Status Updates From The Population Bomb

love me a divisive book

It is specifically and directly anti-eugenicist and seemingly anti-IQ in general, which is worth noting. I'm also going to say now that it looks like my prediction about destiny did not come to pass. While it gets mentioned, it is also agnostic about it in general.

"So how do you propose going about doing this?"

"So in the U.S. we set up tax incentives...."

"Okay, like Nudge and all that."

"...and in the undeveloped world we subsidize a vast propaganda network, by shipping people TVs instead of food, then creating programing that explains food is contingent on their not having kids."

Change society's attitude to favor sexual openness and get rid of the Catholics? Is this a this a 19th century religious movement?

While the chapter on general environmental disaster seems unobjectionable, I am going to be interesting to see if the end proposal is a something top-down regulation, considering how it is described to not work here.

I am surprised that the author acknowledges what would be the Green Revolution, even nailing down a few of the biggest criticisms (monoculture and input requirements).

The book takes a conservative approach, which is reasonable. In reality though, specifically looking at Indian numbers (the case he studies here), the favorable results were pretty incredible, moving India to a net exporter of some crops for instance.

I've not heard of laterization and I don't see anything actually connecting it like the book does to the fall of the Khmer.

"Taiwan, Japan, and Korea are hardly the same as the rest of the world."

"Why?"

"Reasons."

"Like are you going to to give any? Even unsourced? Or something about direct U.S. military influence?"

"No, but here is a spurious claim about the real puppet-masters, the oncologists and transplant surgeons."

I am amused that each of the nightmare scenarios are about the threat of China.

Outside of what feels like the Seeing Like a State preview, the environmental concerns, all vaguely prescient (it's interesting to read in effect: global warming or global cooling, all we know is that something is changing), but notably "can all be traced to too many people" really doesn't hold, eg. standards of living.

Also, all this complaining about Erie and the rivers right before the EPA is formed.

In the context of this "U.S. feeding everyone," when this is written in '68 is an interesting time, in the sense that Hunger in America is coming out, and then you'll have the Nixon food conference followed by the drastic change in Ag policy in the '70s. i.e. this is right when the Federal policy is shifting to produce more food, to give more food, thought of as a means of preventing civil disorder.

Hypothesis that this is going to prove a fear of density as opposed to strict population and food.

Also, the estimate for Kolkata nee Calcutta is off by a factor of ten (4.5 million in 2001 as opposed to 66 million in 2000). I suppose that's a load bearing "which they cannot."

Is this a hate read? But I don't expect to like it. But at this point I feel like I need to read it in order to discuss Overpopulation. So consider this a sort of glacial liveblog of it.

I go into it with fear that a hate read is what I do not need right now. But I also go into it with the faith I have of grabbing something from to be read shelf and that being the right thing to read then.