good time to discuss inferring meaning.
If you’re going to accuse me of not being honest by leaving some words out, let’s go full monty with the quote.
You see it starts out with “The time of famines is generally put at around 1975, but starvation is already with us.” Elrich then goes on to say “…some 3.5 million people, mostly children, will die this year.” From this you can infer he means they will die from starvation. Unless you think he meant they’ll die from gunshot wounds or rabid dog bites. In which case, I can not help you.
He continues, “The number starving in the next few decades may rise to 500 million.”
You see, the part where he says “the number”, he’s referring to the 3.5 million in the previous sentence, as that is the only number in the quote up to that point. We’ve already established he thinks those people are dead and starvation is the cause..
The “may rise” part means the number may get bigger, so it’s not a different subject. It’s clear he thinks the number 3.5m will grow to 500m. This 500m people are not a different group that may be really hungry in the next few decades.
Taking out all the flowery language that seems to be confusing you:
Starvation is already with us. 3.5 million will die from it this year. That number (of dead) may rise to 500 million in the next few decades.
There is no way to infer anything else unless you are delusional or being purposely deceitful.
I agree with this:
“Paul H says:
June 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Andy
You can certainly interpret ” 500 million starving” as either dying of starvation or just malnourished. We are both wasting our time double guessing what was really meant.”
Of course you agree with that. That’s the faux point you’ve been trying to make all along.
The problem is: If you know how to read, there is no way to believe it.
Example: The nuclear accident has contaminated the aera. 10,000 people will die this week. The number of victims of the contamination will grow to 20,000 in the next few months.
Would you think I meant the additional 10,000 people would just get sick? Of course not.
andykn says:
I agree with this:
“Paul H says:
June 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Andy
You can certainly interpret ” 500 million starving” as either dying of starvation or just malnourished. We are both wasting our time double guessing what was really meant.”
========================================================
Yeah, you can interpret it either way *ONLY* if you take it out of the context it was stated in. Within the context it was stated in, it’s clearly those dying. 3.5 mil this year dying with that number (of dying) rising (ie more dying) to 500 mil in the next few decades.
andykn says:
He was quoting the article, incorrecltly:
RobbCab “3.5 million will starve…may rise to 500 million””
Article: “3.5 million…will die this year. The number starving may rise to 500 million…”
Dying and starving aren’t the same thing.
My POV is that Erlich may not have been accurate but wasn’t as far out as everyone on here is trying to make out.
=======================================================
He was quoting/paraphrasing from the article correctly, you just can’t seem to comprehend what the article was saying. The subject of the paragraph was “but starvation is already with us”, so the number of dying (3.5 mill) is refering to dying from starvation (no other cause of death is mentioned in the article) that number “may rise” to 500 million, again there’s only one other number mentioned that the 500 million could possibly be rising from and that is the 3.5 million number.
Put it to you this way, if the may rise to 500 million *ISN’T* refering to the 3.5 million dying than what is it rising from? what do you think the base number of starving (not dying) is that he was claiming will rise because from your interprtation of what is said, I don’t see any other base number given. and a “will rise” without as base from which it will rise from is a meaningless statistic.
and a “will rise” without
should read
and a “may rise” without
Least andykn jump on that mistake rather than deal with the point being raised as is his wont.
Mistakes are one thing, saying something was said that wasn’t isn’t the same. Your interpretation is probably correct, your right to present that as what was actually said isn’t.
andykn says:
June 9, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Mistakes are one thing, saying something was said that wasn’t isn’t the same. Your interpretation is probably correct, your right to present that as what was actually said isn’t.
================================
Having lost the arguement on the contents of the article you are left with semantic arguemenst because someone either left out the ellipses (for a direct quote) or else accidentally put quote marks around a paraphrase. Do you not see how petty and stupid that make you look?
By the way, Andy.
I don’t appreciate being called dishonest just because my interpretation of something is different to yours.
I would hope you think about withdrawing it.
Paul
Paul,
He knows you’re not being dishonest. He know I’m not being dishonest.
He most likely knows the he is the dishonest one in the conversation.
Lawyers say: When you cant argue the facts, argue the law. When you can’t argue the law, pound on the table.
You’re witnessing an example of the last two.
This has been an amazing conversation……..
I was arguing the facts, difficult to do when someone puts in quotes something that’s not in the actual article being discussed. i.e., not a fact.
andykn says:
June 8, 2011 at 8:31 pm
I was arguing the facts, difficult to do when someone puts in quotes something that’s not in the actual article being discussed. i.e., not a fact.
