On Demand
WNYC's Coverage of the Republican National Convention
Live performances in Soundcheck's studios
Studio 360: Patti LuPone on playing Mama Rose
Selected Shorts featuring "The Trouble of Marcie Flint," by John Cheever
Radio Rookies: Brooklyn Broadcast Workshop
On the Media: Surviving Convention Coverage
Street Shots Challenge
The Brian Lehrer Show
Dominion
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The study of evolution examines the past, but what about the future? Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies and biological sciences at Stanford University, discusses how the human ability to adapt to the environment could have catastrophic consequences. He and Anne Ehrlich are the authors of The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment (Island Press, 2008.)
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date. Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
about 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct; so the fact that we're doomed should not come as a surprise to anyone who understands evolution.
We may be dominant among mammals.
But I think plenty of *insects* species have us beat among all animals. (I guess that doesn't make for a good title though.)
checks and balances: there's nothing that can stop human expansion expect a virus. but those virus just aren't killing enough people, we are just way too smart.
peter
but humans are the only animals who are smart enough that can change that.
The MTA: testiment to humans' ability to adapt and survive anything.
hjs: sorry but we are not smart enough. you only need to look back through the past few hundred years of history to know that. to quote the terminator, "it is in your nature to destroy yourselves" :)
Critical Mass is a "protest rally"? C'mon, Brian. Critical Mass is a mass public bicycling event which can, admittedly, be annoying to a lot of people. But it's _not_ a "protest." (For some reason the website wouldn't let me comment under the Critical Mass section.)
Bravo on that Professor Ehrlich, Bravo!
What Brian, did you forget about Ethiopia in the 80s and the other famines that have continued until right now?
Peter is right - we're finished. China and India want more cars, refrigerators, and all that crap, and the first world does little to change its behavior. We tear up the earth to make sneakers with lights in them. George Carlin was right - the planet isn't going anywhere ... we are! Probably run out of drinking water first.
I watched a documentary the other night...China has a one child per family law in effect..their abortion rate and child abduction rates are through the roof! Is that what we want?
Given his misgivings about the use of "scenarios" now, does Erlich have any comment on their use in Global Warming discussions like "An Inconvenient Truth".
For a really good explanation of the process behind both genetic and cultural evolution, read Richard Wright's Non-Zero. The idea is that both life and culture tends towards complexity because of the trend for all entities, whether a molecule or society, to benefit from cooperative acitivities (non-zero sum activities, where both parties beenfit, rather than one). Cooperative breeds complexity. Human cultural evolution proceeds as it does because groups that work more cooperatively (which implies a high-degree of trust, sometims ensured through "laws") allow for more people to be part of the process, creating a positive feedback look and are more successful.
I wonder if Mr. Ehrlich has any thoughts on the use of so-called psychedelics as catalysts of cultural evolution. The escape of LSD from the lab in the 60s arguably sparked the most rapid cultural evolution in generations and perhaps sped up the technological revolution and the green revolution. Could these so-called drugs be ways to reintroduce the concept of sacred to our culture and help wake people up to problems like over-population and the destruction of the systems that sustain us?
The vast majority of Republicans and many moderate and conservative Democrats simply reject out of hand what Paul Ehrlich argues.
Certainly, conservatives think that population can grow without bound.
True story: I once heard a conservative member of Congress say that when we run out of resources here, we could just go to Mars (or someplace).
We have a delusional political class and a mostly delusional journalistic class (witness John Tierney or Thomas Friedman), so what are we to do?
The simple fact is that overpopulation did not turn out to be the "bomb" Erlich claimed it was. His chutzpah simply amazes me. The population bomb must be in same bunker as Saddam's WMDs. I love the way he hides behind the fact other scientists felt the same way. What does that say about the notion of "scientific consensus" as an arbiter of public policy.
Have to disagree with Paul Ehrlich on E.O. Wilson's "science" when On Human Nature came out. Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould were among many scientists who shredded the Wilsonian just-so stories of human behavior.
Wilson was and is a great entomologist. He is no geneticist at all.
laughed out loud at his defense of scenarios!
If they weren't somewhat plausible, what's the point. And if he couldn't be bothered to try and state how plausible or not they were, its just suggestive innuendo without responsibility...hilarious.
What happened to the right to peaceably assembly
I feel the conversation should have been more in depth in regard to cultural evolution...how cultural practices propagate themselves through humanity..be it religion, politics or any social convention. Sometimes it's mutually beneficial and symbiotic; other times parasitic, furthering the practice ultimately at the expense of people. Usually why a practice survives because it does have some net benefit. Though over a longer time frame it may be very self-destructive. For the most part, emotional identification with culture group overrides rational judgment. This is such an important topic and large in scope. If this awareness cannot be popularized and introduced we are simply doomed!!!
Today's conversation was really short and focused on population in a pretty topical, generalized way I thought and did not shed much light on the mechanics of cultural evolution.
I'm sure E.O. Wilson and Stephen Pinker would be surprised to learns that their very well supported theories are "bunk."
I commend you for putting Professor Ehrlich on the show. I am so glad he said that the population is growing too fast. I think the Chinese and their one-child policy is the only way to stop the unlimited growth of the planet. The economic, environmental and psychological harm it is doing to the generations to come is catastrophic. I only wish he had the ear of the governments of all the nations of the world. Thank you again for having this subject discussed. I have asked repeatedly for the topic of population control to be discussed. Please have more on the subject.
Evolutionary psychology is a vibrant frame by which to view human behavior. It's a new science, and as such, is completely foreign to blinkered types like Ehrlich, who espouse a 19th Century clunky way of thinking. To dismiss it as "bunk," is as dumb as claiming we would be dead in 1970 from overpopulation.
This thread is closed.
Back to Episode