Episode 339 - Meet Paul Ehrlich, Pseudoscience Charlatan

06/05/201886 Comments

Renowned scientist Paul Ehrlich has been in the public spotlight for half a century now. But there's a question at the heart of the story of Ehrlich's unlikely rise to prominence. A question that must be answered. Why is it that this entomologist has become such a superstar of science, received so many accolades and awards, and wielded such influence over the public conversation on population despite being so remarkably, consistently, staggeringly wrong about the issues he presumes to lecture the public on?


For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).


INTERVIEWER: Your main concern has been "The Population Bomb," as you call it in your book. Do you feel that this takes precedence over any other type of pollution, and certainly human pollution?

PAUL EHRLICH: Yeah, it takes precedence in the following sense: The reason I named the book The Population Bomb was [that] in 1968, when I wrote it, everyone was getting concerned about pollution but people hadn't seen the other element. I thought the emphasis ought to go there.

The thing that's important to remember about population control is that if we want to avoid a tremendous rise in the death rate we absolutely must have a tremendous decrease in the birth rate. Now because the world's population is so young, it means that even if we got a tremendous decrease in the birth rate—if the average completed family size immediately moved down to the vicinity of two—we would still face 40 or 50 years of rapid population growth. There's a tremendous lag time built into it because those young people—the 40% of the people in the world that are under 15—are going to have children and grandchildren before they get old enough to die of old age.

So we have this tremendous built-in lag time, which means that we've got to start instantly on population control only because we know it'll take so long.

SOURCE: Dr Paul Ehrlich Tape 2

Renowned scientist Paul Ehrlich has been in the public spotlight for half a century now. Showered with accolades and heralded in the press, his message has been remarkably consistent: there are too many humans using too many resources and the only way to avert catastrophe is population control, strictly administered by a centralized, supra-national government.

But there's a question at the heart of the story of Ehrlich's unlikely rise to prominence. A question that must be answered. Why is it that this entomologist has become such a superstar of science, received so many accolades and awards, and wielded such influence over the public conversation on population despite being so remarkably, consistently, staggeringly wrong about the issues he presumes to lecture the public on?

This isn't a rhetorical question, it's a real one. And the answer may surprise you.

Meet Paul Ehrlich, Pseudoscience Charlatan. This is The Corbett Report.

50 years ago, Paul Ralph Ehrlich, an entomologist by training and a professor of biology at Stanford University, published The Population Bomb. As far as books by practicing scientists go, it was about as big as it gets. It sold more than two million copies worldwide, was translated into numerous languages, shaped public discourse around the population issue for a generation, and catapulted Paul Ehrlich into the unlikely category of "superstar scientist."

Of course, it wasn't a success from the get-go. It was Ehrlich's appearance on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show in February 1970—a full year and a half after the book's publication—that finally made The Population Bomb into a bestseller, and it was dozens of subsequent appearances on the show that thrust his ideas into the national spotlight and began a wave of hysteria over the impending population crisis.

And hysteria it was. It may be difficult to remember, but fear of overpopulation was for a time one of the chief public concerns, constantly reinforced by all manner of cultural programming.

HODAN: The birth rate continued to rise and the population grew until now Gideon is encased in a living mass. We can find no rest, no peace, no joy.

JAMES T. KIRK: Then why haven't you any of the new techniques to sterilize men and women?

SOURCE: Star Trek: "The Mark of Gideon"

HOWARD K. SMITH: Overpopulation, so long predicted, has stolen upon us. It's getting worse week by week.

SOURCE: ABC News 8-18-1969

THE PRESIDENT: Because it has been agreed by the nations of the world that the earth can no longer sustain a continuously increasing population, as of today child bearing is herewith forbidden.

SOURCE: Z.P.G. (1972)

RICHARD NIXON: Our cities are going to be choked with people, they're going to be choked with traffic, they're going to be choked with crime, they're going to be choked with pollution, and they will be impossible places in which to live. And the explosion will be even worse.

SOURCE: Nixon Discusses over population of cities 1967

DETECTIVE THORN: Listen to me, Hatcher. You've gotta tell them. Soylent Green is peeeeeeeople!

SOURCE: Soylent Green Is People

Ehrlich was many things, but cautious and understated he was not. The Population Bomb opens with the lines: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

And it only got worse from there.

EHRLICH: As far as petroleum goes, you all know that where the action is there we're running out rapidly. Some estimates are it'll all be gone by the year 2000 and conflict over that is getting to be rather serious.

SOURCE: Dr Paul Ehrlich in the Armory

EHRLICH: You just gotta remember this: There's no way out of the arithmetic. There will never be 7 billion people in the year 2000.

SOURCE: Dr Paul Ehrlich Tape 2

EHRLICH: Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come. And by “the end” I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.

SOURCE: Population Bomb: The Dire Prediction That Fell Flat

Incredibly, these predictions of doomsday are no mere aberrations in the career of an otherwise careful and understated researcher. In fact, they barely scratch the surface of the catalogue of Ehrlich's ridiculous—and ridiculously wrong—Chicken Little pronouncements.

Speaking at the Institute of Biology in London in 1969, Ehrlich opined that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," Ehrlich told Mademoiselle magazine in 1970. "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."

And what of the decade after that? Writing about the "Great Die-Off" in the pages of The Progressive in April 1970, Ehrlich warned that 4 billion people would starve to death in the 1980s, including 65 million Americans.

Most remarkable of all, decades of being spectacularly wrong have not stopped Ehrlich from continuing to spread his particularly distasteful brand of doomporn. He was back at it just this past March, assuring readers of The Guardian that overpopulation means that the collapse of civilization itself "is a near certainty in the next few decades."

If only Paul Ehrlich was an unsuccessful charlatan, barking his end-of-the-world predictions like a madman on a street corner, it may be possible to dismiss him as a harmless crank. But rather than being shunned as a charlatan, Ehrlich has been embraced by the "respectable" scientific community.

He has been awarded The Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the World Ecology Award from the University of Missouri, the Distinguished Scientist Award of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, as well as prizes and awards from the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, the United Nations and a slew of other organizations. He was awarded a MacArthur Prize Fellowship and became a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 2012. He continues to deliver lectures around the world and is still sought after for comment on population and ecology issues by mainstream media outlets, and he currently holds the position of Bing Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology at Stanford University.

But none of this—not the consistently wrong predictions, not the fearmongering, not the accolades and career success—is as concerning as Ehrlich's ultimate "solution" for the "problem" of overpopulation that he claims to detail.

ADRIANA ZAJA: Hi. My question is for Paul Ehrlich. Do you have any regrets about urging developed countries to use their political power to coerce vulnerable countries into drastic population control programs, having heard of the atrocities in India and China?

EHRLICH: Yes, definitely. If I were writing the - if Anne and I were writing The Population Bomb again today, we’d write it differently. Sometimes you make mistakes. I think that was a mistake. I don't think the - the recent thing that the are you going to have a question later on the Chinese policy?

TONY JONES: No, please, you can go on. I’m not trying to censor what you say here.

EHRLICH: No, no, no. That’s all right. I think the main problem with the Chinese stopping, I think, their one child family program is the moral hazard one, that is the Chinese it is not going to increase their family size very much. We know now that in the past they probably would have gotten to the same place if they had not had the relatively coercive program. It is still much debated. But some of the things we did not recommend. We said these are the sorts of things that have been suggested or could be done. A good example is we said in one of our publications that it would be one of the things that might be good if you could do it safely and biologically safely would be to add something to the water supply - excuse my laryngitis - add something to the water supply that would make you have to take an antidote before you can have a baby and everybody say, "That's just terrible. That is ghastly." Ghastly? It would get rid of the whole abortion problem. It would get rid of the whole unwanted child problem, make people make rational decisions. It is certainly one of the things that every government must pay great attention to is the size and composition of its population. It’s probably the number one thing that should be in government policy. It at least discussed in Australia. In the United States, you can't even dare discuss it.

SOURCE: GST, Gonski, Population and Diversity

Protestations aside, forced sterilization programs were indeed something that Ehrlich discussed frequently and in great detail in his early work on the population issue—that is, before the public fully realized the horrors of his ostensible "solution" to the population "crisis."

In 1969 The New York Times reported how Ehrlich had told the United States Commission for UNESCO that "the Government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication."

A 1972 article in the Boca Raton News noting this proposal decried Ehrlich as "worse than Hitler," and pointed out how he opposed efforts to lift the Chinese out of poverty. It also quoted him as suggesting that some form of world governance was going to be necessary to institute "international policy planning" to "save the globe."

But most damning of all is Ecoscience, a 1977 textbook co-authored by Paul Ehrlich, his wife, Anne, and John P. Holdren, who would go on to become Obama's "science czar." In this book they not only double down on the idea of adding sterilants to the water supply (noting that "No such sterilant exists today" and lamenting that it would have to clear a number of technical hurdles in order to be "acceptable"), but they actually go so far as argue the constitutionality of population control and even forced abortions, concluding that such a practice "could be sustained under the existing Constitution."

In this book they also greatly elaborate on the type of world governmental body that would be required to enact a truly global population control program. Calling it a "Planetary Regime," which they describe as "sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment," they argue that it could "control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist," including all international trade and all food on the international market.

