Hope on Earth: A Conversation

by Paul R. Ehrlich, Michael Charles Tobias, John Harte (Commentary)

Hope on Earth is the thought-provoking result of a lively and wide-ranging conversation between two of the world’s leading interdisciplinary environmental Paul R. Ehrlich, whose book The Population Bomb shook the world in 1968 (and continues to shake it), and Michael Charles Tobias, whose over 40 books and 150 films have been read and/or viewed throughout the world.   Hope on Earth offers a rare opportunity to listen in as these deeply knowledgeable and highly creative thinkers offer their takes on the most pressing environmental concerns of the moment.

Both Ehrlich and Tobias argue that we are on the verge of environmental catastrophe, as the human population continues to grow without restraint and without significant attempts to deal with overconsumption and the vast depletion of resources and climate problems it creates. Though their views are sympathetic, they differ in their approach and in some key moral stances, giving rise to a heated and engaging dialogue that opens up dozens of new avenues of exploration.  They both believe that the impact of a human society on its environment is the direct result of its population size, and through their dialogue they break down the complex social problems that are wrapped up in this idea and attempts to overcome it, hitting firmly upon many controversial topics such as circumcision, religion, reproduction, abortion, animal rights, diet, and gun control.  For Ehrlich and Tobias, ethics involve not only how we treat other people directly, but how we treat them and other organisms indirectly through our effects on the environment.  University of California, Berkeley professor John Harte joins the duo for part of the conversation, and his substantial expertise on energy and climate change adds a crucial perspective to the discussion of the impact of population on global warming.

This engaging and timely book invites readers into an intimate conversation with some of the most eminent voices in science as they offer a powerful and approachable argument that the ethical and scientific issues involved in solving our environmental crisis are deeply intertwined, while offering us an optimistic way forward. Hope on Earth is indeed a conversation we should all be having.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Environment, Nature

188 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

Paul Ralph Ehrlich is an American biologist and educator who is the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology. By training he is an entomologist specializing in Lepidoptera (butterflies), but he is better known as an ecologist and a demographer, specifically for his warnings about unchecked population growth and limited resources. Ehrlich became a household name after publication of his controversial 1968 book The Population Bomb.

Reviews

[Tuck · Rating 5 out of 5]

has color pictures and b/w throughout. one could read this as one of the most fascinating conversations youve ever witnessed (and didnt have to bother about taking notes, having some AV prompts, noting cites for further readings, but sorely wished you could auto-index it) starting with drinks on the terrace, moving to epic meal, espresso and jerez after, then retire to the shade trees outside, with you as participant and listener. read this you'd be the smartest on your block, about state of earth and us animals, plants, water, insects, dirt, politics/religion, and atmosphere.
i forgot to add the organization ehrlich has started to work on climate disruption, population sustainability, extinctions, https://mahb.stanford.edu/

[Henry Sturcke · Rating 2 out of 5]

A short, informal volume arising out of conversations between these two environmentalists, this book aims to present the conceptual and ethical underpinning of current scientific discussion for a broader public. The dialogue style may increase readability for some, even accessibility, but to me, it seemed somewhat artificial and superficial. Two people telling each other what they both already knew for the benefit of the reader does not carry the same weight that either would have with a well-reasoned disquisition. The result strikes me as a relatively effortless way to get another book credit. And I had not gotten very far in the book before I was tired of hearing about chickens.
The term “ethics” appears often in the discussion,; at one point they ask in a subheading, “Are Ethics Obsolete?” Yet the ensuing discussion does not seem based on a very sure grasp of what ethics is.
For me, the most interesting reading was Chapter 5, The Biological Future: Climate Change in the Rockies, in which the authors bring another scientist, John Harte, into the discussion. Harte was a pioneer in the study of what global warming would actually do to ecosystems, establishing what he calls a warming meadow — a sort of open-air laboratory — in 1988. His results are disturbing. For instance, the finding that a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise would lead — logically enough — to earlier snowmelt, and this in turn, would release as much carbon from the soil as is already in the atmosphere. In other words, global warming triggers effects that are self-reinforcing.
In all, I wanted to like this book, but was disappointed. Don’t be misled by the title, there is very little hope here.

[Lcitera · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting discussion shared by two environmentalists, one pragmatic (at times sounding a tad bitter) and the other an idealist (perhaps coming to terms with the fact that the world will never be what he knows it could be). These two scientists are seeing the same world, seeing the causes and effects, processing all of the data available, from the framework of two different generations. A fascinating read. And a very clever book cover!

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 1 out of 5]

ENGLISH: Paul Ehrlich was one of the neo-Malthusians who in the 1970s made catastrophic predictions about the increase in the world's population. Forty years later, these predictions have not come true, but Ehrlich continues advocating for an increase in the number of abortions. Both participants in the debate (Ehrlich, a biologist specializing in lepidoptera, and Tobias, an "ecologist"), consider as a benefactor Planned Parenthood, the world's leading company dedicated to performing abortions, and they rant against those of us who do not agree, arguing that a strong government is needed to force the people to comply with what said government wants, which is naturally what Ehrlich and Tobias want. The only thing the two participants in the debate disagree on is whether we should eat chicken.

