Reactions to Malthus

I was first introduced to Malthusian arguments, Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon by participating in policy debate in high school and college.  I strongly resented the biological doomsday arguments that other debaters made, who would quote Paul Ehrlich.  I felt they were non-scientific and unreasonable.  Conversely, I enjoyed the optimism of Julian Simon's work.  In particular, I think I was sympathetic with his claims that people are capable of amazing innovation.   But when I hear Malthusian claims now, after two decades of reading these debates, I have a different reaction.  While I resent the apocalyptic rhetoric and especially disdain Ehrlich's science-supremacy stance(1), I also acknowledge the shortcomings of technological innovations, systems of governance, and economic motivation for the adequate protection of the rich biodiversity and highly complex functioning of our planet.

(1) Ehrlich and many other scientists are ready to make the claim that non-scientists are not welcome to debate, because they lack the scientific knowledge to contribute in a meaningful way.  For example, "Ehrlich refused to mention Simon by name, referring to him disparagingly as a 'specialist in mail order marketing.'  More generally, Ehrlich denounced the 'narrow training of economists' that made most 'utterly unequipped to understanding the ecological underpinnings of economic systems'" (Sabin 2014, 176).  While economists, generally speaking, could certainly benefits from learning about earth systems, ecologists could learn a great deal from social scientists about how and why the public, governments and markets work the way they do.

Sabin, Paul.  2014.  The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future.  New Haven: Yale UP.