Dr. Paul Ehrlich on Population, Resources and Development

This edition of Monday Conference was recorded at the ABC’s Studios, Gore Hill, Sydney, on Sunday, 10th November, 1974 for transmission to all States on Monday, 11th November, 1974. In NSW, QLD and Hobart the programme was shown at 9.05pm; in WA and VIC, at 9.00pm; in SA at 8.30pm and in Darwin at 8.50pm.

[…]

MRS. MAUREEN NATHAN, a frequent spokeswoman for the Alliance for Individual Rights: Professor Ehrlich, you’ve said a great deal about governments and how they ought to control things. Well, are you aware, then, that basically people are most concerned with their own lives and their own belongings, so much so that when they’re confronted by a man like you they feel mighty uncomfortable.

Well, is it, in your opinion, a possible solution that we should control this selfish motivation, so to speak, of people, and that we could solve the problems of ZPG, of humanity, of pollution, of resource failure, by in fact defining objectively what personal rights are and property rights are so that people have to look to their own interest to get things done without sitting back and waiting for government to do it for them?

MR. EHRLICH: Well I am, as I suspect you know, quite convinced that you can’t sit back and wait for governments to act. I don’t believe, however, it’s very likely that you’d be able to tell people to act unselfishly and, in fact, I’m said to say I don’t even think it’s very practical to tell people to act morally, by any standards, nor, as I think, you won’t get Americans doing the sorts of things that are needed to be done in India, one of which is, Dr. Clark correctly points out, is giving them a hand in whatever matter to greatly increase their fertilizer production and availability of fertilizer is certainly one of the things that is desperately short in India and it’s hurt them very badly, this shortage of fertilizer.

[…]

MRS. NATHAN:  Well I think you’ve totally misunderstood what I was getting at. I was referring to the Indians being made aware of what is in their self-interest, not by their Government but by, say, people like yourself. In other words, Australians being motivated to what’s happening in Australia without waiting for the Australian Government to make the decisions for them. You’ve misconstrued, I think, what I was getting at.

[…]

MRS. NATHAN: Yes, because after all, if you can’t be responsible for yourself and your own actions, how the hell can you tell other people what to do with their life? You’ve made a choice with your vasectomy. Well, perhaps other men will follow your example, but you can’t tell them what to do about it.

MR. EHRLICH: Oh I think, first of all, I don’t think you have to worry about people being selfish, I think that does reasonably well. What you’re saying is that some people’s selfishness is directed by hoping that they can create a government which will do everything for them, and I tend to agree with the point of view, to an extent, of after all, if people can’t run their own lives, you know, how in hell can you expect them to run others.

At the same time, it turns out that one of the things that people tend to want to do is get together corporately to do the things that they can’t do individually like, you know, build a motorway or whatever, and this leads to government and then governments begin by, of course, politicians are selfish, to do things that are not necessarily in the best interests of the people, and you get into this terrible bind which I don’t think can be simply solved, in other, I’ve wrestled with this a lot. I think we have too much government in the world, in general; I don’t think we can get along with no Government at all, and so you have to get down to the question of how can you minimise government and make the government you have the most effective at doing the things that everybody selfishly wants done.

MRS. NATHAN: Well why don’t you read someone like Professor Murray Rothbard, and his book For A New Liberty and that would give you the answers?

MR. EHRLICH: Well, I’ve read a good deal of the libertarian literature; as a matter of fact Harry Browne, of course, is very popular in the United States now, and Ayn Rand, and so on, and I think that it is a philosophy that is centred in people who are already incredibly comfortable, and I think it is appropriate, perhaps, for some people in that position, but it’s not appropriate for everybody. I think it’s a standard mistake to feel that what would be right for us, or what we feel about a political system, or something, is necessarily right everywhere, and I don’t agree, I cannot agree, that you can get along in a world as complex and interdependent as our present one is, with no government whatsoever.

Among other things, one of the things that people tend to want is governments, and I think that’s one of the points that Browne misses continually. That you get a bunch of people together in a group, and pretty soon they’ve elected a chairman or a tribal leader or what have you, and one thing leads to another. One of the unfortunate things, maybe, about our species is we tend to want governments and then they get so big we don’t know what to do with them.

[…]

MRS. NATHAN: Yes, well I think that I have a much greater respect for the average man than Professor Ehrlich has. I think that people on the whole are quite capable of rational choice, and that you underestimate the effects of nearly every single Australian, I’d go as far as to say, perhaps every single Australian, and all over the world people are much more rational and much more aware of their daily lives than you and the governments choose to make us sound.

[…]