"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

Not surprisingly to those who have studied the confluence of eugenics, environmentalism and technocracy that formed the nucleus of our exploration of "Why Big Oil Conquered the World," the "answer" to the tehnocrats' (imaginary) problem is, once again, a global system of total control to implement the ultimate eugenics program of forced sterilization, forced abortion and selective breeding.

The worst part about this proposed system of population control is that it is not just based on a faulty premise, but a premise that is in fact the exact opposite of the truth. We are not facing the ticking time bomb of population explosion at all, but a demographic winter of plummeting fertility, where a growing number of countries, and eventually the world as a whole, will face terminal population decline.

KIM JIYEON: It's becoming harder to hearThe crying of newborns in Korea. The nation's birth rate has been on a steady decline over the past 40 years. Currently it has the lowest birth rate among the 34 OECD member countries. Last year the number of newborns stood at 436,500 a year, a 10 percent decrease from 2012. This means about 8.6 babies were born among a population of 1,000, the lowest since the year 1970, when the government first began recording population data.

SOURCE: Korea′s low birth rate worsening every year

JACK BARTON: Italy is struggling to escape recession and to bring down record high unemployment. Even if it manages that it
may still face its biggest economic challenge ahead, which is having one of the lowest birth rates in the world and a rapidly aging population.

MARY MERVA: The demographic timebomb is a huge threat and the solutions to that aren't politically acceptable: raise taxes, cut benefits, become more productive.

BARTON: Economists say Italy's problem is that more than a fifth of its population is now aged 65 years or over, and it's estimated that by the midpoint of this century the population will have fallen by 16 million people.

SOURCE: Italy's low birthrate problem

PRESENTER: Japan's leaders are working on a raft of new measures to encourage citizens to get married and have children in a bid to boost the country's flagging birth rate. With fewer babies being born and a rapidly aging population, Japan is facing an unprecedented demographic crisis with vast social, economic, and political repercussions.

SOURCE: Japan's Baby Drain

REPORTER: Spain has always had a low birthrate, but the impact of the financial crisis and high unemployment has further tipped the demographic balance. The number of births per year has dropped almost 13 percent since 2008. Today the average household has just 1.3 children, and the average age for a woman to have her first child is 31.

SOURCE: Spain faces demographic time bomb

WU GUOXIU: The world's most populous country has a dangerously low birth rate. A written report from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences says the fertility rate in China is now at 1.4 children/woman, close to the global warning line of 1.3, or the "low fertility trap." And it warns once it slips into the trap, no country has ever returned to the replacement level.

SOURCE: Chinese fertility rate drops into 'low fertility trap'

REPORTER: Fewer babies are being born in the United States. The latest birth statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show birth rates in this country are at a record low. Less than four million babies were born in the US last year, the smallest number in 30 years.

SOURCE: U.S. Birth Rates Hit a Baby Bust

MALCOLM BRABANT: With its rapidly aging population, Greece is not only facing a demographic time bomb. Its young generation is in the firing line of what a sociologist calls "geneocide" or annihilation.

SOTIRIS XTOURIS: If a country is losing a creative young generation, they do not have the means to reproduce itself. This will be a vicious cycle of degradation, of decline of the society.

SOURCE: Brain drain and declining birth rate threaten the future of Greece

China, once seen as ground zero for the population bomb, is now leading the way into this new reality of demographic winter. Their one-child policy, hailed by population control advocates like Ehrlich, quickly turned into a socially disastrous epidemic of sex-selective abortion and infanticide. Now China's working age population is shrinking, its retirement age population is booming, and its 25-49 year old population—responsible for new housing starts and most of the spending in the economy—reached its peak in 2014 and is now in permanent decline.

Recognizing the demographic disaster that their attempts at population control helped bring about, the Chinese government officially dropped the one-child policy in 2015. Ehrlich's response? To call the move "gibbering insanity" from "the growth-forever gang."

Japan's population is now shrinking and expected to drop under one hundred million—a 20% decline—by the middle part of the century. If current trends continue, the Japanese people are expected to be extinct within the next 1,700 years.

Low birth rates and economic migration have hit Eastern Europe especially hard, with countries like Bulgaria expecting a 30% population decline in the coming decades.

The birth rate in the United States has just hit a 30-year low, and future population growth is now projected to come from immigration, not new babies being born.

Mexico. Italy. South Korea. Country after country in every corner of the globe is now facing a population crunch due to a free-fall in birth rates and fertility.

While there are many factors that play into these trends—political, social and economic—there are certain scientific factors discernible in the statistics that point to something more nefarious entirely.

Since the 1950s a growing body of scientific literature has documented a steady decline in sperm count of men in certain geographic areas, most notably in parts of Europe and North America. Although there is still vigorous debate over the cause and nature of this decline in semen quality, endocrine disrupting chemicals such as phthalates that have been proven to disrupt sperm production in fish are being looked at as a potential cause. The bad news is that these offending chemicals are to be found in a bewildering array of products in the modern world, from sunscreen and cosmetics to shower curtains, frying pans, and even cheese.

NARRATOR: A new study reports significant declines in sperm count among men from Western countries and scientists aren't sure why. The researchers found total sperm count in men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand declined by almost 60%, while sperm concentration dropped 52%.

Declines in sperm count have been reported since 1992 but previous studies were criticized for small sample numbers and conflicting results this new study takes a broader approach looking at more than 7,000 studies from 1973 to 2011.

DR. HAGAI LEVINE: These findings have wide implications for Public health.

SOURCE: Sperm count declines found in Western men

NARRATOR: Some synthetic chemicals can disrupt or block the functioning of testosterone in the body, permanently damaging the sexual development of male children. This disruption of the human body's own system may be the greatest unintended consequences of the 20th century's chemical revolution.

SOURCE: The Disappearing Male

MELISSA DYKES: 'A mass sterilization exercise': Kenyan doctors find anti-fertility agent in UN tetanus vaccine. Kenyan doctors find anti-fertility agents in UN tetanus vaccine, and unfortunately this is not new and it's actually something that has been in the works since the 60s and it's happened in multiple other countries and it's horrifying that they're doing this. This is what's going on right now.

"Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government."

They are administering this tetanus toxoid vaccine to 2.3 million girls and women. It's sponsored through the World Health Organization and UNICEF and they've sent six samples of these vaccines to two different labs and both of them have come back conclusively that these vaccines are positive for HCG antigens all of these vaccines are laced with HCG.

SOURCE: Millions of Kenyan Women Given Vaccines Laced with a Sterilant

So now, half a century after Ehrlich announced the "population bomb," and four decades after people like Ehrlich and Holdren wrote of the need for a planetary regime to control the world population by adding sterilants to the water supply, the world is awash in chemicals that are causing mass infertility and declining sperm counts, abortifacients are ending up in UN-sponsored vaccination drives, and birth rates are plummeting across the globe. There are some that would argue this is coincidence.

But regardless of why the world is facing this infertility crisis at this particular moment, it remains the case that the overpopulation fearmongering has been remarkably successful. Ask 100 people on the street whether there are too many people in the world and 99 of them will answer in the affirmative. When these people, locked into this crisis mindset, finally discover the truth about declining fertility and falling birth rates, most of them will see this as a good thing.

This is the real issue: Most people believe that the world is a fixed and depleting pie over whose scraps we are condemned to fight. From this perspective, every new baby born into the world is merely a competitor for a limited supply of resources. A human obstacle in the path to abundance.

This "fixed pie" way of looking at the world is the depletionist mindset: More people means less resources to go around. The more of us there are, the poorer everyone will be. This is such an intuitive way of thinking about the world that most people never stop to realize that it is not, in fact, true.

INTERVIEWER: If you want more people you must like people.

JULIAN SIMON: Yes, I do like people. But I like them, I also admire them, luckily, however,
this admiration does not conflict with what we know about the scientific evidence about people. And let me cite a body of scientific literature which is now almost 30 years old, 25 years old.

For long—2,000 years and more—we know that people have believed that if you have more human beings that there would be less to go around, and that economies would develop more slowly than if there are fewer people. We can hang this idea on Malthus for convenient memory, but the idea has simply been that if you have two people trying to work an acre of land there'll be less output per acre than there would be if there's only one person. And if you have 10 people in the family there'd be less food and other goodies to go around that if they're only five people.

Then perhaps 25 years ago some economists began to explore the matter and say, "Let's check it out empirically. Let's look at the evidence that's available to us. Let's consider the sample of countries that we have historically and see if it really works that way." So the first of these was a man named Simon Kuznets, perhaps the greatest economic/demographic/statistical historian who has ever lived. And he looked at the evidence for all the countries which we have data for the past hundred years to see whether those countries that had faster population growth had slower economic growth. Lo and behold, no such negative relationship! Then he and other people also looked at the country's much larger number of countries which we had data, say for the past 25 years, and once again: no negative relationship. Exactly the opposite from what the simple-minded Malthusian theory had led us to expect for all these years.

This empirical scientific research liberates us to feel good about people in ways that we might not otherwise. We can not only like people and admire them for their individual qualities, but we can also see that people on balance are good for other people.

