Introduction

In 1970, a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist named Dr. George Wald predicted that civilization would end within 15 to 30 years—a claim that never came true. Even great scientists can go off on speculative tangents, especially when they step outside their expertise. I believe science should be based on evidence, not guesses, and that climate patterns are mostly natural, with human influence that isn’t always bad. This page revisits Wald’s prediction, explores the world of 1970 to understand why he made such a claim, and shows why speculative narratives in science, which often miss technology’s role and nature’s complexity, can mislead us.

Plato thinking.

The World in 1970

In 1970, the world was gripped by fear and uncertainty. The Cold War was at its height—the U.S. and Soviet Union were locked in a nuclear arms race, and the Doomsday Clock, which measures global risk, was set at 10 minutes to midnight. The Vietnam War was raging, and Wald, a vocal critic of the war, spoke at the University of Rhode Island during a time of widespread antiwar sentiment. The environmental movement was also taking off—1970 marked the first Earth Day, spurred by concerns over pollution, like rivers catching fire from industrial waste. The EPA was founded that year to address these issues.

Overpopulation was another major fear. A popular book, *The Population Bomb* by Paul Ehrlich, had warned in 1968 that overpopulation would lead to mass starvation by the 1980s. The U.S. population in 1970 was 203 million, far below today’s 345 million, yet Wald called it “overpopulated.” Climate science was uncertain—global temperatures had cooled slightly from 1940 to 1970, and some scientists warned of a new ice age. In this atmosphere of fear, it’s no surprise that Wald, a biochemist with no expertise in environmental science, made a dramatic prediction about the end of civilization.

Wald’s Failed Prediction

On November 16, 1970, Dr. George Wald, a Harvard biochemist who won the Nobel Prize in 1967 for his work on vision, predicted that civilization would end by 1985 to 2000 due to pollution, overpopulation, and the risk of nuclear war. He called these problems “overwhelmingly threatening” and dismissed increasing food production as a solution, saying the real issue was “quality of life,” which he claimed had already deteriorated. But Wald’s prediction didn’t come true—civilization didn’t end, and many of the issues he feared were mitigated over time.

Wald’s claims weren’t based on evidence, and he missed the role of technology in averting these crises. The U.S. population grew to 345 million by 2025 without the starvation he feared, thanks to the Green Revolution—new farming techniques that increased global grain production by 150% since 1970. Pollution decreased with innovations like catalytic converters, cutting U.S. air particulate matter by 70% since 1970, according to the EPA. Nuclear war risks lessened after treaties like SALT I in 1972 reduced tensions. Wald’s expertise was in biochemistry, not environmental science, and his prediction shows how speculative tangents, which ignore technological advancements, can mislead the public.

Speculation in Climate Science Today

Speculative narratives like Wald’s continue in climate science today, often relying on models that can’t capture nature’s complexity or predict technological breakthroughs. Some claim the global temperature has risen 1.2 degrees Celsius since 1850, after the Little Ice Age—a cold period from 1300 to 1850. That’s about 0.007 degrees per year, a small change that could be natural, as temperatures often warm after cold periods. These changes are often just background noise—natural variations like shifts in ocean currents or solar activity that models struggle to predict. We don’t even know the global temperature in 1850 accurately—few places had thermometers, and computer models, which I don’t trust, fill in the gaps.

Models also miss technological advancements, just as Wald did. Today, innovations like nuclear power or carbon capture could reduce emissions, but climate predictions often assume the worst, ignoring these possibilities. The oceans are said to be acidifying, with pH dropping from 8.2 to 8.1 since 1850, but we have no measurements from back then, and the oceans remain alkaline, around 8.1 to 8.3, thanks to natural buffering from mineral runoff. Nature is resilient—it adapts to changes, as it has for millions of years. Speculative predictions often overlook this resilience and the unpredictable ways technology can shape the future, much like Wald did in 1970.

Conclusion

Dr. George Wald’s 1970 prediction of civilization’s end was a speculative tangent, driven by the fears of his time—nuclear war, pollution, and overpopulation—but it lacked evidence and didn’t come true. He missed how technology, like cleaner industries and better farming, would address these issues, a lesson for today’s climate science. Climate patterns are mostly natural, with small changes that nature can handle, and human influence—like better agriculture—has improved lives. We need science grounded in data, not speculation, recognizing that nature’s complexity and future technologies can’t be easily predicted, to make decisions that support human welfare.

Share This Article

Bristol Blog banner featuring social issues and education critiques by Lewis Loflin.