Paul Ehrlich and me

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich died on March 13th. His 1968 book “The Population Bomb” was both influential and controversial in its time and has proven to be better fiction than science since then. I was required to read The Population Bomb in college. I recall being beguiled by its arguments and probably too by the stature of its author. Over the decades, I’ve come to appreciate the value of prophecies like those of Ehrlich; they are specific enough that, if we live long enough, we can see if they come to pass. If they do, the prophet is validated. If they don’t, he is discredited.

In the case of Ehrlich, he was massively and conclusively discredited by events that followed.

“. . .  in 1970 he forecast that within the coming decade “100-200 million people per year will be starving to death” and “by 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people”. Furthermore, by 1980 the life expectancy of the average American would have fallen 42 years as a result of cancer caused by pesticides.

“. . . he lived to be one of more than 8 billion people in a world where global life expectancy has increased at the average rate of seven hours per day since he forecast it would collapse. Meanwhile, famine has all but gone extinct, with death rates from mass starvation down to a tiny fraction of what they were in the 1960s. Here are the astounding numbers: in the 1960s, 29.7 million people out of a population of 3 billion died in famines that killed more than 100,000 people each. In the 2010s, 1.1 million out of a population of more than 8 billion died in such episodes: a decline of 99% in the death rate.”

Look, I’m a scientist. Science is in the prophecy business. If you really understand mechanism, you can predict outcomes from initial conditions. And prophecy is what people pay money for. 

Of course, science is also self-correcting.  When confronted with new evidence, we revise our conclusions. At least for most scientists, though not apparently for Ehrich:

“For the rest of his life Ehrlich remained adamant that he was not so much wrong as…right. In 2008 he was still predicting “an unhappy increase in the death rate”. In 2023 he tweeted plaintively: “If I’m always wrong so is science, since my work is always peer-reviewed, including the POPULATION BOMB and I’ve gotten virtually every scientific honor. Sure I’ve made some mistakes, but no basic ones.”

I’ve lived long enough to see many paradigms overturned or replaced when new data emerge. Science isn’t religious dogma, and every scientific conclusion is provisional. But science is also a business, and some scientists succumb to the temptation to confuse their celebrity for truth. History will place Ehrich in the same pantheon as Lysenko.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2026/03/20/viewpoint-the-battle-to-feed-humanity-is-over-eco-pessimist-paul-ehrlich-leaves-a-legacy-of-misinformation-about-the-mortal-threat-of-over-population/?fbclid=IwY2xjawQw8vxleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFPdmtVQldJMjNiU01xM2N2c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHiuiuDSSr4YrmEwvSBeuscf3xvMqWUpLtYKPOQadcmRomMPHxOhOgaUb6cVK_aem_M46scHQebvgXPsBaEokECA&__cf_chl_tk=C.KfokFOIdtat9z.Gyj9NXTq6S4YZSB0jWvhILtc1UI-1774457772-1.0.1.1-fBsrT8gH.dMAWZn8JDujdBNEkB7Se3fnmH53SDD0jGM

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more