INTERVIEWER: But not all people.

SIMON: Not all people!

INTERVIEWER: I'm sure there's some behavior that you would—

SIMON: Not all people. But on average people create a little bit more than they use up in their lifetimes. People leave a little bit of good behind them so that each generation is a little bit richer and lives a little bit better than the generation which went before, on average. Now you're right that there are periods and there are places when we do worse. There are some of us who don't contribute and who use more than we let me contribute on average people give more to other people than they take and therefore we can admire people in the large as well as individually for being creators more than they are destroyers.

INTERVIEWER: Well at the individual level, what kind of person aren't you comfortable with? What kind of attributes cause you the most problem in an individual?

SIMON: That's a real curve ball, Bob. I think the attribute that distresses me most—aside from the usual ugly things of people who are bullies or exploiters—but among ordinary good people the attribute that causes me most trouble is lack of imagination and the inability to imagine the good things that can be created by other people. This feeds into people's fear about population growth, about their fear that we are going to be running out of copper and of oil. They can't imagine so many people simply are unable to conceive how other people can respond to problems with new ideas with imagination of the solutions which will leave us better off than the problems that never risen.

SOURCE: The PRC Forum - Julian Simon

Julian Simon, famed economist and author of The Ultimate Resource, had a remarkably similar background to Paul Ehrlich. Both were born in New Jersey in 1932. Both attended Ivy League schools. And both became interested in the problem of overpopulation.

Versed in the same literature and reading the same academic treatises as Ehrlich, Simon, too, became an advocate of population control. His earliest academic writing included essays drawing on his experience in the private sector to suggest ways of marketing population control programs to the public.

But, spurred by doubts about whether population reduction might actually harm humanity rather than save it, Simon (unlike Ehrlich) went back to the data to see if the population hysteria was actually justified. Finding that the data in fact showed the opposite of what doomsayers like Ehrlich were saying, Simon began writing articles arguing against the population control advocates.

But in the midst of the population bomb hysteria, it was almost impossible to get an anti-Malthusian message in front of the public. And so, as Pierre Desrochers of the University of Toronto Mississauga explains, Simon hit upon an idea for challenging Ehrlich's fearmongering in the most public way possible.

PIERRE DESROCHERS: OK, well. So Simon is at home watching Ehrlich on the Johnny Carson show when he goes bananas because he sees him all the time in his opinion spouting nonsense things that are not backed up by the data. But then, what are you gonna do? Because if you know the media you know that if it bleeds it leads and nobody wants to listen to him. He might be, you know, the most prominent anti-Malthusian but that's kind of like saying that you're the tallest of the seven dwarfs. I mean, he has no popular impact whatsoever.

And so, being a marketing person, he cooks up a scenario which he thinks that, you know, will turn out to be an offer that Ehrlich cannot refuse. And so what he does is that he makes a very public bet to Ehrlich to essentially put up or shut up. And so what he tells him is, "OK, select any five resources of your liking over any period of time of more than a year, and if as you say we're heading towards a Malthusian catastrophe, with more mouths to feed the finite resources, well obviously the price of these resources should go up over time." I mean that's basic economics. If on the other end hand the price of these resources decreases while population increases then it will show you that you're wrong and that humanity is actually able to create resources, not just consume them.

And so Ehrlich agrees and put it on paper-and this is important for how we will interpret the bet later-before other greedy people jump in. And so he recruits two of his regular collaborators, so the US science czar in the Obama administration, John Holdren, who was kind of a young protege of him, and another fellow at Berkeley, John Harte, a physicist. And so Ehrlich consults not only these two collaborators but other prominent Malthusians, and he tells them, "OK, what are the commodities that are really likely to see a shortage in the coming years?" And so he settles on the five commodities that you mentioned before.

And so the idea is that, OK, they will in theory buy two dollars of these commodities in late September 1980, and ten years later if the price of these commodities has gone up Simon will pay them the difference but if the price of these commodity goes down then Ehrlich will pay the difference. And so it turns out that in October 1990 Paul Ehrlich wrote a cheque of about five hundred seventy dollars to Julian Simon, put it in an envelope—and again for young people, you know, you put a paper check in a paper envelope, you put it in a mailbox—and so in mid-October 1990, Julian Simon finds in his mailbox a check written by Paul Ehrlich with nothing else.

Ehrlich never acknowledges that his perspective might have been wrong. He honors his bet but that's it, and then he goes on saying that, you know, "Stupid people can be wrong sometimes. The world will never run out of imbeciles." And he's very rude to Simon and always refuses to engage him in a public debate. So Simon won his bet with him, for years asked Ehrlich to debate him on stage, on TV, anywhere. He would agree to anything. And Ehrlich never had the guts—or would never demean himself, if you look at it from his perspective to debate someone like Julian Simon.

SOURCE: Interview 1107 – Pierre Desrochers Explains the Bet of the Century

The "Simon-Ehrlich wager" is now remembered as "the bet of the century" and a decisive victory for the anti-Malthusian mindset. But the real importance of the bet is often lost in the interpretation.

The change in price of these commodities (copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten) was never meant to be more than an imperfect economic measure of a much more important underlying truth: that the most important resource in the world—The Ultimate Resource, in Simon's formulation—is not chromium or tin or any other physical commodity, but human ingenuity itself.

JAMES CORBETT: Alright, a fascinating story in so many ways, and interesting, I think, for the characters of these two people, but perhaps more importantly for the ideas underlying this wager. So let's flesh that out a little bit for people who didn't quite catch this. So what is the ramification of commodity prices going up in ten years or going down. Why is this important to population?

DESROCHERS: OK, well that's an imperfect measure and Simon is the first to acknowledge that. But he settles on this particular indicator because, again, he's trying to get Ehrlich to take the bait.

And so again you've got to understand basic economics. You've got supply, you've got demand, and so the more a commodity is sought after the more its price should rise because, you know more people are willing to bet on it and what-have-you.

And so what is remarkable about the history of commodity prices is that in the last two centuries, as the human population went from roughly a billion people two centuries ago to over seven billion today, the price of virtually all commodities in a market economy—and this is important as Simon insisted on that the price of the commodity must not be over-regulated by governments—the price of all commodities—despite the fact that huge quantities of them are consumed and increasing quantities over time—the price of all these commodities has been either stable for long periods of times or has gone down.

Now of course you've got cyclical swings in the market, and so one could argue that if the bet that taken place between a different time period, Ehrlich would have won a few times, but the point that was always made by Simon and others is that if you take the longest perspective possible on any commodity, all these cyclical swings are not significant in the long run. The trend is really down. And what that means, in essence, is that resources, even the non-renewable ones, are not just a fixed amount of stuff that you have in the ground, but are created by the human brain.

And so petroleum, for example, would be a case in point. So throughout human history people noticed in a few places on the earth petroleum seeping out of the ground. And sometimes they would collect it for a number of reasons, but really the modern petroleum industry begins in the late 1850s in western Pennsylvania with Colonel Edwin Drake, who knows that petroleum can be used to develop kerosene, which is a substitute for whale oil which is actually becoming scarce at the time. And so he brings a few people with him and they begin to drill close to the natural oil seepages of western Pennsylvania. And so they use a technology that was first used in salt mining. You can go down about 70, feet and that's about as deep as they can go. And lucky enough the drill, I'm told—because I've been there—they drilled in the one spot where they could actually get oil that way.

And so what's interesting is that obviously all smaller deposits are finite, but over time what the petroleum industry does in the next century and a half is to create new technologies that allows humans to expand the resource base of a finite thing, which is petroleum. So over time new deposits are found, but also new technologies are developed to go get oil today—you know, you go four miles offshore, 2 miles below sea level, then another 2 miles down, then another 4 miles in one or another direction—and the cost of getting oil that way is about the same as it was in the late 1850s when, with the primitive technologies of the tim,e you could only go about 70 feet underground.

So I don't know if you'll show this image but there is obviously a finite amount of petroleum on earth. We don't know how much, but we first begin drilling for the most easily available resources and then we expand over time with new technologies. But the mistake that people like Ehrlich make is to think that, "Well of course we skim the best deposits first, and as a result the price of extracting the resource will increase over time." Whereas Simon and people of his mindset will point out, "Well, no, look at the historical data." The price is not only not going up, it's often going down, and that's because on the one hand you've got the type of deposits that you have access to, on the other you've got the new technologies to access those deposits. And what human history teaches us—even in the world of non-renewable resources—is that the human brain or capacity to come up with new ideas always more than make up for the fact that we're tapping into increasingly less interesting deposits.

And so with new technologies you can actually extract petroleum which might seem more difficult to reach than previous deposits. You can access it more easily and extract it more profitably or at least at a lower cost than before. And so you must always look at the kind of physical stuff that is around you but you must never forget the capacity of the human brain to develop technologies to tap into those resources ever more efficiently, which is why Simon referred to the human brain as "the ultimate resource."

