Its not revisionist history, and wouldn't be even if it was wrong. Try again.
Revisionist history would be falsely describing what actually happened, I'm accurately describing what would have happened (no way to be highly accurate about the specifics, but we can be certain that without a collapse of food production starvation would not have been so extensive in so short of time as he claimed).
For some actual history, food production per capita for the world had been going up, despite high population growth, and without any crash program to increase production or decrease population growth which Ehrich claimed would not have been enough, even before the green revolution.
If it never happened might we have seen mass starvation by now? Perhaps (at a minimum we would have seen less meat production, and the type of starvation that had been occurring would have continued, and more land would be farmed leaving less for wilderness), but that's over 4 decades from when he made his prediction, not in a few years. Also if production of food had only followed its previous upward trend and not accelerated with the green revolution, we still, four decades plus later, would not have seen the level of starvation he predicted as being locked in for the 70s (for one thing the rich countries would not face starvation). |