——————————————
No, you were arguing semantics. The paraphrase you refer to was an accurate reflection of what was stated in the article. Your interpretation of what the article said does not accurately reflect the context the article gives the numbers it states.
James,
I know I’ve probably let this go longer than I should, but frankly I’m sick of the tact these guys are taking.
I figure Steve has really pissed some people off and they’re being sent here with the sole intention of muddying the waters.
You know my posts by now. I usually stick to just the data (I hardly argue semantics). I’m usually pretty polite albeit a bit sarcastic sometimes, but these guys are starting to be like Clinton debating the meaning of the word “is”.
They know they are never going to convince us “deniers”, so they are posting links to sensationalized stories based on scientific papers to try and pick off the “lurkers” that are on the fence but not in the comment stream.
This Andy guy knows full well that Elrich was predicting 500 million deaths, not “suffering” from starvation.
Hell how can he not see that there were 30 million fewer people in 2007 threatened by starvation than at the time Elrich made his claim? All while the actual number of people on the planet doubled!
This is proven out by the very people he points to try to justify his position. Then he claims he doesn’t get it?
The answer is he knows all this, but it can be made to sound like Elrich was talking about 3.5 million dead and then a different group of people suffering through “starvation”.
It’s exactly the same MO that JC character was employing yesterday. He turned an article with a sensational headline about the rate of accumulation of CO2(which was horribly flawed) into: “Theres 10x times more CO2 now!”
Now if you Lat & myself (among others) didn’t vigorously point out how wrong not only the paper was, but his interpretation as well, Some “lurkers” not so familiar with the science or not willing to check the actual numbers may think these jokers actually have a point.
In answer to “This Andy guy knows full well that Elrich was predicting 500 million deaths, not “suffering” from starvation.” I can only repeat:
I agree with this:
“Paul H says:
June 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Andy
You can certainly interpret ” 500 million starving” as either dying of starvation or just malnourished. We are both wasting our time double guessing what was really meant.”
It’s not just me who sees the ambiguity, perhaps he did mean 500 million dead, he might even have meant 500 million a year dying.
But you need to think a bit more about your numbers, if I’m born into starvation to a woman who dies soon after of starvation the numbers are still one but represent two individuals.
I agree Robb, its too bad Andy chose to be coy and play word games with you. He missed an opportunity. And you’re right, I believe this to be deliberate. It also doesn’t pass notice that Steve’s off in LA for the week when dweedle dee and dweedle dum decide to pay us a visit……… But, I believe you’ve shown as well as anyone could, the circular tactics employed by our new found friend.
Andy, if you want to go with 500 mill suffering as opposed to dying, I’m good with that, it is your prerogative to be wrong. 3.5 million starve this year, 500 million starving(but not dying) in decades to come. yeh, ok, fine. Suddenly starving is synonymous with undernourished……..:-|
I think that is a dangerous characterization of the both.
The full report from the website I linked to explains that breakdowns of undernourished figures are very difficult to get, they were the best I could do.
I didn’t know either that Steve was off, that it wasn’t Steve posting earlier on or that LA had been cut off from the internet.
If you’d asked why I joined in, instead of going all “conspiracy nutter” I’d have told you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=andykn+erlich
And anyway, how did you know I was fat?
lmao! Very nice. Build any bridges here Andy? Conspiracy nutter? For noticing two events? Whatever. I wasn’t calling you fat.
Your here because you Google your name and one of the commentators here misspelled Ehrlich?? Uhhmm………. Do you do that often?
Andy, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/ehrlich-500-million-to-starve-after-1975/#comment-62961 Robb is one of the most level headed and rational people that you’re going to converse with on either side of the issue. If you can’t carry on a rational discussion with him on this issue, you can’t carry on a rational discussion on this issue. If you were intentionally being obtuse in order to illicit angry responses, …….. well played. But its still sad, because the route you chose was entirely unnecessary and benefited no one. Just about like every other alarmist choice that comes to be.
Andy, stick around, but when arguing a point be clear as to what you are stating.
This is definitely happening. Some think it is coordinated, but I doubt it. Herding liberals would be like herding fleas or cockroaches.
This tactic can be seen lately over at WUWT. One very recent thread has lots of classic examples …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/01/old-prediction-may-fit-the-present-pattern/
Ironically, that post there, was inspired from one of Steve’s great finds here …
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/1979-before-the-hockey-team-destroyed-climate-science/
If you follow some of the inane arguments, you will see one of the best descriptions yet characterizing this tactic offered by commenter Smokey …
Which about sums it up. I suspect it is what socialist pop-science death throes look like. Let’s hope.
