Yum yummm... more doom and gloom to go with my Wheaties this morning. This could become a habit here on Science Saturdays. I do disagree with Ehrlich on his statement questioning our knowledge on why communism "came down." His ideological viewpoint likely is clouding his thinking here.

On a less snarky note - Kudos to Carl for taking on this topic. I believe some of the topics raised today are fundamental to many other issues discussed on bloggingheads. The more I have thought about these issues the more I am being driven to the idea that homo sapiens needs to "upgrade." Whether through genetic engineering or the application of nano-engineered add-ons, or some combination, it needs to happen. For example, if we lived to be 750 years old rather than 75 would we not take more seriously the changes we are making to our environment, knowing we would have to live with the results and not conveniently escape through death?

I hate to be harsh, but I am completely unimpressed. Paul Ehrlich seems to be the poster child for the folly of many scientists who step into the political arena. Ehlrich seems to systematically fail to distinguish between the scientific mindset and the political. In science, practicioners are the philosopher kings of their own inquiries and are able and encouraged to carefully and rigidly organize their systems. The transition to the mechanics of the political/social world is steep, and apparently for some, like Ehlrich, optional. In particular, he has no intention of giving up an iota of cognitive imperiousness. In keeping with this, Ehlrich's points are half-assed and buffoonish too many times to count. We had problems with nuclear weapons because it happened too slow? Really? Really? Game theory had nothing to do with it? It wasn't because, unlike your CV, the world is fundamentally unorchesrated? Notice the use of "we" and "we humans" and just "the human race". "We" are spoken about as if we're a single actor who's acting irrationally. Now, of course, we can cooperate and coordinate, and do, and can do better, and criticism and analysis is helpful to that end. But Ehlrich isn't playing that game. His thin references to

I have a problem with claims that we need to do something or else, when the "or else" given seems to be either naive or dishonest. For instance, we humans, for strictly our own survival value, really do not need to protect natural habitats or diversity of animal species on the planet in order to survive. I would say that it's a strong moral imperative to do so anyway, but arguing for it on the basis of "need" is a lost cause from the very first step. Predators of crop pests are going to be threatened? Really? No, as long as there are crop pests, the predators are going to thrive, as many species do in spite of or perhaps especially because of human effects. Similarly, as a species, we really don't absolutely need to protect the climate. It's depressing to say so, because I think again we have a strong moral imperative to do so, but it's not because of need. A global temperature rise of 5 degrees will have catastrophic effects. It will destroy many species on earth, and make many human habitated areas, perhaps some entire countries, close to uninhabitable. Civilization will have to adapt in radical ways, but it

I have to concur with the "totally unimpressed" position. This guy lost me early on when he talked about the horrible diseases our civilization is going to be faced with. It's an arrogant and ignorant position. After every natural disaster in recent memory (China earthquake, Burma cyclone, tsunami, Katrina, etc.) fearmongering talking heads from academia and the media get on the TV and say something to the effect of "if you think this is bad, wait until the disease kicks in." I'm still waiting.

Paul Ehrlich huh. I guess this is Pseudoscience Saturday. I mean I thought BH.TV hit bottom with Glenn "Socky" Greenwald, apparently Bob Wright has decided to get out the shovel and start digging.

WARNING SHAMLESS SELF-PROMOTION AHEAD!!! Hey fellow BHTV commentors, I just wanted to tell a little story about how cool Carl Zimmer is. A ways back he did a great diavlog where he spoke about a parasitic wasp called "ampulex compressa" that I found utterly fascinating. So fascinating in fact, that I suggested to the singer of my band that we right a song about it, using a double analogy for females of our own species and their brutal way of turning us males into zombies. He loved the idea, took the ball and ran with it. So about a month or so ago I wrote to Carl to tell him that his blog/diavlog had inspired us and to thank him and he was very cool and asked to check it out. We finally got a Youtube clib of our first gig and Carl was kind enough to mention us, and to post a link on the Loom. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06...asite_rock.php So anyways, I just wanted to use this opportunity to thank Carl on behalf of the band and encourage BH fans to check us out. If any of you are ever in the LA area, come out and see us sometime. It's

Eb is that you playing the hollow-body? Nice guitar.

