In the months following the promulgation of Humanae vitae, three biologists attempted to spearhead “a massive and unambiguous expression of scientific opinion” against it.
Wikipedia says Ehrlich is still alive and has not changed his mind when he predicted something that never happened, which I find very interesting. Science requires humility, because it requires a greater desire to know the truth than to have been right; it requires a scientist's willingness to admit to having been wrong, "rising on stepping-stones of his dead self to higher things" as Bertie Wooster has more than once flippantly quoted. I will pray for him too (Ehrlich, not Wooster. But perhaps I ought to pray also for the repose of the soul of Wodehouse.)
What they were not wrong about (the scientists, not Wodehouse) was that there are people who are very poor, and people who are comparatively very rich, and that there will in time be some kind of reckoning. We are created with hearts that feel compassion for others and desire justice for others, but these movements in our hearts are opposed by self-love and the strong desire not to be any less comfortable ourselves.
Wodehouse is full of all sorts of quotes, obscure and otherwise, which makes it great fun, and he didn't have the internet. Though I suppose he didn't have something like Bartlett's and a good memory.
And yet St Paul VIs predictions were well and truly prophetic! Contraception is, with abortion, the key weapon that The Evil One has successfully unitised in the fifty plus blitz against the family! Those who protested against it were Satan,s stool pigeons! Yes pray for them like Bridget, below calls us to do, but many of them, their pride in defence of this evil may be their eternal undoing!
The "Scientists" letter dates the encyclical to July 29, whereas it is July 25 - the Feast of St. James, son of Zebedee. Even for a mere date, they could not get it right! :)
Oh no, overpopulation has been a "burning issue" for hundreds of years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus was concerned about overpopulation, and I believe his views have been pretty continuously advocated since (though I'm just working from a vague memory of college classes here; I don't remember the specific names that picked up his ideas).
Paul Erlich mentioned in the article IS one of the Neo Malthusians who are still banging on about apocalyptic overpopulation despite all evidence to the contrary AND loosing an embarrassing bet with an economist on the matter.
Malthus couldn’t imagine the leaps in agricultural and medical development but Erlich and his ilk have no such excuse.
Open letters with a lot of credentialed scientist signatures smells of desperation; lacking a convincing argument, let's pull rank instead.
A scientist trying to convince other scientists of a scientific thing using what amounts to "trust me, i'm a scientist" would get shouted down. Implicit in this episode is a latent scientism, that their profession is the ultimate source of truth, and therefore "trust me, i'm a scientist" should work on everyone else.
It’s also a logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” and even worse because it’s themselves that they are appealing to.
“Trust me, I’m a scientist” only works for the specific field that is relevant on the matter in question. A zoolologist with a specialist interest in aardvarks is no more an expert on human endocrinology and fertility than a carpenter.
Ok, but to be fair to those scientists, look at the societies that have embraced birth control like America, Europe, Russia, and China. Almost all of them have no poverty, hunger, and are the most peaceful nations on they planet.
China uses slave labor, which is not a peaceful thing to do. Russia is still attacking Ukraine, which I don't think makes them one of the most peaceful nations in the world. The United States seems to be consistently getting involved militarily in other countries' business. Canada tries to get its poor and homeless to kill themselves. Europeans tend to follow the US into unnecessary wars.
When I use sarcasm when writing, I use the ^ to denote it. It's also called the Sarcastrophe which is used around words or sentences to denote sarcasm. E.g., ^It never rains in England.^
Clerical dissent against HV was and still is a massive wound in the Body of Christ. The word among Catholics at the time was, "Father is telling husbands and wives in the confessional to follow their conscience." Sadly, Paul V1 weakened his arguments by acknowledging the (spurious) problems of population.
Erlich's doom and gloom hysterics dominated the media.
Almost overnight, property prices doubled as couples could and did delay childbearing with the virtuous satisfaction of (falsely) saving the planet.
Silence from all pulpits everywhere then and now.
Demographic and cultural winter. John Paul 11, pray for us.
Scientifically speaking, the 1960's were the time of the green revolution, when biologists created new varieties of wheat and rice which produced 10 times as much food per plant as the previous varieties. The fact that Erlich and company could ignore this fact while proclaiming that the world would soon be unable to feed itself and human population needed to be drastically decreased shows how little they were actually involved in true science.
Agree. Notably lacking in the petition are agronomists and animal scientists who knew about the facts about our ability to feed populations orders of magnitude larger than the 1960s.
Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord.
Wikipedia says Ehrlich is still alive and has not changed his mind when he predicted something that never happened, which I find very interesting. Science requires humility, because it requires a greater desire to know the truth than to have been right; it requires a scientist's willingness to admit to having been wrong, "rising on stepping-stones of his dead self to higher things" as Bertie Wooster has more than once flippantly quoted. I will pray for him too (Ehrlich, not Wooster. But perhaps I ought to pray also for the repose of the soul of Wodehouse.)
