#julian simon

[retrograndprix]

MotoGP 2006 on flickr

[ x ] [ x ] [ x ] [ x ]

[anthonybialy]

Population Bombed with Paul Ehrlich

Paul Ehrlich should be pleased.  There’s the inconvenient bit where he doesn’t know it.  But at least he’s no longer contributing toward finishing off humanity.  I’m trying to respect his mentality after he stopped devouring what he insisted was a finite stockpile.  Fond memories of the deceased may offer comfort.  In his case, he’s no longer contributing to the burden he claimed we all impose in case anyone at the funeral feels sad.

The Population Bomb never went off.  Like Islamic terrorists, devotees to humanity’s demise are terrible at everything.  Even worse, they both try to destroy those who are skilled.  If Ehrlich predicted he was going to die, he’d still be alive.  

People need to go, according to people who stayed.  It’s always someone else who inconveniently overcrowds our world.  Hypocrisy is merely the first issue with someone who screwed up every calculation.

Ehrlich saw humans as a problem to be cured.  It’s a routine outlook for very cheery people who don’t see life itself as joyous.  The view is also commonly held by those who view individuals as incapable of of creating solutions.  In his case, he was right.

It’s bad enough to be useless.  But at least respect that some others aren’t.  Ehrlich flaunted a lack of empathy that led to not appreciating what determined fellow species members can implement.  The planet simultaneously still has both lots of things and people on it.

You were supposed to accept doom.  Instead, uncooperative resistance warriors continue to come up with solutions to issues.  Creating innovations that lead to more comfortable lives even as the quantity of users increases was really embarrassing to Ehrlich, so I hope all you productive types feel ashamed that you can’t apologize.

Those who routinely bitch about material limitations can’t think of anything better.  It’s easier to say everything is hopeless than conjure a solution.  Cleverness paired with toil doubly puts off grifters.  It’s no wonder leftists hate Israel when the only nation in the neighborhood without a cavern of fuel underfoot is the sole spot where citizens can chill with cocktails.  Shrieking about depletion coincides with blaming items for crimes caused by miscreants.  Silly types who thought stuff would have run out by now also uncannily think guns cause crimes.

People who say things like “I believe in science” believed Ehrlich.  Spot his disciples by their smirking about how superior they are for knowing what’s happening.  Meanwhile, they get the method as wrong as they do individual experiments.

Condemning those at the food chain’s top is the most important sacrament for those whose religion is famine.  A distortion of examining evidence naturally leads to an inherently miserable outlook.  The vaguely eugenic outlook flaunts an incapacity to grasp that others are addressing and conquering challenges.  Worshipers hold that everyone else should have to stay dreadful, too.

Knowing Ehrlich failed at facts didn’t deter his volunteer press agents even in hindsight.  Take how 60 Minutes spent part of dreadful said hour lauding Ehrlich as recently as January 2023 to continue their commitment to smugly spreading falsehoods.  Praising a person who couldn’t have gotten more wrong if that were his goal sums up why CBS handed Bari Weiss the stopwatch.  The editorial error reflected a deviation from standards: biased newsmagazines should be dedicated to the notion that it’s much easier to get away with wrongly predicting what hasn’t yet happened.  Producers had decades to see he was telling lies about our world all along.  A segment with someone already discredited is a lapse in standards.

Legal betting is a good way to end up with a little money if you start off with a lot.  But there are better ways to wager than sinking a housing payment on a political science major making a kick so both teams combine for more than 44.5 points.  The easiest way to make money was to bet against whatever Ehrlich announced.  Heroic economist Julian Simon put his money on the line against the dismal prognosticator and came out ahead.  Humiliating Ehrlich was merely a side benefit of demonstrating how progress is not only possible and probable but provable.

Avocado appliances now seem charming in their novel aesthetics.  By contrast, Ehrlich’s views will never inspire nostalgia.  The Pinto of scientists adhered to a unique ‘70s take, and not the fun Super ‘70s Sports kind.  Being particularly devoted to fretting about population size in turn reflected a not-so-super 1700s Malthusian dedication to thinking we’ll die right after these last crops get consumed.  He couldn’t even grasp that smarter people are able to account for variables.

The apocalyptic cult’s head honcho just needs to refine his reinterpretations.  The holy text is not the Bible.  At least religious kooks don’t profess to be backed up by science.  High Priest Ehrlich saw humans as a plague upon Earth.  By sheer chance, the same purveyors of anguish endorse policies based in the presumption that nobody can get ahead.  There is only so much cash just like there are only so many resources, according to very useful people who never think to create value.  Treating life as a zero-sum game is the surest way to lose at it.

It’s nice to know one has left a legacy.  Some people don’t check which kind it is.  Ehrlich will continue being wrong about every last thing even if he’s no longer around to spew his oh so fascinating outlook.  His lies about existence persist.  Unfortunately for him, there are billions of people to debunk them.

I regret to inform everyone that is looks like we’re all going to die.  I swear I’m being realistic and not pessimistic.  Knowing each being has an expiration date should be used as motivation to accomplish as much as possible.  Deciding what what we do with the time available is the choice those born into this possess.  Ehrlich used his precious days to proclaim everyone else having the same opportunity was the issue.  A mendacious prophet is no longer inflicting distress by scaring others into thinking they’re contributing to the quagmire by existing.  He wanted you to starve to prove his point.  In Ehrlich’s honor, enjoy your lunch.

