50 years on from The Limits to Growth, what did we learn and what’s next?

Re:50 years on from The Limits to Growth, what did we learn ... by Jtsummers on Friday September 02, 2022 @11:11AM (#32691738)

Again, Ehrlich isn't one of the contributors to The Limits to Growth so his views are largely irrelevant when the actual contributors to The Limits to Growth don't agree with his doom-saying (at least as presented in the book, maybe some of them do in other contexts). How hard is this concept for you? That's what I was calling out (from someone who wasn't you), you just want to double down on it for some reason that makes zero sense.

If you want to keep bringing irrelevancies into the conversation, fine. Have the last word after this. If you want to not look like an idiot, take 2-3 hours to read the book or at least 20 minutes to skim it and see that it's not Ehrlich-styled doom-saying.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:50 years on from The Limits to Growth, what did we learn ... by AlbertCory on Friday September 02, 2022 @12:17PM (#32692553)

Great, thanks for the last-word offer. I'll take it. And by the way, ad hominem attacks just make you look like an idiot.

Maybe try admitting that Ehrlich WAS one of the Malthusians of that period, as evidenced by scholarly articles like [1] and [2], which mention him in the same breath.

You are correct that he's not one of the authors. However, [2] says:

This movement, which was a new chapter in the long running dispute between Malthusians and Cornucopians (Desrochers and Hoffbauer, this issue) can be construed as having commenced with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) and Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb (1968), and, by many accounts, reached maturity with the publication of The Limits to Growth (1972) and its success and huge circulation.

[1] https://www.condition.org/as95-6.htm

[2] https://ppe.mercatus.org/system/files/JULIAN_AND_THE_LIMITS_...

[ Parent | on HN ]