You rock, Uncle Eb! I'm only 90 miles from LA, but I avoid the 101/405 like the plague (er, like ampulex compressa). I'll be humming "I'm Gregor Samsa, you're Delilah" all day though. Carl is always great, and I thought Ehrlich was an interesting guest. Carl tried to ask a critical question, but he's such a nice guy that only softballs come out. John Horgan would have zinged a few high and inside, but each Science Saturday Master has his own style and personality. So be it. The most interesting thing Ehrlich alluded to, I thought, was a tax on consumption. The right wing will be ready for that by the year 2108 when we're all under water, but it's still worth discussing.

Quoting Wonderment: Carl tried to ask a critical question, but he's such a nice guy that only softballs come out. John Horgan would have zinged a few high and inside, but each Science Saturday Master has his own style and personality. So be it.

I pretty much agree with that, though I thought Carl did ask a few non-softball questions and showed some skepticism at times. But, as you say, each interviewer has a different style. Carl does allow the guests more room to present their viewpoints. I have to say that Paul's prognostications filled me with such despair that I can't really bring myself to argue against those who would dispute his analysis. It's possible he's exaggerating in places, or emphasizing worst-case scenarios, but pretty much everything he said sounded reasonable to me. Sadly. Human beings rarely do a good job of planning for the long term, and this weakness is exacerbated when large groups are involved. This is especially so when it's easy for rabble-rousers to draw attention to immediate problems and short-term fixes. About the only thing we ever do is wait for things to get to a crisis, and then react. If Paul

Quoting nojp: Our financial system is our biggest roadblock to environmental sustainability.

A little known fact is that our money is really debt. Or rather money is loaned into existence. If we stop consuming at the present rate new loans can be made and hence no new money. No new money is the single biggest threat to the top of the pyramid. This pyramid system is really what will stop the sustainability movement. I think banking might be the biggest problem of all.

nojp, would you care to elaborate further. I can't quite connect all the dots. I think I've pondered what you're talking about and I'm not sure the flip-side works, thanks to the way we've evolved psychologically. New money, it seems to me, is a result of growth which our economies are hell bent on achieving. When the overall economy is growing, there is a dynamic that gives every individual the impression that they can compete for an increased share of the pie ... a non-zero sum game as it were. If someone flipped a switch and magically we turned into a static, no growth, "sustainable" economy, the only way to get ahead would be to

I am amazed about the negative comments about this interview. If at all, I would have hoped for more depth in Carl's questions. he seemed to be rather absent minded. In spite of that, Paul presented his view in a mature and very common sense way. He is right about the fact that the situation this planet is in at the present time is quite depressing. I also agree that, despite the bad news, we can maintain an optimistic stance because there is much that can be done to control the damage so that we don't continue to contribute to an apparently inevitable disaster.
Now, of course, we can somewhat confidently assume that the planet will survive. Paul talks about the survival of our civilization, our species, with the least amount of suffering.
Some of the comments above contain statements that either question the magnitude of the current threat to our planet or go to the other end and trivialize the topic by making reference to past massive extinctions.
1. scted said:
"After every natural disaster in recent memory (China earthquake, Burma cyclone, tsunami, Katrina, etc.) fearmongering talking heads from academia and the media get on the

Quoting Ocean: My friend, have you been reading the REAL reports on climate change??? Please visit the National Academies website and read some of them. Of course, you can still "wait" after that. Fortunately some other people are trying to see what can be done to help.

Glad to hear we can be friends Ocean. I Googled "REAL reports on climate change" and nothing from National Academies came up. This is what our mutual friends at Wikipedia say about Erlich's previous incarnation as prophet of doom:

The book predicted that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death", that nothing can be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action is needed to limit the overpopulation.

