carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/11/86)
The following comments by Wasilewsky necessitate a response. >[Discussion of Paul Ehrlich's "Nazi-like statements".] > >>Sounds like a real Nazi, doesn't he. [Carnes, ironic mode] > >Oh yes. > >The following is related by the New York Times Index (in its own >laconic style): > >"Dr. P. Ehrlich says U.S. might resort to addition of temporary >sterility drug to food shipped to foreign countries or their water >supply with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps >by lottery, speech to U.S. Commission for UNESCO conference" >(Source for both quotes: *Imperialism and the Pill* by Tom Bethell, >in *National Review*, March 14, 1986). *The Race Bomb*, coauthored by Paul Ehrlich and Shirley Feldman, consists of detailed refutations of the allegedly scientific arguments publicized by Shockley, Jensen, and others in support of the view that there are inherited differences in "intelligence" between "races". In his writings Ehrlich (for what it's worth, his mother's name is Rosenberg) has emphasized the necessity for avoiding the focusing of population control measures on particular ethnic or minority groups or other relatively powerless groups (see any of his writings on the population problem). An important argument he adduces in favor of planned population control is that it will help to *prevent* Nazi-like regimes from arising, seeking Lebensraum for their populations, and practicing "population control" through genocide. In view of the foregoing, any attempt to associate Paul Ehrlich in any way with Nazi ideology is a despicable slander. Jan's principal error here seems to be relying on Tom Bethell as a source for anything -- Jan is, I suspect, smarter than Bethell and ought to do his own research. Bethell is clearly a busy man and has no time to read Ehrlich's actual writings, and consequently he turns to the New York Times Index. However, the Index's summary in this instance is misleading. Following are the relevant portions of the article to which it refers [NYT, Nov. 25, 1969, p. 19, by Gladwin Hill]: [Ehrlich] urged establishing a Federal Population Commission "with a large budget for propaganda," changing tax laws to discourage reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control instruction in public schools. He also urged "changing the pattern of Federal support of biomedical research...." If such steps are unavailing, he continued, the nation might resort to "the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply," with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery. Although it might seem that such a program could be started by doctoring foods sent to underdeveloped countries, he said, "the solution does not lie in that direction" because "other people already are suspicious of our motives." Rather, he suggested, the United States should stop economic aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations. Thus, according to the NY Times, he did not advocate doctoring foods sent to UDCs or adding anything to their water supply. Within the United States, the prospect of the addition of a temporary sterilant to food or water was prefaced by: "If such steps are unavailing, the nation might resort to...". That is, he presented this as a hypothetical possibility, and by implication the only justification for such measures is in the case that they are necessary to avoid a catastrophe that would be a considerably worse prospect. Ehrlich was hardly unaware of the difficult political and ethical issues this would raise (apart from the extreme unlikelihood of the discovery of a sterilant chemical that would fill the bill). In the second edition of *The Population Bomb*, which appeared in February 1971, Ehrlich wrote [pp. 130-131]: So the first task is population control at home.... 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.... Technical problems aside, I suspect you'll agree with me that society would probably dissolve before sterilants were added to the water supply by the government. Just consider the fluoridation controversy! Some other way will have to be found. So Ehrlich did not advocate taking these measures; he merely described this proposal and implied that the situation would have to be fairly desperate, with catastrophe impending, before such steps could be seriously considered. I confess that I am unable to understand how this shows Ehrlich to be a crypto-Nazi. I also fail to see anything remotely shocking about the proposal to deny aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations. Ehrlich believes, with good reason, that merely sending food aid to countries with rapidly expanding populations is in the nature of handing out aspirin to a person who is afraid to see a doctor about his cancer, or, to put it in terms that right-wingers can understand, handing out money to "overweight welfare mamas" (Bethell's phrase) who will then have more babies to get more money to spend on TV sets and Cadillacs. In fact, the case is even stronger than these analogies suggest, because the exploding population of an underdeveloped country will eventually have serious negative effects on every