Ultimately what is around us is not what matters. You know, there was coal for long before human beings came along, natural gas, iron ore, but this physical stuff only became a resource through the development of human technologies that allowed our ancestors to turn this otherwise worthless stuff into things that are valuable, and to do it increasingly efficiently over time. And when in the context of a market economy, Simon and others will tell you you've got a few things happening. You've got a feedback mechanism which is the price system, which tells you that when the price of a resource temporarily goes up—you know, there might be a war, there might be a shortage, there might be a new demand for a particular resource—well, this tells people to look for more of the stuff, to use it ever more efficiently, and to develop substitute.

And through the combination of these three forces triggered by the price mechanism, humanity has been able to expand its resource base. And after a century—after almost two centuries of industrialization, we've never not only run out of theoretically depletable resources, we've got more resources than ever before.

CORBETT: I like to think of the Ehrlichs of the 19th century screaming from the rooftops "Oh no! We're running out of whale blubber! How will we heat our homes? How will we have light? Oh no! We're all going to hell!" and the Simons of the 19th century pointing out, "Well, you know that sticky stuff that keeps bubbling up out of the ground? That might be important in the future."

SOURCE: Interview 1107 – Pierre Desrochers Explains the Bet of the Century

This is what the Ehrlichs of the world don't want you to think about. They want you to believe that the earth is a fixed and shrinking pie, and that every new baby that is born is just another mouth looking to consume a piece of that pie.

In reality, we live on a vast and expanding pie, made larger in each and every generation since Thomas Malthus started spreading his Chicken Little population propaganda by the very thing that these Malthusians hate the most: people. Babies are not a burden on the planet, not a cancer that must be eliminated from the face of the earth, but our most precious resource. Among the babies being born today are the inventors and explorers of tomorrow, the artists who will enrich our lives and the visionaries who will help us to see the world in a way we can't even imagine yet. They will create new technologies that make hitherto unknown and unthinkable resources available to us and will help to lift billions more out of abject poverty just as billions have been lifted out of poverty in the decades since Ehrlich first started warning us that the sky was falling.

Ehrlich and the other population fearmongers have been wrong in each and every generation since Malthus started predicting famines and the collapse of civilization two centuries ago. And they will continue to be wrong until the world, realizing that the human brain is the only resource that really matters, stops giving charlatans like Ehrlich awards and start concentrating on the demographic winter that is the real threat to humanity.



Filed in: Podcasts
Tagged with:

Comments (86)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Gaslight says:

    I wish I could share Corbett’s optimism in closing this piece, but I cannot.

    The population is being culled, and minds dulled via a myriad of avenues, including (of course) use of the world’s most popular recreational drug: Marijuana

    “Smoking Marijuana lowers fertility”

    -Web MD (and many other sources)

    • Duck says:

      so? dumb people will die off and the smart people will survive.
      The evil is only when the game is rigged the way the markets are so,

      • Gaslight says:

        …when the vast majority are morons, it ruins things for everyone.

        Have a good look around my friend.

        • Duck says:

          true…but i doubt it can go on for too long. Idiocracy wa a good movie but things would have fallen apart long before it go so bad. Its only the way that markets and societies are rigged that make the crash hard.
          I support peoples right to drink and drug themselves to happiness or death as they see fit since using the power of the state to stop them has been one of the most destructive forces of the last 90 years.
          Prohibition created the crime wave and police-prison industry and thats a way worse evil them some people dieing in their own vomit thru their own actions
          Thats what I think anyway…

          • Gaslight says:

            …pretty much agreed Duck,

            Folks have the right to with their bodies what they may as long as no harm comes to another in the process. However, (as we all know) a price will be paid (individually & collectively) in accordance with natural law. i.e: (of course) we should not always do what we have the right to do, and in spite of what the “new agers” tell us. There’s a right, and a wrong. Proof of it is all around us. We’re swimming in the consequences of our actions/inactions.

  2. scpat says:

    This was a goddamn masterpiece. James and Brock you have outdone yourselves again. What a collection and portrayal of this important information. Thank you.

    Here is an interesting article and study on a correlation between fast food consumption and infertility in women. Conversely, there seems to be a correlation between fruit consumption and increased fertility in women.


    • tunneller says:

      Yes, I agree. Yet again another quality video James, Well done.

      I wrote about this subject sometime ago and have always found it astonishing how people instantly assume that the science is correct on this. You also added some very interesting nuggets of information from those interviews.

      The depopulation agenda straddles so much of the technocratic-transhumanist and eco-intelpro activities of our Elite, their common denominator being pseudoscience usually spawned from Rockefeller-funded social science outfits. It’s yet more evidence of psychopathic thinking which always worships a subjective appraisal of reality saturated in belief rather than objective science.

      If folks are interested you can see some the info I gathered on this topic as part of a Big Picture view here:


    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      scpat says:
      This was a goddamn masterpiece. James and Brock you have outdone yourselves again. What a collection and portrayal of this important information. Thank you.”

      This is now on my top “favorites” list.
      I am so impressed with how Corbett weaves the story.
      “The Value of Humanity” is highlighted in super bold font.
      By inference, it also strikes hard against wars and other ways ‘The Powers That Should Not Be’ strive to dehumanize man.

  3. calibrator says:

    The funniest thing of it all is that “Ehrlich” is German for “Honest”.
    (of course lower case would be correct)

    In other words: His name gives him away – he is as trustworthy as a used cars dealer! 😉

  4. I Shot Santa says:

    One thing that I remember from Truthstream’s piece on the second book was that stevia was discussed as a contraceptive food. It apparently came from Paraguayan (I think) indians. They would drink a little bit of it every day as a sugar water drink when they wanted to party and not have to pay the bill. I agree, human population is a big pile of steaming BS. You could stick everybody in the world on a half-acre of land that wouldn’t fill the state of Texas. Though on youboob, the standard response is that “they’d need more resources than a half-acre”. Those people do need to be culled. Luckily, they do a fine job of it by eating solely at MacDonalds. JimBob who often points such people right to the local MacDonalds if it looks like they’re hungry.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I am currently growing Stevia.

      • I Shot Santa says:

        Have you heard of this before? I never used stevia, as I don’t use sugar enough to switch from cane. They were using the numbers from this book, but I never bothered following up on it. JimBob who don’t like nothing sweeter than a scupperling anyway.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Yes, I have heard about that Stevia mention. In fact, Corbett made a comment about the “TruthStream Video” sterility reference.
          Here is the THREAD along with a short pdf “The Sweet Stevia Conspiracy”.

          Personally, I don’t think that a small, occasional amount of Stevia will affect fertility. Perhaps, large doses could. But, dang! A pinky-nail part of a leaf will be too sweet for most folks. It just takes a small amount to sweeten something.

          There are many other herbs which are much more effective at reducing fertility. Pennyroyal can cause an abortion, and historically has been used for such.
          It also can repel bugs.

          …But, I got a wild hair once with pennyroyal. I was by the woods and grabbed a bunch from my garden, rubbing it on my arms to repel bugs. (It is known for being able to repel flies and other bugs.) That hot Texas sun reacted with it. I never did notice any type of pain nor burning. However, a few days later, and then lasting for about 6 weeks, my arms looked like they had been badly burned. Bright, richly red patches and swaths on a fair skinned, white boy’s forearms.

          • heartruth says:

            Reading your conversation on Stevia reminded me that it’s used on a massive commercial scale in Japan:

            “The first commercial stevia sweetener in Japan was produced by the Japanese firm Morita Kagaku Kogyo Co., Ltd. in 1971…In 2006, Japan consumed more stevia than any other country, with stevia accounting for 40% of the sweetener market.”

            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

            Is it just a coincidence that at current rates, theoretically at least, the Japanese could potentially become “extinct” within 1700 years? (Quoting – hopefully correctly James’ comment)

            It seems like the Japanese could be consuming significant amounts of Stevia every day. Presumably, in a manufactured (concentrated?) form, rather than leaf form.

            Perhaps this would be the tipping point in terms of impacting fertility?

  5. manbearpig says:

    Don’t know about later reports but for the last 5 years or so I’ve had a hardcopy of and have often referred to the 2009 UN demographic report entitled

    “World Population Ageing 2009”

    This report focuses primarily on the challenges in terms of quality of life that an aging Western world is facing along with those confronting the developing world that is ageing formidably more quickly.

    But in addition to extended lifespan, this aging population, as amply explained in the report, is due to nearly universally dropping fertility rates.

