……领域，尤其是任何靠近学术界的地方，从1970年代就开始了。如果非要追溯一个源头，大概就是罗马俱乐部（Club of Rome）和《增长的极限》（Limits to Growth）。保罗·埃尔利希（Paul Ehrlich）的《人口爆炸》（The Population Bomb）紧随其后排第二。这里有个关于后者的优质播客：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn1gieFMuWI 这套说法听起来挺有道理，因为在有限的环境里，人口或资源利用显然不可能无限增长……
…spheres, especially anywhere near academia, starting in the 1970s. If I had to trace it to one source it would probably be the Club of Rome and Limits to Growth. Paul Erlich would be a close second with The Population Bomb. Here’s a great podcast on the latter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn1gieFMuWI This stuff sounds right because obviously you can’t have infinite growth in population or resource use on a finite…
…that 'whatever the rate of population growth is, historically it has been that the food supply increases at least as fast, if not faster.'" I am old enough to remember when the ideas in the book The Population Bomb seemed like fresh, new ideas. Decades later, the world Ehrlich and I still live in seems more like a confirmation of criticisms of the book[1] than like a confirmation of the book. Since the book was…
…white goods, electronic tech etc., etc. - then that extra demand on the planet's resources will be enormous. What's worried me for a long time - ever since I read Anne and Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book The Population Bomb is that the population will outstrip our ability to find extra resources to support this population growth. Whilst the Ehrlichs overestimated the exponential growth rate I evertheless reckon the evidence…
…them, going back a decade or so. Charles Galton Darwin's The Next Million Years (1952), Harrison Brown, et al's more modest The Next Hundred Years (1957), Meadows et al, Limits to Growth, Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, Richard Meier's Science and Economic Development (1955, 1965). Some agreement, some disagreement, and interesting insights, as with all technical debugging processes, on what they got right and what…
…attempts at rectifying things so far have been little more than tokenism - and we're still just pissing around the edges. Pessimistic yes, but factually true. Ever since Paul Ehrlich and his book The Population Bomb (1968) many have been circumspect about discussing population growth. Too outspoken for his own good, Ehrlich hit a very raw nerve when he mentioned human reproduction and overpopulation together, as…
……领域，尤其是任何靠近学术界的地方，从1970年代就开始了。如果非要追溯一个源头，大概就是罗马俱乐部（Club of Rome）和《增长的极限》（Limits to Growth）。保罗·埃尔利希（Paul Ehrlich）的《人口爆炸》（The Population Bomb）紧随其后排第二。这里有个关于后者的优质播客：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn1gieFMuWI 这套说法听起来挺有道理，因为在有限的环境里，人口或资源利用显然不可能无限增长……
…spheres, especially anywhere near academia, starting in the 1970s. If I had to trace it to one source it would probably be the Club of Rome and Limits to Growth. Paul Erlich would be a close second with The Population Bomb. Here’s a great podcast on the latter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn1gieFMuWI This stuff sounds right because obviously you can’t have infinite growth in population or resource use on a finite…
……即“无论人口增长率是多少，从历史上看，粮食供应的增长速度至少与人口一样快，甚至更快。”我的年纪大到还记得《人口爆炸》这本书里的观点被视作新鲜、前沿思想的时候。几十年过去了，埃尔利希和我依然生活在这个世界上，而现实似乎更像是印证了对该书的批评[1]，而不是印证了这本书本身。自从该书出版以来……
…that 'whatever the rate of population growth is, historically it has been that the food supply increases at least as fast, if not faster.'" I am old enough to remember when the ideas in the book The Population Bomb seemed like fresh, new ideas. Decades later, the world Ehrlich and I still live in seems more like a confirmation of criticisms of the book[1] than like a confirmation of the book. Since the book was…
……白色家电、电子数码产品等，那么地球资源将面临极其巨大的额外需求。长期以来一直让我担忧的——自从我读了安妮和保罗·埃尔利希1968年合著的《人口爆炸》以来——就是人口增长会超出我们寻找额外资源来支撑这种增长的能力。虽然埃尔利希夫妇高估了指数级增长率，但我依然认为证据……
…white goods, electronic tech etc., etc. - then that extra demand on the planet's resources will be enormous. What's worried me for a long time - ever since I read Anne and Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book The Population Bomb is that the population will outstrip our ability to find extra resources to support this population growth. Whilst the Ehrlichs overestimated the exponential growth rate I evertheless reckon the evidence…
……他们这些书，往回倒推个十年左右。查尔斯·高尔顿·达尔文的《未来一百万年》（1952）、哈里森·布朗等相对低调的《未来一百年》（1957）、梅多斯等人的《增长的极限》、埃尔利希的《人口爆炸》、理查德·迈耶的《科学与经济发展》（1955, 1965）。就像所有技术 debugging 过程一样，有赞同有反对，还有一些有趣的见解，看看他们哪些说对了，哪些……
…them, going back a decade or so. Charles Galton Darwin's The Next Million Years (1952), Harrison Brown, et al's more modest The Next Hundred Years (1957), Meadows et al, Limits to Growth, Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, Richard Meier's Science and Economic Development (1955, 1965). Some agreement, some disagreement, and interesting insights, as with all technical debugging processes, on what they got right and what…
……迄今为止纠错的尝试大多只是象征性的做做样子——我们依然只是在隔靴搔痒。听起来确实悲观，但这是事实。自从保罗·埃尔利希和他的《人口爆炸》（1968）问世以来，很多人对讨论人口增长都变得小心翼翼。埃尔利希心直口快反而误了事，当他把人类繁衍和人口过剩放在一起谈论时，彻底戳中了极度敏感的神经，因为……
…attempts at rectifying things so far have been little more than tokenism - and we're still just pissing around the edges. Pessimistic yes, but factually true. Ever since Paul Ehrlich and his book The Population Bomb (1968) many have been circumspect about discussing population growth. Too outspoken for his own good, Ehrlich hit a very raw nerve when he mentioned human reproduction and overpopulation together, as…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://openlibrary.org/works/OL3294965W/The_Population_Bomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://openlibrary.org/works/OL3294965W/The_Population_Bomb