Steve, comment stuck in moderation here …
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/ehrlich-500-million-to-starve-after-1975/#comment-63074
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/ehrlich-500-million-to-starve-after-1975/#comment-63074
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/ehrlich-500-million-to-starve-after-1975/#comment-63074
Still waiting for that apology, Andy.
Paul
Also still waiting to see if you agree with Ehrlich’s statement that:-
“in the 1970s, the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
It was clearly an overestimation, but even if by a factor of 10 it’s hardly an insignificant number, which he seems to have helped draw considerable attention to.
I’m afraid I still think to pretend that this: ”from 3.5M to 500M”. was a direct quote when it wasn’t is dishonest.
That was certainly the implication of the article (whether intentional or not).
That was my understanding of what Ehrlich was saying. I may well be wrong and to be fair the more I read it the more I tend to accept your interpretation.
However I certainly did not deliberately “pretend” that this was the case.
I guess you will just have to take my word for that.
Notice how Andy has ducked responding to any of the other myriad bogus prediction by Ehrlich presented within this thread.
“It was clearly an overestimation, but even if by a factor of 10 it’s hardly an insignificant number, which he seems to have helped draw considerable attention to.” – Andy
Everyone knows that there is a certain level of starvation in the world. There always has been. I’m not sure how Ehrlichs gross exaggeration of the problem made to imply that the starvation is due to over population, which it isn’t per se, is supposed to accomplish.
Furthermore Ehrlich’s bag isn’t feeding the hungry quite the opposite actually. Ehrlich is a proponent of the lifeboat theory, which is basically to let the 3rd worlders starve to death because (A) they’ll drag down the industrialized world if resources are put into their maintenance and (B) the “carrying capacity” of the world is only 2 billion anyway.
All this may be true, but without accurately quoting what he’s supposed to have said in the first place it get’s tricky to tell.
it’s hard to shoot a target that keeps on moving…would andykn please elucidate under which circumstances he would agree that Ehrlich has said something wrong?
A starting point is for articles about him to be properly quoted.
you do realize you’re pushing Ehrlich in the Nostradamus league, forever impossible to decipher, with all those ambiguous quotes accompanied to clear statements only under the “what-if” and “scenario” umbrella?
@omnologous
All I’m trying to do is establish what he has said and what people are making up about what he’s said. If anyone on here would like to make some more precise predictions for the numbers starving (not neccessarily dying) in the future (despite these numbers being difficult to obtain for the present) go right ahead. We can come back in 10 years and flame them then.
Well, so far there’s been no agreement on what he said, that is, it is apparent that whatever he said, could be interpreted in several different ways, even when quoted verbatim. IOW his statements about the future are absolutely useless. And given what his career has been about…
And Andy, I would join you in flaming whatever moron would state such nonsense. But Omno is correct. And it seems to me, anyone caring to be familiar with Ehrlich’s body of work, will know that population is and was his concern. It would be inconsistent with Ehrlich’s statements to be discussing 3.5mil dying in one breath and then 500mil suffering from hunger in another. Proper context is invaluable.
Probably true, so it looks from Pauls interview quote like he both fell for the Ice Age news hype and underestimated crop yield growth. But who knows, had we not taken action over particulate pollution in the 70s perhaps cooler temps and poorer crop yeilds with more famine deaths may have resulted.
You guys are going around and around, and in my opinion, missing the point…..
…we can’t predict anything, period
We can’t predict the weather, the climate, population, or lotto numbers…………….
We’re not that smart, we don’t know that much…..
Look around, does what you actually see tell you we’re that smart?
What does it take to get through to you that your hero, Paul Ehrlich, was/is a crank? Who the hell would solicit someone to give their wildly inaccurate alarmist dooms day predictions, which are based a false premises BTW, and then proclaim their utility to mankind?
I personally work in industry and inaccurate info is never useful for solving problems. The prudent don’t speculate and fantasize about things, which they don’t know anything about, like Ehrlich does. It’s also been pointed out to you, which you ignore, that Ehrlich’s ideas towards solutions (draconian population control measures) were just as nutty as his prediction. I am unaware of any attempt at implementation of Ehrlich’s proposals so I don’t see how he can be given credit for emeliorating any problems.
Perhaps I have been unkind to Ehrlich. After all he did seem to recognise that the warm climate from 1930 – 1960 was actually a good thing as the following interview with Mother Earth News shows.