[famousdeaths]

Julian Simon : Born February 12, 1932 : Died February 8, 1998

Julian Lincoln Simon was an American economist. He was a professor of economics and business administration at the University of Illinois from 1963 to 1983 befo...

Link: Julian Simon

[yapphenghui]

避免病急乱投医——答王庆民先生

　　谢谢王庆民先生的指教，让这个争议性高且容易让人情绪激动的课题，有机会得到进一步的讨论。 　　除了批评极端环保主义夸大其词，对全球环保事业可能造成反效果之外，拙作没有展开申论的另一个点，就在于“机会成本”这个概念——不行动有代价，行动也有代价；错误的行动代价更高。 　　1980年发生了一起有名的科学打赌，斯坦福大学生态学者埃里希（Paul Ehrlich）和马里兰大学经济学者西蒙（Julian…

View On WordPress

[ridertua]

Julian Simon Peringatkan Honda: Maverick Akan Menjadi Masalah Besar Marc Marquez!

Julian Simon Peringatkan Honda: Maverick Akan Menjadi Masalah Besar Marc Marquez!

RiderTua.com – Mantan pembalap Juara Dunia MotoGP kelas 125cc, Julian Simon kini menjadi pelatih Maverick Vinales di Yamaha Monster mulai tahun 2019. Dia merasa yakin bahwa tahun ini Maverick Vinales melakukan persiapan lebih matang. Julian Simon peringatkan Honda: Maverick akan menjadi masalah besar Marc Marquez..

(more…)

View On WordPress

[bikerspiritmagazine]

Julian Simon: “Το 2020 είναι ευκαιρία για τον Maverick Viñales”

Julian Simon: “Το 2020 είναι ευκαιρία για τον Maverick Viñales”

Μια δωδεκάδα Grands Prix (Δείτε το ημερολόγιο>>) και στην καλύτερη περίπτωση οκτώ πίστες στην ευρωπαϊκή ήπειρο, αυτή θα είναι η σεζόν MotoGP 2020 που επιστρέφει μετα την περιπέτειας της πανδημίας του κορωνοϊού που πάγωσε όλο το πλανήτη. (more…)

View On WordPress

[ridertua]

Pernah Kalahkan Baby Alien, Pembalap Ini Buka Rahasia Kekuatan Marc Marquez !

Pernah Kalahkan Baby Alien, Pembalap Ini Buka Rahasia Kekuatan Marc Marquez !

RiderTua MotoGP– Marc Marquez tidak hentinya menjadi buah bibir disekitar paddock karena prestasinya yang tak terpatahkan di GP Jerman. Namun sebelum dia total menjadi penguasa trek Sachsenring ada pembalap yang mampu mengalahkannya di tahun 2009. Terakhir kali juara dunia tujuh kali itu dikalahkan di Sachsenring pada balapan 19 Juli 2009. Marquez muda yang saat itu bertarung di kelas 125cc…

View On WordPress

[gettothedancing]

While the human rights abuses alone are reason enough to oppose birth limits, the premise that “overpopulation” is a problem at all is incorrect. More people in the world means more people to solve problems, and less resource scarcity. As economist Julian Simon has written: “For all practical purposes there are no resources until we find them, identify their possible uses, and develop ways to obtain and process them. We perform these tasks with increasing skill as technology develops. Hence, scarcity diminishes.” Human beings, with their inventive potential, are themselves, in Simon’s phrase, “The Ultimate Resource”. Each child born today eventually grows up to make resources less scarce, on average, by contributing to innovation and the global economy. But perhaps the saddest part is that the birth restrictions did not even achieve their stated goal—ill-informed though it was. While China’s birthrate did fall during the period in which these childbearing policies were in place, the birthrate of neighboring countries fell too, sometimes even faster—all without authoritarian laws limiting procreation. In fact, most of the fall in China’s birth rate occurred before the one-child policy was even implemented. It is true that China’s birth rate was higher back in the mid-1960s, when the average Chinese woman had more than six children on average. But by 1979, the year the one-child policy began, that figure had already dropped to just under three children. The decline since then has been less dramatic, and perfectly in line with trends in neighboring countries. South Korea, where the fertility rate was very similar (and in fact slightly higher than China’s) in 1979, has seen an even steeper decline since then and today has fewer births per woman than China. So too does Hong Kong, an autonomous region of China where families are free to have as many children as they choose. The data clearly indicates that the birthrate would have fallen without coercive restrictions on family size. Demographers widely accept that after a country’s average income passes about $5,000,  families tend to have fewer children. Regardless of what the Chinese Communist Party decides, their limitations (or lack thereof) are unlikely to meaningfully affect the birth rate. The bottom line is that regardless of their effect, these restrictions unethically limit women’s and families’ choices and should be removed as soon as possible. And if implementing an “at least one child” policy, as the South China Morning Post’s editorial board desires, would involve punishing the childless, then that too is an inhumane and appalling idea.

Chelsea Follett, “The Flawed Assumptions of China’s Tragic Childbearing Laws”