This book began as an attempt to rebut the late Julian Simon's claim that much of what the environmentalist claim is pure bunk-and after a lot of research Simon turned out to be right (surprise). I just got this last week, am about 3/4 of the way through it. EVERY conservative who needs to understand and rebut wacky environmental claims needs this book, it is outstanding.

Thanks for posting this. A very important post. If Mr. Lundborg ever debates his (serious) opponents, as I'm sure will happen, I'd like to know about it.

Don't forget about that famous bet Simon had (and won) with Paul Ehrlich. I confronted Ehrlich with the Simon book a few years ago at a lecture. His replied that Simon had looked at the wrong variables. Not too impressive - Ehrich is personally a jerk.

BUT I am over 60 years old and I have watched all the beautiful places of my youth disappear under the relentless pressures of development. That's true all over the world. As the realtors like to say "They aren't making any more of it".

I don't care what Lundborg or Simon or anyone else has to say to the contrary. There is a population problem.

Even the sharks know there's a population problem. With imbalances between the world's fish population and its human population, shark food is getting hard to find. Not so with people food - or was that people as food?

I disagree that there is a population (explosion) problem. What does exist is a problem with the BEHAVIOR of many within the population. In other words, there are too many people who want excuse wanton and destructive acts of criminal behavior, while promoting a police-state like control of law-abiding citizens. The ACLU and the post-modern 'peace movement' come to mind. Ehrlich is an old crank who has made a career out of always being wrong. Yet he continues to be esteemed by many in the loony left as a true 'visionary'.

I can hardly wait until Lomborg debates an oil geologist. Rederic

I don't care what Lundborg or Simon or anyone else has to say to the contrary. There is a population problem.

The Japanese manage to fit about 1/2 of America's population into a space the size of California despite large amounts of the Japanese islands being too mountainous for settlement. It is a population density problem that you are observing. If we didn't allow cities to become unpleasant crime-ridden places that nice people fear and flee, then we wouldn't be so prone to spreading out.

The Japanese news carries regular updates on the percentage of their food supply which they MUST import. It may not be on your mind but its very much on theirs.

Those concerns are used to support protectionist food import laws that protect politically powerful Japanese farmers and cost Japanese consumers a great deal of money buying food. Japanese food production is highly inefficient and focussed on quality and not quantity. And, again, I'll point out that much of the country is mountains where you can neither live nor grow food.

We could discuss Japan but I'd rather get to the central issue.

Environmental and population issues are so contentious because they threaten personal freedom and religious dogma. I could make this a political issue but again I prefer not to.
Julian Simon was a clever guy. He recognized that the earth could not support an infinite number of people. He recognized that we are dependent on the biosphere and must protect it. He recognized that we seemed to be approaching important limits.
But he parted company with Ehrlich and other leftists on at least three points:

1) You cannot just linearly extrapolate population growth from past history. People are not animals. The can recognize problems and adapt their behavior. In this he is undoubtedly right. Birth rates have been dropping, sometimes radically. But it is worth noting that not all of this is voluntary.
2) He contended that the market was a much better regulator than government. It would reveal shortages, adjust prices, encourage innovation. In this he was right too. It's this observation that enabled him to win his bet with Ehrlich.
3) He felt human beings were not given enough credit for their ability to adapt. They would find a way to solve this problem as they had most others, given the proper incentives - market incentives. Viewed this way, population becomes an asset rather than a problem because the more people there are, the more bright people there are, and thus the chances of successful innovation greatly increase. This is the riskyest of his proposals. It comes closest to "hubris". None-the-less, so far it seems to be right.

That said, I don't quite agree with him. Part of it is just gut feeling. Part an observation that there is no substitute for land and no way to make more. Part because I feel there's a certain (hard-to-grasp) circularity to his arguments. Part because I don't think the markets are that accurate (9 of the last 5 depressions have been predicted by the market).
All but the most hide-bound dogmatists recognize there are situations where government intervention is justified. This is one of them. Besides, freedom is always limited by financial situation and increasingly limited by population density. All but the most hide-bound dogmatists But he parted company with Ehlich and

Population growth has been dropping steadily and will continue dropping to the point that even Nightline noticed and did a program on it. The problem is correcting itself.

"Population growth has been dropping steadily and will continue dropping..."

The birth rate has been dropping steadily in most places on earth. It is worth trying to understand why this has been happening. Worth continuing and expanding research on environmental and population problems. And especially worth making sure the trend continues.

bump!

Sure, I'll agree on that.