Introduction

Paul Ehrlich’s 1970s prediction of overpopulation causing global collapse didn’t come true, yet his influence as an activist has persisted for over 50 years, shaping policies and public perception even in 2024. This enduring influence is problematic, as Ehrlich continues to push speculative, agenda-driven ideas like population reduction and lowering Western living standards, ignoring decades of evidence. I believe science should be based on measurable data, not activism, and that climate patterns are mostly natural, with human influence that isn’t always bad. This page examines Ehrlich’s lasting impact and why it poses a challenge to evidence-based science.

Plato thinking.

The World in the 1970s

The 1970s were a time of global tension and fear. The Cold War kept the U.S. and Soviet Union on edge, with nuclear war a constant threat—gas shortages followed the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, doubling prices and fueling resource scarcity fears. The Vietnam War, which I experienced while serving in the military from 1977 to 1981, had just ended in 1975, leaving social unrest in its wake. Environmental concerns were growing—the first Earth Day in 1970, new laws like the Clean Air Act, and bans on pesticides like DDT showed a rising focus on pollution.

Overpopulation was a major worry. The global population was 3.7 billion, and a 1968 book, *The Population Bomb* by Paul Ehrlich, warned of famine and collapse. Food prices spiked during a 1972–1974 global crisis, and countries like India pushed population control measures, including forced sterilizations. Climate science was uncertain—temperatures had cooled slightly since the 1940s, and some predicted a new ice age. In this atmosphere of anxiety, Ehrlich’s dire predictions about overpopulation and environmental doom found a wide audience, amplified by his frequent TV appearances.

Ehrlich’s Failed Prediction and Lasting Influence

In *The Population Bomb*, Paul Ehrlich predicted that overpopulation would lead to disaster by the 1970s and 1980s, with hundreds of millions starving and U.S. life expectancy dropping to 42 years by 1980. These predictions failed—the global population grew to 8.1 billion by 2025 without mass famine, thanks to the Green Revolution, which increased grain production by 150% since 1970. U.S. life expectancy rose to 79.1 years, and economic growth lifted billions out of poverty. Ehrlich’s influence, however, was significant: his book sold millions, and his ideas led to policies like India’s forced sterilizations in the 1970s and the founding of groups like Zero Population Growth.

Ehrlich’s influence persists in 2024, and that’s the problem. He still claims 8 billion people is “overpopulated,” predicting “massive die-offs,” and calls for lowering Western living standards—like in the U.S., where per capita GDP is $85,000—to levels like Mexico’s, at $13,000. His ideas continue to shape environmental policies, like degrowth movements, despite ignoring evidence of progress, such as CO2 aiding plant growth, which has increased leaf area by 7% since 2000. Ehrlich’s activism has driven speculative narratives for decades, often at the expense of human welfare, showing how influential but unproven ideas can mislead science and policy.

Speculation and Science Today

Ehrlich’s influential activism mirrors issues in climate science today, where agenda-driven narratives often rely on models that can’t capture nature’s complexity or predict technological breakthroughs. Some say 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 spells. These changes are often just background noise—natural variations like shifts in solar activity or ocean currents that models struggle to predict. We don’t know the global temperature in 1850 accurately—few places had thermometers, and computer models, which I don’t trust, fill in the gaps.

Like Ehrlich’s activism, modern climate narratives often overlook technological advancements—innovations like precision agriculture, genetic engineering, or nuclear power could address challenges, but speculative forecasts focus on worst-case scenarios. Higher CO2 levels, now at 420 parts per million compared to 325 in 1970, have boosted crop yields by 10–20%, showing human influence isn’t always bad. Nature is resilient—it adapts to changes, as it has for millions of years. Science should prioritize evidence over influential but unproven activism, avoiding the pitfalls Ehrlich’s long career exemplifies.

Conclusion

Paul Ehrlich’s 1970s prediction of overpopulation leading to global collapse failed, yet his influence has endured, shaping policies and public perception into 2024 with the same speculative ideas—population reduction and lowering living standards. This influence is problematic, as it ignores evidence of human progress and nature’s resilience, such as how technology and CO2 have supported a growing population. Climate patterns are mostly natural, and human influence can bring benefits. We need science based on data, not influential activism-driven speculation, to guide decisions that support human welfare, learning from Ehrlich’s decades-long impact.

Share This Article

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