I think he missed a few things. That was my basic point in my first post. This guy makes extrapolations that he has no business making. He has no idea how global warming will affect disease patterns just as he had no idea how the "population bomb" was going to affect food supplies. Pretending that he does know makes me, and I'm pretty sure many others, not really care

I'm usually much more diplomatic and tolerant of dissent (except for pro-Bush statements!), but in recent days I have encountered quite a few people in absolute denial about climate change and that irritates me more than I would like to admit to. So I do apologize for the attitude.
Go to NAP (National Academies Press) and look for the book "Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What It Means for Our Future" or similar ones. It was released a couple of days ago.
I try to look at what Ehrlich says for its current value and not based on what he said many years ago. Besides, one should always qualify any predictions by saying that they are only valid "under the current circumstances". If the conditions change, then the prediction is no longer valid. And that is exactly the point. If you can anticipate the negative results of maintaining a certain course of action and then you change the course, the negative results may not occur. Does that invalidate the prediction and render it useless? Or does that actually give the prediction the most value because it is a warning that triggers

I have to say that Paul's prognostications filled me with such despair that I can't really bring myself to argue against those who would dispute his analysis. It's possible he's exaggerating in places, or emphasizing worst-case scenarios, but pretty much everything he said sounded reasonable to me. Sadly.

One of the most disturbing things is that Ehrlich's early predictions made people overconfident about our ability to address global problems: "See? Something terrific always comes down the technology pipe. Just when you think we're at the end of our rope, bingo! Green Revolution and free condoms for everybody." The bald eagle is back and the toxic river is clean. But that was the easy stuff. I don't see any evidence that human beings can cope with future energy demands and global warming. Forget the denial. Let's assume for a moment that everyone really understood the enormity of the problem. Nation states will still not make the necessary compromises and sacrifices. As Ehrlich pointed out, McCain, who is not a global warming denier, now wants to drill for more oil. All it took for him to flip-flop was a little inflation at the pump. Imagine what he'd

I think it's fair of Dr. Ehrlich to use the word "need" in a sense that is not so narrow that it excludes survival as a need, and I think most English-speaking people would agree with his usage. The depth of the biodiversity argument is not explored in this conversation, but more than the one point you caricature, there is substance to the idea that inflicting harm on some parts of the ecosystem has a ripple-effect of consequences on other parts.

Quoting Wonderment: Since most people would prefer to throw their grandchildren under the bus than turn down the air-conditioning or carpool, we'll probably end up with Nero fiddling while Earth burns. The survivors will have Pol Pot rationing out their daily bowl of gruel.

I guess what Ehrlich presents isn't the worst case scenario after all. The quote above is. The right balance between realism and optimism drives action. Hopeless doom or oblivious denial paralyze. Perhaps my optimism can be seen as naivete, but, has anybody noticed signs of unprecedented international efforts to solve some of our global problems in recent months? That is in addition to the classical ineffective efforts of the UN...
Some positive thinking please!

Dr. Ehrlich is clear that he is optimistic about what is possible in principle and pessimistic about the politics of making it happen. He repeatedly makes the precise distinction you reference between what he "hopes" will happen, and what he "thinks" will happen. It also seems to be a fair analysis to say that in the context of solving problems that threaten the survival of the species "we" are not doing a good job.

There is such a thing as disease, and sometimes it does kick in. I'm sure you're healthy, though.

I don't think he took an ideological position in this diavlog; he only noted that the precise causes are in dispute, which seems a completely accurate and sensible thing to say.

I'm curious what you mean by "need" then. For example, with respect to climate change, we (as a species) may need to eventually change our habitats, at a cost of trillions of dollars. That's a lot, but how much effort went into the entire automotive infrastructure after the invention of the car? How much into the world's entire infrastructure for electricity? Compared to the rate of change of human civilization as a whole over the last hundred years, adapting to climate change might be barely perceptable. The economic argument about costs versus benefits of maintaining the present climate (if possible) is a reasonable one. What makes me sad is that it seems like this is the only type of argument that might convince people. Not many people, particularly people in power, seem to put much weight on the worth of nature for its own sake aside from its measurable effects on humans. Another stunning fact to me is that when agriculture was invented, humans and their livestock and pets accounted for less that 0.1% of the world's vertebrate biomass. Today this figure is about 98%! And I would guess that a good portion

I was so excited about this topic I waited to hear the diavlog. Head down, disappointed! What threep said, all of it:

I hate to be harsh, but I am completely unimpressed.

Aside from a call for a new Darwin, one mention of Jared Diamond, and the need for a new social science, where's the sale? Diamond's trilogy (The Third Chimpanzee, Guns, Germs, and Steel, Collapse) leaves open some optimism for wise political leadership and perhaps cultural evolution beyond the limits of the human genetic inheritance. Where to now?

