Having discussed the other day the re-emergence of the catastrophist theories of Malthus, I thought it would be worthwhile to re-visit some of the arguments made against the Boomer members of the Malthus cult who were all the rage in the late 1960’s and early-mid 1970’s.
Those arguments were probably best represented by the economist, Julian Simon, in his 1981 book, The Ultimate Resource.
But another author struck earlier against Erlich, and although he was never as well qualified or as famous as Simon, his arguments were perhaps more powerful because they were less esoteric.
In 1974 a book was published called The Next Ten Thousand Years and it was written by a British guy who specialised in popularising science and technology. His name was Adrian Berry and he freely admitted that trying to predict how humanity would develop over such an enormous span of time was very speculative. But he thought it would be fun and interesting if he could ground it in known science as far as possible.
Before he pushed forward in time though he felt he had to give a brief background as to the development of science and technology to date – focusing on the philosophies behind it . He also felt he had to deal with the various predictions of doom that were then in vogue – including Mr Erlich and friends (of the Earth). With regard to the population explosion predictions this is a little of what he wrote:
The developed world has virtually reached demographic stability, and some of the undeveloped nations are moving towards it. It appears that high and potentially disastrous growth-rates occur when parents expect that most of their children are going to die. Yet the parents are often too pessimistic, and it chances that all of their children survive. But it is too late; they have already allowed for the possibility of the deaths of their children by having several more. An enormously high birth-rate results.
Now introduce modern medicine to a developing country. Within a few years there is a change. Parents no longer fear the deaths of all their children, and no longer feel that they must insure against this possibility by having great numbers of them. A decline in the death-rate is soon followed by a decline in the birth-rate. Marriages are delayed, the growth-rate slackens, and population stability is gradually achieved.
This is exactly what has happened in the developed countries, and it is beginning to happen in the rest of the world. There is a peak year of very high birth-rate; the medical technology improves, and births decline…
….
If any rich nation adopted the Ehrlich-Paddock policies, which happily they show no signs of doing, the result would surely be the very explosion of population that these men fear. Birth-rates are kept down, not only by medicines and birth-control devices, but also by improved agriculture, clean streets, good schools and efficient hospitals. Fear and insecurity mean a high birth-rate. Confidence in the future means a low one…
…
Most demographers are convinced that during the next century, global population will stabilise at about 10 billion.
So there you have it. A set of rational, logically connected arguments grounded in a degree of understanding of human nature that Erlich and socialist planners have never come close to grasping. Moreover, arguments and predictions that turned out to be right. Not bad for one page from a relatively obscure author with probably no more than a humble Bachelor’s degree to his name, if that. Something to remember the next time somebody tries to browbeat one into not speaking up against experts with superior qualifications and knowledge.
Paul Erlich got invited on to The Tonight Show more than once and in 1990 was given a a MacArthur Foundation “genius” award, for his having promoted “greater public understanding of environmental problems”.
The thing is that even with the obvious failure of his forecasts of doom the MSM still treat him the same way. Back in the early 2000’s I read an interview in the NZ Herald with Erlich. After a lot of discussion about his views on the world the question had to be asked: why did you get your forecasts so wrong? His response was effectively a verbal shrug – scientists develop theories and make predictions. Sometimes they just get it wrong.
The report ended on that note, which I think was simply another example of how useless most journalists are nowadays. The reason I say that was that Erlich did not ‘just get it wrong’. He and his many defenders, ignored or treated with contempt, perfectly reasonable arguments against the basic assumptions of his theories – often with the implication that the sceptics were ignorant morons (I doubt he was even aware of a peon like Berry, but in any case would have dismissed him in the same way).
He used his assumptions to build some type of status quo world where the worst possible extrapolations of the theories could seem reasonable. Finally, he ignored the history of failure of similar predictions (going right back to Malthus) and buried himself in a rock-solid certainty that led him to make these pronouncements loudly and repeatedly on the world media stage. Finally – and perhaps most damning of him as a scientist – he appears to have learned nothing from the whole experience, as was apparent by his non mea culpa at the end of the interview.
There is still the generous offer of good faith to such people, along the lines of What harm can it do? and ‘Better safe than sorry’!.
What harm could it do?:
One has only to read about the details of China’s one-child policy in terms of massive human-rights abuses, the incredible degree of intrusion of government into the most private aspects of life, and unexpected and undesirable outcomes such as the disparity in male / female ratios, to understand what it would have been like when applied across the globe.
Better safe than sorry?:
I don’t think there is any question that the recommendations would have worked in their primary aim. Expected population totals would have trended down over time. The thing to recognise here, and to apply to other such panics, is that, had the predictions been for a global population of 9 billion by 2050 (which is a figure we can be confident of merely because we’re within a couple of generations of that date) the advocates of the policies would have been patting themselves on the back for their foresight and planning ability. The costs and harm would have been pronounced as regrettable but necessary facets.
Certainly any lone voices that protested that humanity could have achieved a similar success – when left to it’s own devices in terms of making successful, rational choices on scientific and technological development and use, and in reacting as individuals to those developments, all in a comparatively unplanned situation – would have been laughed out of the debating chamber.
Yet that is exactly what did happen.
No Minister 
I am becoming more curious about what the impacts will be on people globally from the doom conspirators of climate change. They want to destroy our prosperity by denying access to cheap energy. I know otherwise perfectly intelligent people who are convinced the world is doomed by a few degrees rise in temperature that will open up the northern Eurasian landmass for more amenable occupation by plants and animals including humans as they did 10,000 years ago.
The impact of the China one child policy has been to destroy its long term potential for generations.
Elon musk is right. How are we going to populate the stars when we embark as a multi planetary species?
It may actually be the solution, though I doubt I’ll live long enough to see it. The population decline and more the rapid aging of Western populations after 2050 will hit the Warmist fanatics in two ways.
First, it may result in CO2 emission reductions, especially when added to the productivity increases in energy production that have been relentless for two centuries.
Second, it will cause so many other crisis that AGW will start to fade into the background. I’m thinking crisis in healthcare and pension costs, but especially the former.
A less hopeful picture comes out of Africa as detailed in Youthquake
There are variations within countries in this massive continent, but roughly, there is a desire by men and women to still have 5 or 6 children – even though infant mortality is well down; women becoming educated does not change things as it has in other continents. Hans Rosling and his Factfulness is regarded as being quite misguided. There will be untold millions of unemployed and unemployable youths who will struggle for food, and will denude the countries of trees for energy use
Youthquake looks interesting but I’m going to go looking for articles and such on the web. While I’ve been well aware of Africa population growth I’d figured that was just due to it lagging in economic development.
I would not be too quick to dismiss the arguments of Berry and Rosling given how accurate they’ve been for the rest of the planet. Statistical outliers are always possible of course, but we’d have to accept that African peoples and cultures are very different other human societies in order to accept your points about an ongoing desire for largish families in the face of large drops in infant mortality and increases in the education of women and GDP.
Only if they crush economic growth via taking up Western idiocies on renewable energy and de-industrialisation. I’ve not heard one African leader suggest they will and more than a few pushing back hard on the West on those notions.
Okay, this looks like a good review on Substack, including your key points:
I like that.
Interesting. Hell, this is worthy of an entire post in itself. Thanks.