Talk:The Population Bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Genetics This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

The section about oil seems like an unnecessary diversion. I'd rather see more information about the book and its predictions, and less (nothing) about present-day predictions that are related only by the predictive criteria.

Geoff Canyon 23:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Starvation Deaths

The article's claim that hundred of millions did not die from starvation during the 1970s and 1980s is false. It is estimated that 60 million die each year from starvation,though not from lack of ability to produce enough food, but from the lack of proper distribution of it.

It appears that as Ehrlich wrote it, his prediction may have been technically correct, in that over 200 million people very likely died of starvation between 1970 and 1979. Estimates I've seen for 2005 range from 25,000 to 35,000 per day, which mean between 91 and 128 million deaths per decade. It seems that Ehrlich considers the spirit of this prediction to be wrong, but I can't find any corroboration of that. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything about long term trends in starvation deaths to shed any useful light on the value of the letter or the spirit of the prediction. —BozoTheScary 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV in introduction

It looks to me that the most recent edit has inserted a POV assertion about the cause of starvation being conclusively or exclusively a matter of politics. This POV is as bad or worse than the prior POV argument it replaced. Neither of the comments were sourced and look like mere opinion or original research. Anyone know enough about this topic to accurately phrase an NPOV description? Ande B 07:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor representation of this book

This article contains a heavy political bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69chelsea (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] External links

Hallo Joyous! I have a question about your message: You ask me not to add inappropriate external links to wikipedia. When I compare the 2 links I added to other existing external links on certain webpages, I see that the 'appropriate' links (i.e the ones you leave alone), are also links to external -third party- organisations, such as our European organisation (STHOPD) is too. Our non-profit organisation works with volunteers and stands for certain principles which are similar to the 'appropriate' organisations on the webpages concerned, such as: Decreasing human overpopulation in an ethical way, having no children, warnings about the worldwide consequences of overpopulation such as the destruction of ecosystems. Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, MetaMouse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.166.83 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

The external links are not specifically about the book (the topic of the article). Also, see Wikipedia:External links for more info. —Pengo 11:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that at least one of the links has very little factual content and annoying popup ads. —Pengo 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This book is a fraud

Please, this best-seller is a complete fraud.All prophecies of this book were showed as a fraud.The fact of this book's ideas had support from WWF,Ford Foundation and so many ecological foundations doesn't negates, the fact of this book to be a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.35.158 (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)