What they were not wrong about (the scientists, not Wodehouse) was that there are people who are very poor, and people who are comparatively very rich, and that there will in time be some kind of reckoning. We are created with hearts that feel compassion for others and desire justice for others, but these movements in our hearts are opposed by self-love and the strong desire not to be any less comfortable ourselves.
Wodehouse is full of all sorts of quotes, obscure and otherwise, which makes it great fun, and he didn't have the internet. Though I suppose he didn't have something like Bartlett's and a good memory.
Fascinating!
I think this is a typo: but the document would have been more forceful if it attached
Shouldn’t it be “attacked”?
Interesting article.
The authors of the anti encyclical letter showed only their emotional ignorance of reality and lack of any real scientific argument.
Did the authors do anything major to further science in anyway?
And yet St Paul VIs predictions were well and truly prophetic! Contraception is, with abortion, the key weapon that The Evil One has successfully unitised in the fifty plus blitz against the family! Those who protested against it were Satan,s stool pigeons! Yes pray for them like Bridget, below calls us to do, but many of them, their pride in defence of this evil may be their eternal undoing!
The "Scientists" letter dates the encyclical to July 29, whereas it is July 25 - the Feast of St. James, son of Zebedee. Even for a mere date, they could not get it right! :)
Would this be one of the first instances of "scientists" proclaiming gloom and doom over something they don't know much about?
Oh no, overpopulation has been a "burning issue" for hundreds of years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus was concerned about overpopulation, and I believe his views have been pretty continuously advocated since (though I'm just working from a vague memory of college classes here; I don't remember the specific names that picked up his ideas).
You are correct; it seems that the sin of pride of knowledge is a strong temptation to those of a scientific bent.
Paul Erlich mentioned in the article IS one of the Neo Malthusians who are still banging on about apocalyptic overpopulation despite all evidence to the contrary AND loosing an embarrassing bet with an economist on the matter.
Malthus couldn’t imagine the leaps in agricultural and medical development but Erlich and his ilk have no such excuse.
Very interesting historical note.
Open letters with a lot of credentialed scientist signatures smells of desperation; lacking a convincing argument, let's pull rank instead.
A scientist trying to convince other scientists of a scientific thing using what amounts to "trust me, i'm a scientist" would get shouted down. Implicit in this episode is a latent scientism, that their profession is the ultimate source of truth, and therefore "trust me, i'm a scientist" should work on everyone else.
It’s also a logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” and even worse because it’s themselves that they are appealing to.
“Trust me, I’m a scientist” only works for the specific field that is relevant on the matter in question. A zoolologist with a specialist interest in aardvarks is no more an expert on human endocrinology and fertility than a carpenter.
Ok, but to be fair to those scientists, look at the societies that have embraced birth control like America, Europe, Russia, and China. Almost all of them have no poverty, hunger, and are the most peaceful nations on they planet.
China uses slave labor, which is not a peaceful thing to do. Russia is still attacking Ukraine, which I don't think makes them one of the most peaceful nations in the world. The United States seems to be consistently getting involved militarily in other countries' business. Canada tries to get its poor and homeless to kill themselves. Europeans tend to follow the US into unnecessary wars.
Indeed. My post was intended to be sarcasm because, as you pointed out, none of those countries are living up to their billing.
Please forgive me. I often don't pick up on sarcasm.
It happens to the best of us. It’s hard to pick out, and yet I still do it. So I am easily as much to blame as you.
“Are you kidding me?” Certainly you meant your comment in jest or satire!
Indeed.
When I use sarcasm when writing, I use the ^ to denote it. It's also called the Sarcastrophe which is used around words or sentences to denote sarcasm. E.g., ^It never rains in England.^
Clerical dissent against HV was and still is a massive wound in the Body of Christ. The word among Catholics at the time was, "Father is telling husbands and wives in the confessional to follow their conscience." Sadly, Paul V1 weakened his arguments by acknowledging the (spurious) problems of population.
Erlich's doom and gloom hysterics dominated the media.
Almost overnight, property prices doubled as couples could and did delay childbearing with the virtuous satisfaction of (falsely) saving the planet.
Silence from all pulpits everywhere then and now.
Demographic and cultural winter. John Paul 11, pray for us.
This is exactly right.
Scientifically speaking, the 1960's were the time of the green revolution, when biologists created new varieties of wheat and rice which produced 10 times as much food per plant as the previous varieties. The fact that Erlich and company could ignore this fact while proclaiming that the world would soon be unable to feed itself and human population needed to be drastically decreased shows how little they were actually involved in true science.
Agree. Notably lacking in the petition are agronomists and animal scientists who knew about the facts about our ability to feed populations orders of magnitude larger than the 1960s.
Great article! And here:
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/man-who-saved-billion-lives
Thank you. It's good to know about the people whose scientific work prevented the predicted mass famine.
Thomas Malthus is still wrong 189 years after he died.
Also, is such a list available?