inhabitant of the planet, as Ehrlich has explained in detail. The moral thing to do, he believes, is to encourage, in whatever ways we can, such countries as India to control the growth of their populations. Further, given that the amount of food aid the US can send is necessarily limited, we ought to allocate it in such a way that it will do the most good, by an application of the triage principle. Anyone with an interest in these issues owes it to him- or herself to read Garrett Hardin's seminal essay "The Tragedy of the Commons," which originally appeared in *Science* 162:1243-48, Dec. 13, 1968. The thesis of Hardin's article is that the "population problem," as conventionally conceived, has NO solution that requires a change ONLY in the techniques of the natural sciences and demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality. Here's an excerpt: Perhaps the simplest summary of this analysis of man's population problems is this: the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low population density. As the human population has increased, the commons has had to be abandoned in one aspect after another. ... Every new enclosure of the commons involves the infringement of somebody's personal liberty. ... I believe it was Hegel who said, "Freedom is the recognition of necessity." The most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding. No technical solution can rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all. At the moment, to avoid hard decisions many of us are tempted to propagandize for conscience and responsible parenthood. The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run [by natural selection], and an increase in anxiety in the short. The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon. ... Jan also writes, again relying on Bethell: >Ehrlich, a population biologist, predicted in 1970 that famine would >be "directly or indirectly responsible for 65 million of American >deaths in the decade of 1980-1989". Bethell gives no source for this alleged quotation, and I have been unable to find it in any of Ehrlich's writings. It certainly does not appear in the books he wrote around 1970, including *The Population Bomb* and *Population, Resources, Environment*, which contain extensive discussions of US demography. Those discussions seem to contradict the alleged prediction: Ehrlich's position then seems to be that in the worst possible scenario, the US *could* experience famine in the 1980's. Even if he did make this bald, unqualified prediction, one erroneous prediction does not make a poor scientist. In another article I have given evidence for Ehrlich's qualifications as a scientist, including election to the National Academy of Sciences and the respect of his colleagues. I have read Bethell's article in NR and it is a fine example of what an ideologue produces when he does not know what he is talking about. It would be great fun to read an Ehrlich reply, and I am sending a copy to the Ehrlichs, although I expect they would not think it worthwhile to send a letter to NR. Bethell professes not to understand why there was no "leftist outcry" to Paul Ehrlich's statements quoted above. But I don't understand why there *should* have been an outcry. Leftists (I say nothing of other political persuasions) are not opposed on principle to proposals to improve the lot of humanity and alleviate its suffering. The article also quotes another gem from Petr Beckmann, an *obviously* confused statement about population growth in the US, which I am holding in reserve. The attacks on Ehrlich are without foundation and come from persons who seek to discredit him by any means possible. This is neither new nor surprising. It is the usual fate of prophets who bring the message, Repent and turn aside from your ways, for the day of reckoning is at hand. As Garret Hardin wrote in *Exploring New Ethics for Survival: The Voyage of the Spaceship "Beagle"* (1972), p. 7: In ancient times absolute monarchs disemboweled messengers for less. Today we are not much different. But now the absolute monarch is "the Pee-pull." During the 1970s the Pee-pull finally got sick and tired of the apocalyptic rantings of Paul Ehrlich, and one fine night after he had given a rabble-rousing speech at the Marblehead Junior College he was tarred and feathered by the Youth for American Freedom, loaded into a cart borrowed from the town museum, and pulled to the edge of town, where he was thrown ignominiously into the Fort Mudge Memorial Dump. A great sigh of relief arose from the Pee-pull, whose patience had been taxed beyond endurance. Patriots can take only so much. Richard Carnes
trost@reed.UUCP (Bill Trost) (09/08/86)
As I understand it, there is a large outcry these days for an increase in the birth rate in the United States. This even seems to have worked its way into law, or at least into the courts. The Supreme Court opinion on sodomy laws, if I am not mistaken, referred to the idea that this laws would eventually mean the end of human existance. Admittedly, the connection hear is tenuous, and I may not even be considering the correct nation -- this may have been the opinion of a Belgic justice.