    Showing these quotes to students who firmly believe the Malthusian media does produce a certain impact mostly in the form of perplexity thanks to the UN authorship:

    “…Population ageing is pervasive since it is affecting nearly all the countries of the world. Population ageing results mainly from reductions of fertility that have become virtually universal…”

    ƒ”…Because fertility levels are unlikely to rise again to the high levels common in the past, population ageing is irreversible and the young populations that were common until recently are likely to
    become rare over the course of the twenty-first century…”

    “…Currently, the total fertility rate is below the replacement
    level in practically all industrialized countries. In the less developed regions, the fertility decline started later and has proceeded faster than in the more developed regions…” (perhaps massive tetanus vaccination campaigns laced with HCG might have something to do with this phenomenon…)

    “…The process underlying global population ageing is known as the “demographic transition”, a process whereby reductions in mortality, particularly at young ages, are followed by reductions in fertility…”

    “…The reduction of fertility has been dramatic since 1950. At the world level, total fertility has dropped almost by half, from 4.9 children per woman in 1950-1955 to 2.6 in 2005-2010, and it is expected to keep on declining to reach 2.0 children per women in 2045-2050.
    Fertility is well below replacement level in the more developed regions.
    As a result of the sustained decline in fertility that occurred in developed countries during the twentieth century, total fertility in the more developed regions has dropped from an already low level of 2.8 children per woman in 1950-1955 to an extremely low level of 1.6 children per woman in 2005-2010.
    This level is well below that needed to ensure the replacement of generations (about 2.1 children per woman). In fact, practically all developed countries are currently experiencing below-replacement fertility.
    United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division 5
    Fertility decline in the less developed regions started later and has proceeded faster.
    Major fertility reductions in the less developed regions occurred, in general, during the last three decades of the twentieth century. From 1950-1955 to 2005-2010, total fertility in the developing world dropped by over half from 6.0 to 2.7 children per woman (figure 2).

    etc. etc. etc…


    Winter is coming.

    • I Shot Santa says:

      1.6? Looks like my neighborhood will be thinning out. I wonder what the rates are once you account for income? No real reason, I just used to love to play with those kinds of numbers. I’m at the bottom end of the baby boomers. Born in 1960. But I’m really betting on a lot of the younger generation here kicking the bucket before my generation. There are a lot of people who are leaving their teens far fatter and out of shape both mentally, emotionally, and physically than any other generation in history. So, not only fewer young, the ones we have are going to be of lower quality. And to think I don’t even have a pair of long pants, much less a winter outfit ready for this blizzard. JimBob who always gets grumpier than usual whenever it’s under 70. And that’s Fahrenheit for all you uncivilized metric people.

      • manbearpig says:

        Yes, demographic sector statistics of a given population are probably very telling.

        And on another note (related to your remark about younger generations being less fit than older ones) I wonder what’s going to happen to all those poor kids drugged to the teeth with Ritalin for their so-called ADHD or ADD (or whatever the hell they call it…) in terms of fertility and disease factors in the long run… maybe less because of the “central nervous system stimulant” itself (maybe) and more due to the fact that these kids probably continue to ingurgitate huge quantities of sugar, chemicals, hormones and pesticides et al. and will come to assume drugs are the prime solution to any “mal être”…very good present and future clients for Big Pharma…

        “…Between 2007 and 2012, methylphenidate prescriptions increased by 50% in the United Kingdom and in 2013 global methylphenidate consumption increased to 2.4 billion doses, a 66% increase from the year before. The United States continues to account for more than 80% of global consumption…

        …One of the highest use of methylphenidate medication is in Iceland [citation needed] where research shows that the drug was the most commonly abused substance among intravenous substance abusers.[162] The study involved 108 IV substance abusers and 88% of them had injected methylphenidate within the last 30 days and for 63% of them, methylphenidate was the most preferred substance…”


        “…The epidemic is twofold. First, there are adults or adolescents who become addicted to stimulants, whether they first acquire them in clinical or recreational settings. Second, there are the enormous number of children who—it seems difficult to dispute—are being overdiagnosed with ADHD. Diagnosis rates, as Schwarz describes, are skyrocketing: Whereas expert groups (i.e. the American Psychiatric Association) contend that ADHD is a mental illness affecting 5 per cent of children, numbers from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that today, some 15 per cent of children in the United States will ultimately be diagnosed with the disorder by the end of their childhood. Indeed, he states, the drugs are even being given to thousands of toddlers as young as 2 and 3 years of age—despite a lack of good evidence for their use in such neuro-developmentally immature individuals…”


        • I Shot Santa says:

          I think one of the most telling aspects of the big pharma mentality is that the leader of the Japanese unit which did all those vivisections in WW2 later on became the CEO of a large Japanese pharmaceutical company. He remained unapologetic. Yes, the fallout from the naivete of the people in accepting this paradigm is possibly terminal as far as our species continuing. But I doubt it will lead to that. But they may get their 500 million. Though I doubt they’ll be one of them. Most of them are too far divorced from reality to survive. But a redneck’ll make it through. We always do. JimBob who also thinks a lot of street drunkards will make it as well since you can’t hardly kill one of them.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Sidenote on ADHD
          Fluoride has been shown to cause ADHD type symptoms. The study was with pregnant rats who were given fluoride. The offspring had ADHD type symptoms. However, grown rats had a different reaction, becoming more lethargic and seemingly easily fatigued, among other problems.

          • manbearpig says:

            Ok. Interesting.

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            Here is one reference about ADHD behavior from Fluoride prenatal exposure. (See Part 2 -NEUROTOXICITY OF FLUORIDE ) There are other references.

            Watching some of the YouTube videos of Mullenix lecturing on Fluoride is very interesting. Cellular activity is easily disrupted by Fluoride.

            • I Shot Santa says:

              And also, Jack Lalanne, the old fitness guru, had ADHD as a child from eating white bread that was bleached with chemicals instead of sunlight. Has anyone ever sued the ADA? I know the government has placed themselves out of practical reach, but the ADA has been knowingly pushing the fluoride fraud and they don’t have bottomless pockets. JimBob who likes fluoride a lot less after moving to fluorida.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                The ADA brings in about 120 to 130 million a year. Repeatedly, the ADA has suppressed sound scientific research, which they, in part, had sponsored.
                The referenced article above mentions how Mullinex was put through the meat grinder when they suppressed her research.

                Here is a top Dental Scientist, Dr. Hardy Limeback. Not just a researcher, but a DENTAL Researcher. The Dental Mafia tried to destroy him…and pretty much ruined a wonderful career which he had going for him.
                He talks about class action lawsuits.

                NOTE: Hardy points out that a 3 year old who stops Fluoride intake could still develop dental fluorosis, because fluoride accumulates in the body. It will continue to leach out of the bones and migrate to the teeth.

                Colgate had a class action lawsuit brought against them for causing dental fluorosis in a community which did not have fluoridation of the water. They did settle out of court.

                Dental fluorosis (white spots/streaks on the teeth or even brown teeth or easily stained teeth) now affects about 50% of the kids in the U.S. Teeth are more brittle, as are bones, and can crack more readily. The normal teeth growth cycle is “mutated”.

                Most dentists do not tell the patient about fluorosis.
                A large percentage of dental fluorosis patients spend $10k-$70k over their lifetime for cosmetic dentistry.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Wow, that toxic waste disposal business is a real money-maker. Too bad most people never note that money was the last on the types of riches in Napolean Hill’s classic. I will just never understand people who measure themselves by their bank accounts. Nothing wrong with having tons of money, but it’s how you get it, view it and use it that counts. JimBob who ain’t really got enough money to properly demonstrate how to use it; but he’s always taking donations.

    • scpat says:

      Nice link and quotes. Thanks for that.

    • mik says:

      Thanks for
      “…..tetanus vaccination campaigns laced with HCG….”

      I found interesting review article:

      Milestones in contraceptive vaccines development and hurdles in their application

      They research many (all) possible ways.
      Very disturbing.

  6. barry2 says:

    Excellent on debunking Ehrlich and his generation of neo malthusians. Has links with your other work on Rockefellers et al who have promoted eugenics as a necessary component of their one world superstate. I have some reservations about your optimism on the supply side, however. There is massive deforestation taking place as I write, partly to harvest wood itself, but also to clear land for monoculture farming, in SE Asia where I live this is being done for palm oil production with massive environmental destruction. The longer term sustainability of this is dubious to say the least. Another concern is oil. While it is true more sources are being opened up, if the metric energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) rather than money (which is itself woven into the oil market – eg the petrodollar) then some authorities contend that this peaked possibly as far back as the 1980s. If so we are into a period of diminishing returns for oil in energy terms. Once again there are hopes for technical fixes in the form of ‘renewables’ but apart from limitations of supply varying with time of day, weather etc. the EROI of these technologies is not high. My own hunch is that the suburban commuter life style may become very difficult to sustain in the near future. OTOH there is the possiblity of alternative life styl where food is grown in the suburbs on small lots etc as advocated in other posts by Corbett and friends. Thanks for another excellent presentation.

    • Duck says:

      I read that the suburbs will be the new poverty stricken areas as high paying work moves into the hipster city of appartments and smart cities … honestly as long as people keep chickens and grow a garden life would not be bad at all to be poor in the suburbs compared to poor in the inner city. I doubt that the commuter life will vanish anytime soon though it will become more expensive.
      Peak oil is kinda a red herring, the fracking was filling a lot of energy needs until oil prices were deliberately dropped to make it uneconomic. If thats so easy oil will be pretty cheep for a while yet

  7. Duck says:

    Good article… I guess its true that bad news and doom always gets more attention- I had one guy online argue that they had never said things such as the west would be starving before 2000 and no ice by 2000 and such like even when I showed him links to old articles on the subjects
    I doubt the Japanese will die off though, whatever the ‘maths’ and To be honest with automation there really wont be a need for (atleast) the lower skilled third of the workforce so a smaller population wont crash the economy as long as productivity per worker rises.
    What is weird is how the west is importing a low skill workforce to fill jobs that wont exist in 10 years.
    If we dont get some kind of universal income being tried within a decade or two I’ll be surprised since in the US they’ve been slipping people off the books as ‘disabled’ for years and free money is an easy way to ease people into all kind of bad habits and an early grave.

