During my essay I dissected the article written by Paul Ehrlich called “The Population Bomb”, and took a stance on whether I agreed with what he wrote in his article. My stance on the article was that I disagreed with what Ehrlich wrote, because the time frame in which he predicted the death of hundreds of millions of people, never occurred. I felt as if his information might could possibly happen in the near future, if we don’t stop polluting our environment. On the other hand, I think that our technology and knowledge on the subject has developed a lot since the 1960’s, and if there were that big of a crisis going on today someone would be able to find a solution to stop the problem. I also discuss in this essay my opinion on the “Green Revolution” and my stance on how it impacted Paul Ehrlich’s prediction for the 1980’s and 1990’s. This essay…show more content… In the 1970s the world will undergo famines hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” This is a great prediction that he makes, I personally think that this will come true in the next fifty to sixty years because of the rise of population and us running out of natural resources. With the rise and population, there comes more pollution which causes the environment to get worse. With the rise in population there could be in habitats for animals such as trees being cut down, and polar ice caps melting which can affect fish, penguins, polar bears and other animals. When Paul Ehrlich discusses “Green Revolution” I think it was a great idea to slow down over population. The green revolution was a huge success that no one could predict, it temporarily boosted the grain supply throughout the world. The guy behind this movement was Norman Borlaug his mission was to reduce world hunger, he thought that the “Green Revolution” would give scientists between ten and twenty years to try and find a solution to running out of non-renewable
