Paul Ehrlich Prophet of Doom has Died.



It's not news to readers here that the Population Bomb sold three million copies and has been one of the most talked about and controversial books of its century. What remains unresolved, in some quarters, is its importance. Its author Paul Ehrlich died recently. 

The link, written be a prominent figure in the Southern Baptist Convention, blows off Ehrlich because Ehrlich did not understand God created the world to be enjoyed by humans. We humans are instructed by the Bible to exploit the earth at our pleasure. Thus, as I would interpret this Baptist, if humans want to destroy the earth by producing more humans that the earth can support, they have the green light from God to do this. I didn't read the entire post to see if he mentions the parts of the Bible that preach stewardship of resources. 

The more serious criticisms, if you can call them criticisms, comes from Ehrlich's timetable. He took historic data and projected it forward. For many reasons, the timetable of events has not unfolded on his schedule.  

I don't see how anyone can argue our present large population is riskless. As climate change has increased it is obvious food and water has been and will be in short supply at various parts of the world at various times. This was Ehrlich's prediction. It is playing out but at a different timetable.

If we could pull back all the shadows and deception, the reason various Christian pundits complain about Ehrlich is abortion. If abortion is taken off the table most criticisms of him would evaporate. 

The anti-abortion industry is anchored in Catholicism. This teaches there is a religious reason for having babies, lots of them. Abortions, then, are a sin. Individual women, however, have abortions for many reasons, all related to their personal circumstances. This results in lower rates of population growth which Ehrlich found a positive by product of abortion. There can be no positive outcome from abortions in the anti-abortion industry.

Respects to the late Paul Ehrlich. 

   

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient God, Bel (Baal), the Main Character in an Ancient Play

Image
In a British museum is a preserved stone tablet from Babylon. It dates to about 2,000 BCE. Someone labored patiently to inscribe an entire passion play featuring the god Bel. I reiterate this is a stone tablet, not a recopied papyrus. The play begins with the god Bel arrested by soldiers and taken off the stage. He reappears at a trial in the Hall of Judgement. Bel is innocent but is sentenced to death. In the next scene Bel is accosted by a mob. He is despised and rejected. The actor playing Bel is then taken by guard to a hilltop in a sacred grove. Two criminals are taken with him. One of these is released. The the audience then leaves the theater and follows the actor Bel and his guards to the top of a hill where the death scene is enacted by hanging from a tree. The audience returns to the theater for the dramatic final scenes. The dead Bel is stripped and prepared for burial. On a theatrical hill to the side of the stage is a tomb where the body is placed. A stone is rolle...
Read more

What Was the "Argument" in the Election

Image
I hate to add my blog to the piles of blogs and pundits analyzing and pondering the meaning of the just passed election. But that's what I feel like doing today. I've always like Senator Ted Cruz's summary of politics. He once said, "First, win the argument. Then, win the election." I think there is a way of applying that to anti abortion Catholics and Protestants. The link talks of Catholics who now feel they have no political home because Republicans let them down with Trump but they remain against abortion rights. Taking Cruz's win-the-argument thesis, I'd call the past election about an argument between two groups. One group's argument was, "Trump's a jerk." The other's argument was, "Abortion is wrong." The group, "Trump's a jerk," won the argument and then the election.  While one can argue the election, or any election, it about more complex issues, I believe in the end elections hinge on very simple ar...
Read more

Will We Ever Know How Accurate Current Bibles Are

Image
When I discuss the many times the Bible was copied and recopied by scribes over a couple of thousand years, the reply is often, "I have a book by this (or that) expert who says the Bible is 99% accurate to its original writers." The 99% claim appears in various places defending the Bible. There is one thing we know absolutely: There is no surviving original copy of the Bible. Even the oldest surviving material is a generation or two after the time some of the Bible was written. This means no one can claim he has, or ever will, compare the current Bible to the original Bible and find the two are 99% the same. We cannot claim either that it is not 99% accurate. For the sake of discussion, however, assume the current Bible is 99% accurate. That would mean the one word out of every 100 was inaccurate. It could still mean an important misreading of the original text. An example is the passage referring to punishment for a man who kills a fetus. In the oldest know materia...
Read more