  8. wall says:

    This article shows at least 2 instances where David Hogg committed fraud. In one instance he admitted was at home and had to ride down to the school on his bicycle to get video of the event.

    In the second it’s shown that he recorded the video at 9:32am when the shooting happened at about 2pm. I don’t know how legit this site is, but the article points out some interesting and provable fraud that Hogg has committed.


    In these two you can see that there were more shots fired even after Cruz started blending in with other students to leave the building. This would have been the point at which, had he been the shooter, he would have already ditched the gun, so he couldn’t have fired anymore shots at this point. This basically proves that he was not the shooter since we all know there was only 1 shooter. No one can challenge that there was only 1 shooter since that’s the official narrative.

    “Is Nikolas Cruz innocent?”

    “Senior From Parkland, Florida High School Claims She Was With Nikolas Cruz During Tragic Shooting”

    In this video Cruz is called the nicest person.

    “‘He was probably one of the nicest people I’ve ever met in my life’”

  9. wall says:

    You know what’s really sad about this crap? The same stupid class of cunts that came up with this population bomb idea are the same stupid class of cunts in control of our screwed up vaccination system, which is likely the main cause of cognitive deficiencies in the US… I mean, these assholes are the likely cause of any problems that could arise because of population increase due to this.

    And I am not referring just to autism, but also to learning disabilities and the decline in IQ we are facing.

    BTW autism is just an inability to form and maintain normal neural connections caused usually by things like aluminum and mercury in vaccines. The aluminum is actually worse than the mercury because it stays in the brain longer. Start looking at the stuff ageofautism and Chris Exley put out. High silica content water (like FIJI water) helps remove aluminum from the body BTW. I have also wondered about the role of permeability in the gut and intestines of autistics. If allergens make it through more easily, then perhaps aluminum and other heavy metals get through more easily as well?

    • I Shot Santa says:

      Horsetail, an ancient grass, is almost entirely silica. I used it to whup arthritis. It works. You can buy it by the pound at Mountain Rose Organics. I just put a quarter tsp in a couple of drinks every day. JimBob who will also buy your warts for a penny.

  10. André says:

    Excellent video!

    Poor title.

    ‘The Population Bomb’ Hoax, or something of the sort, would grab more eyeballs.

  11. Mielia says:

    Just watched it on bitchute.
    In those videos I’d be happy when at the end there would be questions asked, like: Are there similar popular charlatans spouting nonsense now? Who might they be? What do you think?
    (Might draw further people do corbetts website between as well :D; but that’s just a hopeful guess.)

    I’m happy Ehrlich is always spoken in English manner, not in the way his name would be spoken in German (which it very probably is originally from). As his name is the absolute opposite of his character. ehrlich=honest. (makes it easier not to remember him, when saying ehrlich in German)

    Thanks, great work!

    PS: Simon’s quote towards lack of imagination really struck home! Voluntaryism, alternative schools. People really have it hard to imagine… …albeit, ‘flying on a private jet to Bilderberg 2018’ by wearechange was much about imagining in an entrepreneurial way and ‘wearewinning’ funnily so.

  12. mik says:

    I like the video because it gives very positive massage while going against the prevailing paradigm that humanity is a pest to the Earth.

    I’m always shocked how people can’t realize that espousing pest-idea is actually an example of utterly bad self-esteem. At the same time most of them are well aware bad self-esteem on a personal level is huge obstacle to achieve anything.

    In support of their stand normies then evoke huge environmental depletion and disasters (not to mention climate change). They are not aware they actually made a fundamental attribution error.
    People’s behavior is to big extent determined by current socioeconomic order. Therefore saying current socioeconomic order is responsible would be much closer to the truth.

    Low fertility rates are not just because of all kinds of poisons. I believe personal choice contributes most. People choose to have less children because raising children is demanding, stressful and costly (beside being beautiful unique experience).

    Erlich-Simon bet proves nothing. Maybe falling prices are just reflecting rising supply. Maybe demand has been cartelized and got bigger purchasing power. Companies nowadays think just few years ahead.

    Certainly I don’t agree with Julian Simon when he is using historical data and projecting the future. Like fundamental change is impossible.
    Earth is finite. No one can claim human ingenuity will always find solution, like it is not possible that we terribly mess something up.

    • Duck says:

      “….I’m always shocked how people can’t realize that espousing pest-idea is actually an example of utterly bad self-esteem. At the same time most of them are well aware bad self-esteem on a personal level is huge obstacle to achieve anything….”
      You should read ” culture of narcissism” by lasch… he predicted a lot of the mental/cultural issues the west would go thru due to the breaking down of important pre-industrial structures. The idea of people as pest is IMO a mental issue people get from the way they are brought up in daycares and schools and by media rather then by families that give them a sense of their value inside a greater unit.

  13. BbobKS says:

    I was sterilized by by participation in popular culture in 60,70,1980’s after getting married in latter I found that fertility treatment to have children was not covered by medical and extremely expensive,, if I wanted children I couldn’t have a house, car due to potential expenses ! this led me to the not so funny day that I walked unto local Planed Parenthood believing they offered free counseling and services and ask them for assistance , they chuckled and gave me abortion paperwork and I suppose they must have thought I was going to pull out a boom box and start striping because it was a joke to them ! Sadly now that I have resources my wife and I are too old and in hind site I should have tried harder but the brainwashing of my liberal mother made me believe this Ehrlich crapola ! The world will loose my line and the kind and gentile spirit of my wife when we die !

    • manbearpig says:

      My childhood best friend’s brother had a vasectomy for exactly the same reason. I remember feeling strangely shocked and sad when I learned of it. Of course they didn’t. At least not at the time.
      That family, who I adore, is nonetheless still perpetuating a tradition of rabid feminism that doesn’t seem to be doing the women in the family much good as both my old friend and her daughter beginning at age 16 have been on prozac. Her son (a very lovable and bright Young man) has landed short jail stints for minor drug dealing.
      It’s heartbreaking. They are Peace Corps volunteers from grandfather and grandmother to daughter to grand-daughter – They all ardently desire to do the right thing… to walk the talk…

      Anyhow, thanks for your moving post. Now I gotta get hamstering!

    • Gaslight says:

      Thanks for the input “BbobKS”,

      The world is indeed losing the best as the worst are promoted.

      This means technological advancements will (of course) will remain in the hands of evil.

      We clearly see a society of narcissists emerging as gnosticism is further externalized.

      Folks are constantly updating their respective facebook pages, tweeting the useless “opinions” provided for them by media, and now even setting up their own personal web sites as if they were celebrities. These are full grown “adults” we’re talking about here.

      A society of gnostic followers who do not understand they’re being folded into a religion of the self as God. It is the most ancient, and it shall be the only remaining religion when it’s all said and done. A world of luciferians obsessed with their own reflections.

  14. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Drinking Water
    Repeatedly, and also around the 9 minute mark of the video, Ehrlich calls for putting sterility drugs in water and food.

    Of course, I am fixated on drinking water quality and Fluoride, because I am in the middle of that fight in the North Texas area. DallasForSaferWater.com
    I want to mention that most people, even “awake” individuals, greatly underestimate just how toxic the drinking water is.

    Generally speaking, for many North American areas, more than 500 health damaging contaminants & chemicals exist in the drinking water. Some chemicals, which are deliberately added, react with other chemicals to produce some bizarre combinations.

    We know that Fluoride messes with testosterone and fertility, but it also reacts with other chemicals and metals, much less reacts on a cellular level in the body. We know Fluoride accumulates in plants, animals and soil… …and thus Fluoride pesticides on the chicken food ends up accumulating in chicken bones resulting in a major Fluoride intake from eating chicken McNuggets.

    Like Corbett pointed out, we have phthalates and other plasticizers (especially in bottled water), which definitely affect fertility.

    Many drugs, including birth control drugs, get flushed down the toilet through urination or ‘dumping’, and end up again downstream in another city’s water supply.

    Back around April, hundreds and hundreds of people and pets had reactions from the water in North Texas. Some pets and horses died. It hits home when you hear the stories. One lady, speaking before city officials, was in tears explaining how she lost the fetus.

    Personally, I don’t feel that the poisons added to water and food are part of a nefarious, hidden master scheme of a “Ruling Dr. Evil”, although there are probably people like Ehrlich who find joy in such things.
    There are probably a variety of reasons why our water is poisoned.

    One reason, for sure, is that people “trust” authorities. Like the EPA and the CDC.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I want to spruik a book:
      “The Hidden Cause of Acne – How Toxic Water is Affecting Your Health and What You Can Do About It” by Melissa Gallico.

      She has a unique marketing approach, because she is targeting an audience which might not ordinarily visit places like the Corbett Report.
      Yet, her target audience is vast. And there is strong interest in the topic of skin with huge amounts of money spent on skin aids.

      …Every story has a storyteller. Like a musician conjuring a new piece of music into existence, it is the storyteller who decides who the main characters will be, where the story will start, how it will end, and every detail in between….”