Ehrlich now accepts that world population will peak in the medium term, and hopes for a later slow decline. I rather think that the inversion of the population pyramid will instead lead to a precipitous decline that may prove more apocalyptic than the increase. I suppose Ehrlich, if alive, would then advocate banning abortion.

ESPAÑOL: Paul Ehrlich fue uno de los neo-malthusianos que en los años 70 realizaron previsiones catastróficas sobre el aumento de la población mundial. 40 años después esas previsiones no se han cumplido, pero Ehrlich sigue abogando por el aumento del número de abortos. Los dos participantes en el debate (Ehrlich, biólogo especializado en lepidópteros y Tobias, "ecologista", consideran una benefactora a Planned Parenthood, la primera empresa mundial dedicada a realizar abortos, y despotrican contra los que no opinamos igual, sosteniendo que hace falta un gobierno fuerte que obligue al pueblo a cumplir con lo que dicho gobierno quiera, que naturalmente es lo que Ehrlich y Tobias quieren. En lo único en que discrepan los dos participantes en el debate es en si debemos comer pollo o no.

Ehrlich acepta ahora que la población mundial alcanzará un máximo a medio plazo, y espera que después habrá una lenta disminución. Yo más bien pienso que la inversión de la pirámide de población provocará, por el contrario, un descenso precipitado que puede resultar más apocalíptico que el aumento. Supongo que entonces Ehrlich, si viviera, abogaría por la prohibición del aborto.

[Fiona Guinness · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just raced through it. Less than 200 pages. Gorgeous (in some cases, very rare, images). Two of the great ecologists, Ehrlich and Tobias (a breathtaking, and probably my favorite author) - conversing about the fate of the earth. Sheer mesmerizing fear, panic, and the power of human redemption if only we will give love and compassion a chance. This is a very important book. At times, too fast, I wish it were twice or three times the length, but the breathless intellectual pace is clearly a function of two giant intellects with very little patience: they want our species to succeed, as opposed to pursuing the business-as-usual path of self-destruction. And who would ever blame them? Between them, something like 100 years of scientific professional field-research in probably every ecosystem on the planet. Very very impressive book. I don't think there is another quite like it.

And, fittingly, out by one of the best University presses in the world - Chicago; for Earth Day!

[Will Meyerhofer · Rating 3 out of 5]

well-intended, and engaging here and there, but awfully disorganized and it seems one of them mostly wants to argue for vegetarianism while the other mostly wants to argue for population control. best when they get around to hard science - butterflies and global warming, etc.

[Rhys · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like a good conversation on ethics and the environment: interesting, funny, blunt, boring, interesting again.

[Amari · Rating 5 out of 5]

Without question an essential read for anyone who gives a hoot about anything at all.

[Clivemichael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting dialogue, well constructed although occasionally depressing.
“…you’re talking about ethics. Is it fair to have a world in which we have, in this country now, a very determined program of “Hood Robin” redistribution? Of taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich; or should we reverse that? What should be done about the collection of social parasites called Wall Street? When they’re not stealing and doing their jobs legally, they cause even more damage by promoting economic growth among the already wealthy. Should Wall Street be disbanded and its denizens (many of whom can do arithmetic) be directed into socially useful activities like teaching middle school math? These are all ethical issues.”pg 89

[Cev · Rating 1 out of 5]

frankly this gave me less hope lol. basically just tiresome middle class white man philosophy debate

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Personally I am not familiar with Dr Tobias, but I assume he is not as well known as Erhlich, who for me is the more interesting and greater intellect of the two. So it is a little of a lop sided dialog in the sense that the latter brought more insights (although I am already largely familiar with his views) to the table. With due respect to Tobias, who has his own reputable scientific track record and publications, I thought his position on vegetarianism simply too drastic and inflexible. Somewhat surprised that a learned biologist/ecologist like himself can have such an extremist view when it comes to animal welfare. At times the two seemed like they were talking over each other, espousing their own personal opinions without achieving the slightest agreement when it came to this subject in particular, thus adding no value for the reader, I felt.

[Rosebud · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is set up as a conversation between two people. It flows from one topic to another like conversations tend to do. The topics were wide and varied, but focused a lot on two major areas, mainly a big picture view of how humans consistently mess up and fail to address the big issues, and one of the major ones being our inability to deal with the threats of climate change.

While the books is titled "Hope on Earth" it was more of a downer for me to read this, since I don't believe in humanity's ability to get its act together.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I gave this five stars not because it was enjoyable but because this was the most thought provoking and important book I have read in a long time. Books like Hope On Earth are some of the most important being written and published today. They make the issues of the increasingly changing climate more accessible to those outside the scientific communities. Hope On Earth is an amazing example of this disguised as a conversation. It is easy to read and yet very dense in materials and ideas. I would recommend it to anyone.

[Eduardo · Rating 1 out of 5]

Most silly thing I've read for a very long time.
Wager Loser and Chick Lover competing for the moral high ground.

[Lisa Pool · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intellectual conversation between two brilliant scientists. I liked the naturalness of the conversation as it weaved around and sometime went completely off topic, just as real conversations do.

[Judy Lindow]

The cover is beautiful.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

TL;DR: Climate change is worse than we thought. Much worse. But there's still a tiny bit of hope.

[Milt · Rating 3 out of 5]

cell-read. free UofC. Important, better later, and afterword.