PLOWBOY: Yes, I know. Bryson thinks that the current drought in the sub-Sahara and other “isolated” weather changes here and abroad are all part of a massive shift in the earth’s climate . . . a shift for the worse.
EHRLICH: See, what has happened-and this really disturbs me-is that, by international convention, we’ve defined “normal” weather as that which occurred during the period 1930 to 1960. While, according to historical records, that was the most extreme period in the last I,000 years.
PLOWBOY: Extremely good.
EHRLICH: Right. And Bryson and some others in his field have some pretty strong evidence that the earth’s climate won’t be that good again for I00 decades.
http://www.mnforsustain.org/ehrlich_paul_interview_1974.htm
@suyts
“I figure Steve has really pissed some people off and they’re being sent here with the sole intention of muddying the waters.” and your [more than just] “noticing two events” could be considered plausible, there’s plenty of organisations trawl the interweb looking for unfavourable mentions of themselves and wading in, often masquerading as unconnected individuals; so newbies with an apparent agenda can be viewed with suspicion. But when you’re so convinced of that that you don’t even doubt it enough to do a simple Google search of the newbie and the subject showing that he’s been directed here by someone linking to the site from another discussion, I don’t think that’s too far off “conspiracy nutter”.
And I still maintain that to point out significant inaccuracies in direct quoting is not pedantic or obtuse.
And i don’t think Rob was being “level headed” when he completely unjustifiably called me out for putting things into quotes using [ ] because that’s how it’s done.
Andy, unlike the alarmist side, we don’t spend much time obsessing about identity of anonymous commentators. But, I can tell you we’ve had visitors sent from other sites with untoward purposes. And, yes, apparently you managed to get under Rob’s skin. But, if you scroll up and read your offerings, I don’t see it unreasonable that he would react in that manner. You were incredibly vague in your meaning and didn’t state your position clearly, and went tangential on several occasions. All of that could have easily been avoided if you had stated, “I interpret this to mean 500 mill not dying but suffering from extreme hunger instead.” If your circular discussions weren’t purposeful, I’d suggest re-working the communication skills. But seeing the business that your in, and what I can infer from about your scholastic requirements, I find it difficult to believe your obfuscation wasn’t purposeful. I hope it was just a communication barrier that we’ve just traversed.
James
andykn says:
And i don’t think Rob was being “level headed” when he completely unjustifiably called me out for putting things into quotes using [ ] because that’s how it’s done.
========================================================
I don’t think we was “calling you out” for putting things into quotes using [ ]. He was emphasising that you put into [ ] something that wasn’t part of the article. The may rise to 500 was from the 3.5 which was from the year of publication (1968) not 1975. 1975 was only mentioned as when “the time of famines” was generally consider to be, but that is quickly brush aside by pointing out that starvation was already (present tense to 1968) with us. You’ve been hanging your hat on semantics about putting words into other mouths when the words put there were actually what was being said once you actually comprehend the article, and yet you were essentially doing the something simliar by adding an attribution that the article WASN’T making – The article was talking from “this year” not “from 1975”.
In otherwords you’re getting your knickers in a knot about someone making a semantic mistake with an accurate paraphrase whilst at the same time getting them into another knot because someone pointed out that you added an inaccurate (but otherwise semantically correct) attribution.
I think we should also be grateful to Ehrlich and his buddies for being totally honest about the problems as they saw/see them and about the radical measures necessary to address them.
If AGW is as dangerous as we keep being told then clearly the measures proposed by our politicians will not make the slightest difference. What would be required would the sort of de-development of the US ( and presumably all other developed countries not to mention the likes of China + India) envisaged by Ehrlich :-
A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
Or as Maurice Strong put it :-
Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
http://climategate.tv/2009/12/08/environment-eugenics-quotes/
Yeh, you gotta love those guys. I’m not sure how much more candid they need to be before people can seem them for what they are.
Heroes of the Eugenics movement! Hitler and Stalin would have been proud of them. Mao might have given them a medal of honor for promoting the cause.
Ehrlich has never been the problem but those that defend and believe his ilk are the problem. He should have been sent to the burger line before his first interview and none of his writings should have seen the light of day. He is just a symptom of a larger problem. A promoter of the Chicken Little philosophy..
I am a believer in action speaks louder than empty words. If you want someone to do something do it first as an example.
If you are concerned about overpopulation reduce the population by one, yourself! Like minded believers will follow suit. A LA Jim Jones