      In the book, Fluoride is the villain. The references and footnotes are superb. And it is written for someone who may not have an interest in “science” nor in dry, technical jargon. But it is a fascinating story told to someone seeking a solution for something important in their lives.

  15. AnimalsArentFood says:

    I have no problem with mass-sterilization because I have no problem with actions taken against beings who don’t exist and never will exist.
    My concern is the deception, the hijacking of science and the safety of the method used to sterilize. I don’t trust these psychopaths to use a safe method; a method which does no harm to the beings who do exist. I don’t even trust that they have the ability to correctly identify a safe method.
    With that said, I have a question:
    Why do we have powerful people incentivizing reproduction via tax breaks (and many other benefits) for those who reproduce AND powerful people trying to stop people from reproducing?
    Why do we have powerful people pushing to keep people dependent on oil AND powerful people trying to bring an end to oil dependency?
    How many high-power factions are there, who is leading each faction and which faction currently has the most power?
    I would love to see that subject covered in a Corbett video some day.

    • Gaslight says:

      I can answer your questions friend.

      Flooding the country with immigrants and incentivising them to reproduce is part and parcel of squeezing out the middle class. Immigrant birth rates shall eventually be lowered when they’ve served their purpose.

      James has covered the big oil/green revolution scam in “Why Big Oil Conquered the World” (one of his best)

      The short and very accurate answer to your question is: The “factions” you speak of here are one in the same. It’s a trick.

    • mik says:


      If one is pimping, financing both sides of dichotomies, one can steer, manipulate both sides.

      With control of both sides you can pit people against each other.

      And when powerful congregate, for example Bilderberg this year, one of topics is:

      11. The “post-truth” world

      They are very successful because people have forget/haven’t learn that path of wisdom lays somewhere in the middle between dichotomies.

      Following video also fits well here:

      How rule the world. Lecture at the FSB (KGB)

    • I Shot Santa says:

      Milan, that was an excellent video. He’s the kind of professor that started all those good stereotypes about professors! But he looks, sounds, and moves just like Floki in the show The Vikings. JimBob who is now trying to imagine the professor swinging a battle-axe, but it’s not easy.

  16. milan says:

    Hans Rosling very nicely explain that: “world population won’t exceed 11 billion” and why not:


  17. milan says:

    Interesting, nobody mention book from 1972. “The Limits to Growth” in which some relevant numbers and calculation were presented regarding grown.


    • manbearpig says:

      “…From the Club of Rome’s 1972 Limits to Growth fear-mongering and Ehrlich’s inaccurate doomsday predictions about everything to Gore’s doom porn and the modern tendency to blame everything that ever happens on global warming, this documentary set the stage for the anti-human framing of the modern (oiligarch-funded, carbon-eugenics-obsessed, technocracy-promoting) environmental movement…”

      -James Corbett


      Milan’s a beautiful name.

      Is that the Atari logo you’ve got there in the form of a triple-grooved “M”?


      • milan says:

        half man half bear half pig 🙂 (I love South Park).

        Thanks for link to Club of Rome note.

        Yes, it is Atari logo. Did you also have Atari computer back in 80s and 90s?

  18. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I well remember all the talk here in the U.S. in the late 60’s, early 70’s about Japan. Their population growth would soon create a catastrophic situation for their small island(s). Japan was often cited as an example of impending over-population problems.

  19. Gaslight says:

    Here’s how incredibly simple it is to debunk the lie of immigration (a form of warfare)

    Even a child could understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

  20. Gaslight says:

    In case anyone hadn’t noticed. Virtually all the minds in America have been turned to applesauce.

    Those who think they can reach them without simplifying the presentations are quite simply shoveling s**t against the tide.

    This fight is about BRINGING UP the consciousness of those who remain in the dark, and certainly NOT about preaching to the choir we’ve got gathered here.

    We’re in allot of trouble, so put the damn ego’s aside, and try to think of ways to reach the AVERAGE folk out there.

    • Duck says:

      the issue is possibly ‘digital dementia’ , considering that people have been trained by TV and later the net and now smartphones and tablets to never focus on a single task or issue for any length of time. Consider that people used to play games like Zork and ask yourself how many would have the patience to do so now.
      While people are naturally lazy the last three generations have seen a steady decline in literacy and mathematics. An inability to focus prevents learning.
      The regular folks prob wont be at all interested in whats going on behind the sceans until after they have at least an interest in whats happening in the REGULAR EVERYDAY news. People will only care about things when they start to impact their everyday lives and even then we’ve got so much gameification and escapism that its hard to see the source of their troubles.
      Sorry… thats not a solution. 🙁

      • Gaslight says:

        …try “The Tiny Dot” (Larken Rose) on youtube. Simple, and presentable to even a child.

        James has had him on many times, and praised the work.

        Perhaps “Mikey” would like to slam Mr. Corbett too eh?

    • mik says:

      You would like to reach people, help them, but at the same time you describe their minds as applesauce.
      Your attitude might be a problem if you would really like walk the talk.

      I agree that you should be aware to whom you are talking and adjust your message so they will get you.
      But that doesn’t mean give them half-truths and misleading messages, like you did with your immigrants video. Or when you were claiming few days ago that feminized seeds of weed are GMO. And….

      There is no need to protect your children from Tolstoy or Voltaire (your next post). For learning is best to always give a bit more than they are able to get.

      “Those who think they can reach them without simplifying the presentations are quite simply shoveling s**t against the tide.”

      People are fed with simplified stuff all the time and this is the reason their cognitive abilities are not developed well, their knowledge insufficient, awareness just basic.

  21. manbearpig says:

    Totally tangential anecdote: a “Human Interest” story from last week that’s made a huge buzz in France:

    Once upon a time, there was Mamoudou the Spiderman Hero;

    One day in Paris, in a seemingly effortless way, Mamoudou, a telegenic and unauthorized immigrant from Mali, scaled 5 floors up the outside of an appartment building from balcony to balcony in less than 45 seconds to save a four-year old apparently hanging onto a balcony railing for dear life.

    This remarkable feat earned the young man, of course, his papers, a job as a fireman and glory from President Macron himself…

    -Macron, in turn, has polished his image as the savior of immigrants…

    -Conspiracy theorists have been copiously bad-mouthed for doubting the veracity of the event in many creative ways except the plausible ones (for some reason…)

    -And naturally, within a context of considerable unemployment, the way immigrants in general are perceived by a rather beleaguered population (everything’s relative) has probably been enhanced thanks to profoundly moving interviews describing Mamoudou’s harrowing adventures fleeing Mali to reach French soil.

    So a win, win, win, win situation at the very least…

    There is an aspect of the whole story that doesn’t seem to figure prominently in the headlines and heated public conspiracy debates and that is; that the child is said to have fallen from the floor above and somehow, miraculously caught the railing of the balcony below as he was falling, without injuring in the least, the upper part of his body. Indeed, his injuries were pointedly listed as being a ripped out fingernail and a bloody toe.

    Emerging from the collective colonialist subconscience are poignant images of the oft expressed fantasy of the strong muscle-bound loyal black man selflessly protecting the white man and his children from peril, a story that, besides having ensured the outrageous success of the highly entertaining French blockbuster “Intouchable”, helps to circumvent the skeptical reasoning mind when explaining to a partially jobless and ageing French population why, despite alleged Islamic terrorism reportedly incubating in its ghettos, immigrants are desirable new elements of their infertile society.

    Strangely, a similar event happened yesterday in Lyon this time featuring a professional soldier and an 18-month old toddler hanging from a first floor (second floor for Americans) balcony railing.


    And for some reason, when my son spoke to me of this incredible tale, all I could could see was “The Raft of the Medusa” with echos of “Winter is coming…”

    and “survival of the fittest…” ringing in my inner ear…

  22. Gaslight says:

    The “source of their trouble” is this:

    Most are not introspective enough to retain what they may learn from guys like Corbett, Ed Griffin, Allan Watt (not to be confused with Allan Watts).

    They’re right back to the TV nonsense, and a big ole’ blunt within minutes.

    You don’t start children off with Tolstoy or Voltaire. It doesn’t work that way, correct? Stands to reason doesn’t it friend?

    If not you’ll need to explain how you can say the law of nature itself: “is not the solution”

    …baby steps for babies, and (of course) we must learn to walk before we can run my freind.


  23. Gaslight says:

    …here’s yet another guy with a knack for putting things into simple terms.

    Mr. Corbett has had him on, and praised his work several times.

    The Tiny Dot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs

  24. karsten says:

    I don’t share the enthuiasm on this piece, and feel inclined to ask whether James is actually out on a limb on this one, and is actually propagating a biased and emotionally driven stance. Paul Ehrlich might be a lousy scientist, and he might be a person with an exagerated ego, and this big ego might just be so perfectly content with his bombastic messages, but still I cannot understand why nobody here is willing to recognize, that the jury is still out on this matter.

    My point is not for the support of neo-malthusian conceptions, and of course human beings have the potential to be and maybe already are the greatest force of good on the planet, but who will dispute that human beings at the same time are the source of the greatest destruction on the planet. And the scale of this destruction has been ramped up along with all our ingenious new ways to extract ressources.

