Thus, his dire predictions for what was going to happen 35 years ago were malarkey.
Not to worry, everybody is going to be queer and queer don’t reproduce. Those who are not queer will have abortions. Infact the government will make laws that you do have an abortion just like China did if you have more then one child.
It is a ridiculous assertion too
I think those who agree with him shouldn’t wait, and commence cannibalizing each other immediately - for the planet!
Imagine Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi gobbling down rare Al Gore steaks. Bill and Hillary having a rare sit down dinner to feast on Elijah Cummings BBQ. Obama and Moochelle having Biden burgers, well done in case he actually does have mad cow disease.
The man has no shame. Every prediction he has made proved wrong. And he’s doubling down with more crap that won’t happen.
I didn’t know Ehrich was still alive and if so, still being taken seriously after being humiliated by Julian Simon.
What kind of wine goes best with Soylent Green...?
Trying to stock up........
With fava beans and a nice chianti??
Just remember, if it does come to that, vegetarians are soft and tender and grill up nicely.
The guy is an a$$hole. There is a reason why the vast majority of human societies bury or burn the dead. DISEASE!
Eat human flesh and die from the germs.
At least Soylent Green was sterilized first.
< / snark>
How to get rich. Write a book that says we’re all doomed, or that we’re all bad through and through, or that Western Civilization’s got to go, or that traditional morality is bad.
Maybe we should dine on Harry Reid, but I’ll pass, I really don’t need the indigestion
I don't have any dead. I was always taught to get rid of them promptly.
Soylent Green Lite ,,
It’s not just for breakfast anymore.
Now available in conveniently sealed family sized bars.
Another fine product of the Zombie era.
‘You’ll drop dead for a bite!’
JULIAN SIMON a professor of business administration at the University of Maryland and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, made bets with Paul Ehrlich in the 1980’s. TWICE !!
Paul R. Ehrlich first wager
Simon challenged Paul R. Ehrlich to a wager in 1980 over the price of metals a decade later; Simon had been challenging environmental scientists to the bet for some time. Ehrlich, John Harte and John Holdren selected a basket of five metals that they thought would rise in price with increasing scarcity and depletion.
Simon won the bet, with all five metals dropping in price.
Supporters of Ehrlich’s position suggest that much of this price drop came because of an oil spike driving prices up in 1980 and a recession driving prices down in 1990, pointing out that the price of the basket of metals actually rose from 1950 to 1975. They also suggest that Ehrlich did not consider the prices of these metals to be critical indicators, and that Ehrlich took the bet with great reluctance.
On the other hand, Ehrlich selected the metals to be used himself, and at the time of the bet called it an “astonishing offer” that he was accepting “before other greedy people jump in.”
The total supply in three of these metals (chromium, copper and nickel) increased during this time. Prices also declined for reasons specific to each of the five:
The price of tin went down because of an increased use of aluminium, a much more abundant, useful and inexpensive material.
Better mining technologies allowed for the discovery of vast nickel lodes, which ended the near monopoly that was enjoyed on the market.
Tungsten fell due to the rise of the use of ceramics in cookware.
The price of chromium fell due to better smelting techniques.
The price of copper began to fall due to the invention of fiber optic cable (which is derived from sand), which serves a number of the functions once reserved only for copper wire.
In all of these cases, better technology allowed for either more efficient use of existing resources, or substitution with a more abundant and less expensive resource, as Simon predicted, until 2011.
Paul R. Ehrlich proposed second wager
In 1995, Simon issued a challenge for a second bet. Ehrlich declined, and proposed instead that they bet on a metric for human welfare. Ehrlich offered Simon a set of 15 metrics over 10 years, victor to be determined by scientists chosen by the president of the National Academy of Sciences in 2005. There was no meeting of minds, because Simon felt that too many of the metrics measured attributes of the world not directly related to human welfare, e.g. the amount of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere.
For such indirect, supposedly bad indicators to be considered “bad”, they would ultimately have to have some measurable detrimental effect on actual human welfare. Ehrlich refused to leave out measures considered by Simon to be immaterial.
Simon summarized the bet with the following analogy:
“Let me characterize their [Ehrlich and Schneider’s] offer as follows. I predict, and this is for real, that the average performances in the next Olympics will be better than those in the last Olympics. On average, the performances have gotten better, Olympics to Olympics, for a variety of reasons. What Ehrlich and others say is that they don’t want to bet on athletic performances, they want to bet on the conditions of the track, or the weather, or the officials, or any other such indirect measure.”