WilliamP:

Another stunning fact to me is that when agriculture was invented, humans and their livestock and pets accounted for less that 0.1% of the world's vertebrate biomass. Today this figure is about 98%!

I found the second figure very hard to believe, but I found it repeated by a fairly credible source, Dan Dennett, on page 170 of his book Breaking the Spell. Just to be precise, Dennett says (emph. added):

... (going from less than 1 percent of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass ten thousand years ago to over 98 percent today--see Appendix B) ...

Other sources out there that cite this passage from Dennett assert that marine vertebrate biomass far outweighs the terrestrial. Still, pretty astounding. Also, Dennett does not appear to give a reference for his figures; the only thing I see in Appendix B is an expansion of this statement, and the only relevant things I find with a quick Google all refer to Dennett. Did you learn about this from him, or from some other (independent) source? Just curious.

According to William H. McNeill in Plagues and Peoples, epidemic infection is integral to human evolution and history. The little beasties have helped...well, Eurasian peoples with more death with such little application for ages. Come on, embrace your parasites!

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: WARNING SHAMLESS SELF-PROMOTION AHEAD!!!

females of our own species and their brutal way of turning us males into zombies.

Et tu, Uncle Eb? Women don't turn men into zombies. You've got your responsible parties mixed up.

Quoting Me&theboys: Et tu, Uncle Eb? Women don't turn men into zombies. You've got your responsible parties mixed up.

Lots of people (both genders) are still stuck on gender wars. They generalize their poor choice of mates and can't acknowledge their own fear of dependency. It's OK. The pain will ease with age, when the hormones start to go down along with the anger. They call it "wisdom"... In the meantime, music is a good outlet for their frustration.

Quoting bjkeefe: Also, Dennett does not appear to give a reference for his figures; the only thing I see in Appendix B is an expansion of this statement, and the only relevant things I find with a quick Google all refer to Dennett. Did you learn about this from him, or from some other (independent) source? Just curious.

I did learn about this figure from a lecture by Dennett, but apparently it's attributed to a calculation by Paul MacCready. (Designer of the first solar power aircraft, and engineer of many alternative energy vehicles.) With a quick search I couldn't actually find the calculation though.

MATB- Irony is a very prominent part of our act (and lyrics). Our tongues are usually firmly placed in cheeks. That said, as a male who has been zombified several times, I will say that I don't dismiss my own complicity, but I reserve the artistic right to a little hyperbolic analogy of the female role in the transaction as part of my own healing process (and an interesting song.) "Men are dogs" is such an overhwelmingly prevalent metaphor in music and culture, that I don't think one song equating women to parasitic wasps, will single-handedly derail the gender-equality movement as it stands today. AemJeff, I'm not the guitarist, but I will pass the compliment along.

Thanks, WP.

Oh, Uncle Eb, the number of ironic replies that come to mind that I hesitate to post for fear of being misconstrued. I guess I'll settle for the earnest approach. Far be it from me to deny artistic expression. I was not objecting to the song but to the (previously quoted) statement in your post, the irony of which I was not able to discern. Sounded like a common, non-ironic, erroneous male refrain to me. I tend to call bulls**t on such things when I see them. A sort of healing process of my own. And as a side benefit, now those bloggingheads.tv viewers who are insensitive to irony are clear on what you meant, and clarity is a good thing.

MATB, no worries. I often hold back on comments of ironic nature here on BH for the same reason, but in my band it is sort of a crucial element to our dynamic. We like to be provocateurs of sorts in the Frank Zappa/Tenacious D sense, ie, anything for a laugh. There's almost nothing too over-the-top or edgy for us (although I've had some ideas that even my fellow bandmates agreed would cross the line into career-suicide territory.) Alot of our jokes go completely over people's heads, or they misinterpret them entirely, but to me that's all part of the fun and our schtick. FWIW I hold no animosity to women in general, just a couple in particular. Wonderment, thanks for the kudos. 90 miles in which direction from LA? OC, Camarillo, Inland Empire, or middle of ocean?

Wonderment, thanks for the kudos. 90 miles in which direction from LA? OC, Camarillo, Inland Empire, or middle of ocean?

Al norte. Ventura County. 93023