    Personally I am convinced, that humanity and life on earth are at an inflection point, a paradigm shift, and a major part of this paradigm shift has to do with a shift in thinking from a linear and extractive economic mindset to a holistic and circular economic mindset. And people like Paul Ehrlich and studies like “Limits To Growth” should rather be considered as vastly expansive new storylines for humanity than broken down by scientific pedantry.

    Back in the late sixties humanity reached a point, where we had to confront ourselves with the truely horrifying scope of our overexploitation and destruction of the natural world. And Ehrlich’s visions where most likely born out of these realizations, and were pivotal in waking up huge swathes of society to some radically new ways of understanding the relation between we as a species and our the whole living organism that is our home. At that point one could argue, that humanity lost it’s innocence, and a whole new kind of maturity was being called for.

    And once we accept, that this is actually our challenge, and this challenge was spelled out for us those 50 odd years ago, then we might proceed to ask how we are doing in accepting this challenge and affecting all the huge changes that will make the ways of life of humanity fit within our planetary framework? Who will dispute, that, actually, we have not done so well? Rather than accepting the challenge it seems to me, that the majority of humanity chose to enter into a state of denial, and without wanting to offend anybody, it is these attitudes of denial, that I hear resonating both in James’ original post and in many of the comments.

    And when it comes down to the economics of the matter, why dosen’t James and Pierre Desrochers discuss the role of the huge monetary expansion, that has been going in these past 50 years, and how this monetary expansion more than anything else accounts for our accelerated extraction of ressourcers and thus the downward trends in the commodity prices. And due to the financial derivatives developed in the seventies we furthermore have had actual tampering with the commodity prices. Thus, the outcome of ‘The Bet of the Century’ might just be the result of a temporary illusion, and the long-term trends might actual come out quite opposite. In my point of view, the verdict will depend on whether we (at last) will accept the huge challenge we’re still faced with and affect the necessary changes of our ways of life, or we will insist on living in ignorance and illusion, and then at some point in the not to distant future meet the full consequences of our thoughtless behavior.

    • mik says:

      I understand your concerns and have already expressed in comment above my reservations regarding the video.

      “At that point one could argue, that humanity lost it’s innocence, and a whole new kind of maturity was being called for.”

      So humanity is somehow guilty. Well, at this point I disagree.

      Current socioeconomic order makes people behave in a bad way. Today economy is primary for profit and secondary for people. People are transformed to mere objects, consumers.

      You can say people make socioeconomic order, it’s true, but vice versa is also true.
      Kind of chicken-egg what was first dilemma.

      At this point I see not accusing people is the only productive way out.

    • manbearpig says:

      Personally I am in denial that the forced contraception and other eugenic measures evoked by folks like Ehrlich are a solution to any of the challenges faced by humanity today. In fact, eugenics is probably a major reason why swathes of “third world populations” have been left starving in a world of overabundance and have even been actively poisoned with toxic, radioactive waste and vaccines.

      We have indeed been born into a world of overproduction but especially of overexploitation of PEOPLE and “their” lands (think slavery, coffee, sugar, cocoa, chocolate, precious and semi-precious metals and stones etc etc etc.)

      So in my momentary haste I’ll just paraphrase something George Carlin said so eloquently: The day we really start taking care of people, like listening to the starving and poisoned Somali pirates instead of making Hanks and Hollywood rich through whitewashing the fundamental perversion of “the system”, any problems the planet and its resources might have may well take care of themselves.


      Economies have deliberately been used as population control and weapons of mass destruction on Everyman. and woman of course.

      Come to think of it, secret geo-engineering programs might actually be the greatest danger to humanity and the planet if indeed they’re destroying the ozone…

  25. heartruth says:

    Great episode James, thank you 🙂

    I appreciate that James refers to the most valuable resource as being “human ingenuity” rather than humans per se.

    Recently, a manager friend referred to an employee thus: “He’s such a valuable resource.” I assume this may be standard vernacular in corporate circles. But to my un-indoctrinated ears it was strange way to refer to a fellow human being.

    Resources are bought, sold, exploited, dispensed… and are dispensable. The seemingly benign term ‘resource’ can slide too easily into ‘useful’ and ‘useless’. It dehumanizes. Take the concept of humans as a resource to the extreme, and history demonstrates that it can get very ugly, very quickly.

    In certain contexts, my training, knowledge, and skills (and ingenuity) may be considered resources. I’m fine with that. But I AM a Human Being. Period.

  26. Olentzero says:

    Although the video may succeed in exposing Paul Ehrlich as a charlatan, the arguments put forward by Julian Simon and Pierre Desrochers are no better in my opinion. How is it that the population decline among the developed countries in the world is much greater than the third world where it is rapidly expanding? I find the declining sperm count caused by synthetic chemicals argument a bit ludicrous when one considers this decline has had no evident effect on third world countries which have become the dumping ground(and testing laboratory) for all Western junk(including synthetic chemicals). In fact. Simon and Desrochers could be good representatives for the Marriage made in Hell video(Bayer & Monsanto) since Monsanto reps always claimed the charitable motive of feeding the extrapolating millions of the world. Desrochers reliance on technological improvements to exploit the resources of the earth is hardly reassuring. As far as the declining sperm count goes, I believe there are much better reasons for the disparity:https://crivellistreetchronicle.blogspot.com/2016/09/pandoras-legacy-despair-hope.html

    • I Shot Santa says:

      Those are some very good points, but a lot of those points go more towards choices and not sperm count. Not saying I disagree with them being major problems (including the backlash against feminism, as well MGTOW) have you considered the food supply of the developed countries? That is the most intimate connection we make with the earth, and it’s a toxin to us now. In the US, not only sperm counts are low, but all the hormones (like testosterone) are out of whack. Between poisoning our food and turning our water into sludge; I’d say they’ve got us pretty well covered. Oh wait; a little more toxic dumping in the form of vaccines and all those other pricey little poisons. JimBob who can go on a rant about food supply as he loves to eat like there’s no tomorrow. And yet, stays skinny as a rail.

      • Olentzero says:

        Yes, I realize food supply in developed countries is necessarily different but when we consider all our junk food outlets are popular in 3rd world countries(at least in metropolitan areas) I don’t think the sperm count thing is significant enough to make a substantial difference, I tend to think the Edward Bernys factor(see James’ video on Bernys) is more relevant, that is, the people in developed countries are subjected to a commercial blitz of propaganda featuring goods they are made to believe they need, and to get those goods they need to have smaller families and often more than one job.

        • I Shot Santa says:

          propaganda doesn’t lower sperm counts. That requires a physical action; such as nutrition, environmental toxins, etc. Bernay’s propaganda is an ideal, not a physical thing. I don’t see how his words could make sperm counts go down. Choosing to have a smaller family is a choice. Wanting to have a family, but you are unable to have one because you have low sperm or testosterone levels is a hormonal issue. And that is an environmental matter; not a propaganda issue. JimBob who ain’t a nutritionist, but he’s healed hisself from many a major ailing with nothing more than food.

          • Olentzero says:

            I wasn’t correlating propaganda with sperm counts. My point is simply that bad nutrition is not restricted to the developed world and I doubt whether those “synthetic chemicals” are absent in 3rd world countries where the top tier likes to dump a lot of their junk(BTW I haven’t previously been commenting much here, so I don’t know this JimBob you’re referring to).

            • I Shot Santa says:

              I’m the JimBob I’m referring to. Perhaps you were just using them without distinction. Anyway, 3rd world countries also have better soil as they don’t have the extensive factory farming methods as we do in the so-called developed worlds. Soil nutrition is one of the biggest losers in chemical farming. So, even if they are eating bad foods; the real foods they eat are so much more nutritionally dense than in more “developed” countries that it just boggles the mind.

              Also, birth rates are expanding in the 3rd world countries because they have high mortality rates. I once saw a chart on global mortality rates and they corresponded nicely with the birth rates. The countries with the highest mortality rates NEED a higher birth rate to maintain their populations, while more advanced civilizations do not. Those charlatans just never mentioned that little detail. I think this was covered by either James or a guy called Ry Dawson. Sort of like how our grandparents (or maybe a couple back from that for others) all came from large families. Mortality and work force were the prime movers in those scenarios. JimBob

              • Olentzero says:

                Okay, JimBob,…I believe we agree it’s complex. Nevertheless the bifurcation of the argument in the video doesn’t acknowledge that complexity.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                I don’t think this video was meant to be that specific in certain areas. Have you checked the links? He usually advises us to do so and has them posted at the bottom. I confess, I rarely do as there is a definite information overload at all times with me. I feel as if I am a knowledge junky sometimes.

  27. Dacajeweiah says:

    Hello James,

    I’ve made Greek subs (and English subs) for this video. I’ve send you an email with the .srt files.

    Take care

  28. Dacajeweiah says:

    Thank you so much guys, I really appreciate your kind words. I will certainly do more in the future.

  29. Dacajeweiah says:

    Hi James,

    I think that you might have missed the email with the .srt files (Greek & English subs) that I’ve send you. I will send you the email one more time.

    Take care

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top