Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

One-Dimensional Ecology Revisited A Rejoinder

One-Dimensional Ecology Revisited A Rejoinder JOHN P. HOLDREN and PAUL R. EHRLICH One-Dimensional Ecology Revisited A Rejoinder population factor should be judged In this rejoinder, John P. Holdren and Paul R. Ehrlich con­ against the factors it multiplies - tinue their debate with Barry Commoner on the significance of affluence and technology. Compared population growth in assessing man's ecological destiny. Dr. Ehrlich against the total, any of the three is professor of biological sciences at Stanford University and Dr. individual factors seems small. Holdren is a physicist with the Environmental Quality Laboratory Commoner claims in his rebuttal at the California Institute of Technology. that "The Closing Circle" accurate­ ly represents the results of his more technical work. He states, "In 'The er. We do accuse him of presenting We will not subject the readers of percentages in such a way as to mis­ Closing Circle,' the material of the the Bulletin to a point by point dis­ RFF paper was summarized without lead the reader as to the relative section of Professor Commoner's re­ departing in any way from the origi­ importance of population and af­ sponse to our review of "The Clos­ fluence: "Yet of the four relevant nal mathematical treatment. . . http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Taylor & Francis

One-Dimensional Ecology Revisited A Rejoinder

One-Dimensional Ecology Revisited A Rejoinder

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , Volume 28 (6): 4 – Jun 1, 1972

Abstract

JOHN P. HOLDREN and PAUL R. EHRLICH One-Dimensional Ecology Revisited A Rejoinder population factor should be judged In this rejoinder, John P. Holdren and Paul R. Ehrlich con­ against the factors it multiplies - tinue their debate with Barry Commoner on the significance of affluence and technology. Compared population growth in assessing man's ecological destiny. Dr. Ehrlich against the total, any of the three is professor of biological sciences at Stanford University and Dr. individual factors seems small. Holdren is a physicist with the Environmental Quality Laboratory Commoner claims in his rebuttal at the California Institute of Technology. that "The Closing Circle" accurate­ ly represents the results of his more technical work. He states, "In 'The er. We do accuse him of presenting We will not subject the readers of percentages in such a way as to mis­ Closing Circle,' the material of the the Bulletin to a point by point dis­ RFF paper was summarized without lead the reader as to the relative section of Professor Commoner's re­ departing in any way from the origi­ importance of population and af­ sponse to our review of "The Clos­ fluence: "Yet of the four relevant nal mathematical treatment. . .

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/one-dimensional-ecology-revisited-a-rejoinder-1SdmzTPRSp

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 1972 Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists
ISSN
1938-3282
eISSN
0096-3402
DOI
10.1080/00963402.1972.11457946
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

JOHN P. HOLDREN and PAUL R. EHRLICH One-Dimensional Ecology Revisited A Rejoinder population factor should be judged In this rejoinder, John P. Holdren and Paul R. Ehrlich con­ against the factors it multiplies - tinue their debate with Barry Commoner on the significance of affluence and technology. Compared population growth in assessing man's ecological destiny. Dr. Ehrlich against the total, any of the three is professor of biological sciences at Stanford University and Dr. individual factors seems small. Holdren is a physicist with the Environmental Quality Laboratory Commoner claims in his rebuttal at the California Institute of Technology. that "The Closing Circle" accurate­ ly represents the results of his more technical work. He states, "In 'The er. We do accuse him of presenting We will not subject the readers of percentages in such a way as to mis­ Closing Circle,' the material of the the Bulletin to a point by point dis­ RFF paper was summarized without lead the reader as to the relative section of Professor Commoner's re­ departing in any way from the origi­ importance of population and af­ sponse to our review of "The Clos­ fluence: "Yet of the four relevant nal mathematical treatment. . .

Journal

Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsTaylor & Francis

Published: Jun 1, 1972

There are no references for this article.