Paul Ehrlich has not merely been wrong in his long career as a “population expert”: he has been demonstrably, repeatedly, spectacularly wrong about almost everything. Somehow, he’s not only failed to offer groveling apologies for a lifetime of saying stupid things, but continues to claim he was right all along.
Ehrlich is most famous as the author of the Population Bomb, a book of almost sublime evil and stupidity. He dusted off the creaky old theories of Thomas Malthus (yet another person who learned about exponential growth and then never quite got over it) and gave them a healthy coating of panic that drove the great overpopulation scares that still swirl through intellectual circles.
According to the Population Bomb and Ehrlich’s subsequent work, we should all be dead right now. His book began with the infamous sentence, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
Except that never happened. Not in the 1970s … not ever. The localized (not global) famines were not caused by a collapse of the food supply, but by political instability. He insisted that the global death rate would skyrocket. It’s fallen. He swore that India could never feed 200 million people. It feeds over a billion.
He suggested or supported all kinds of draconian solutions to this imaginary problem, including putting birth control in the water supply, forced abortions, coercive sterilization, forcibly starving countries who refused to implement radical population controls, punitive taxes on people who have children and on childcare products, and good old fashioned jack-booted totalitarianism in order to “fix” the problem of global famine from overpopulation. He now claims that he didn’t really mean to suggest these as viable options, but merely was working through various potential scenarios.
And yet this utter sham of a man made a career as a public intellectual while being not just occasionally wrong and offering challenging solutions to real problems, but being spectacularly wrong while offering objectively evil solutions to imaginary problems. The stunning thing is that he’s still talking, and people are–inexplicably–not only failing to throw a net over him, but they’re writing down what he’s saying and publishing it in major newspapers rather than transcribing it as evidence for a commitment hearing.
Here he is saying that the current global population of 7 billion people is too big because … well, I’m not sure why. Because every single one of them can’t have a Lexus and an iPod?
“How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”
Love that phrase: “population shrinkage.” You can almost smell the Zyklon B.
Notice that’s he’s saying that a world population of a 4-5 billion people is a “battery chicken world,” and we already have a population of 7 billion. That must explain why my family and I live in a tiny cage and are fed Soylent Green through a chute while waiting for the Carrousel.
Then the article lets loose this whopper:
Ehrlich, who was described as alarmist in the 1970s but who says most of his predictions have proved correct [!!!!] says he was gloomy about humanity’s ability to feed over 9 billion people. “We have 1 billion people hungry now and we are going to add 2.5 billion. They are going to have to be fed on more marginal land, from water that is purified more or transported further, we’re going to have disproportionate impacts on how we feed people from the population increase itself,” he said.
The planet is quite capable of feeding all of them. The hunger issue isn’t tied to the ability of agriculture to produce enough food, but is instead tied to politics, war, and economics.
Look, Paul Ehrlich is the academic version of this guy:
And, lest we forget the ongoing impact of Ehrlich’s crackpot theories, one of his collaborators has a very prominent position among the shapers of the new world order.
If you want a teriffic little summary of why Malthusianism is bunk, watch these: