The Population Bomb is a book written in 1968 by Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, who were both associated with Stanford University. The book warned that overpopulation could cause global famines and other major changes in society. It encouraged people to take action quickly to control population growth. Concerns about rapid population growth were already present during the mid-20th century, but the book and its authors helped spread these ideas to more people.
The book has been criticized for being overly worried and for making predictions that did not come true. For example, some areas have experienced famines since the book was published, but global famines did not occur. The Ehrlichs still believe the book was important, even though it had mistakes. In 2009, Paul Ehrlich said the book’s biggest mistake was being too hopeful about the future, even though it predicted disasters that never happened. He and his wife argue the book succeeded by making people aware of environmental problems and the impact of population growth on the future. Some people believe the book’s main idea was more accurate than others thought, as it highlighted how population size and growth affect food supplies, climate, air quality, water, biodiversity, and the ability of governments to manage challenges.
General description of the book
The Population Bomb was written after suggestions from David Brower, who was the leader of the Sierra Club, an environmental group, and Ian Ballantine, who worked for Ballantine Books. This came after Paul Ehrlich gave speeches about population problems and how they affect the environment. Although Paul and Anne Ehrlich worked together on the book, the publisher wanted only one name on the cover and changed the original title, Population, Resources, and Environment, to The Population Bomb. The new title was taken from General William H. Draper, who started the Population Crisis Committee, and a pamphlet titled The Population Bomb is Everyone's Baby, published in 1954 by the Hugh Moore Fund. Paul and Anne Ehrlich later said they were unhappy with the title choice because, while it helped sell the book, it made people think Paul focused only on population numbers, not other factors affecting the future of humanity.
Early editions of The Population Bomb began with a statement that described the environment and food supply as becoming more dangerous. The Ehrlichs argued that the world’s population was growing too quickly, and many people were not being fed properly. They believed it was unlikely that food production could keep up with the growing population. They also said that more people put more pressure on nature. They wrote, “We must quickly control the world’s population, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. People must plan how many children they have. At the same time, we must temporarily increase food production.”
Paul and Anne Ehrlich suggested several ways to achieve these goals. They believed the United States should lead in controlling population growth because it used more resources than other countries and had a responsibility to reduce its impact. They also said the U.S. would need to lead international efforts to avoid being seen as unfair or racist. They considered ideas like adding substances to water or food that could temporarily prevent reproduction but said these ideas were not practical because of poor research in this area. They proposed a tax system where families with more children would pay more in taxes and suggested taxing items like baby clothes. They also suggested giving money to men who agreed to stop having children after two. They proposed creating a powerful government department focused on population and the environment, which would have the power to take actions to control population size and protect the environment. This department would support research into better birth control methods, ways to prevent reproduction on a large scale, and techniques to determine the sex of a baby before birth (because some families keep having children until a boy is born). They also said laws should guarantee the right to have an abortion and expand education about sex.
After discussing policies for the United States, the Ehrlichs talked about foreign policy. They suggested a system called “triage,” where countries would be grouped based on their ability to feed themselves in the future. Countries that had plans to control population growth and could become self-sufficient would continue to receive food aid. Countries like India, which were far behind in solving population and food problems, would lose food aid. The Ehrlichs said this was the only realistic long-term plan. They praised the Paddocks for suggesting this idea. They also said public education and agricultural programs should be set up in developing countries. They believed these programs might need to be created outside the United Nations because of the need to choose specific regions and countries. They suggested encouraging groups within countries that could improve conditions better than existing governments. They also supported government efforts to sterilize Indian men who had three or more children.
The rest of the book discussed ways people could help. The Ehrlichs focused on changing public opinion to push politicians to pass the policies they suggested, which they believed were not possible in 1968. At the end of the book, they acknowledged that their predictions might be wrong, as scientists must do. However, they said their proposed solutions would still help humanity, no matter what happened.
The book sold over two million copies, raised awareness about population and environmental issues, and influenced public policies in the 1960s and 1970s. Before the book was published, the world’s population was growing faster each year. After the book was released, the population growth rate began to slow, dropping from 2.09% in 1968 to 1.09% in 2018.
Context
In 1948, two well-known books were published that started a discussion about population and the environment: Our Plundered Planet by Fairfield Osborn and Road to Survival by William Vogt. These books influenced later works, such as the 1954 pamphlet The Population Bomb is Everyone's Baby by Hugh Everett Moore, and helped form early groups focused on population and environmental issues. In 1961, Marriner Eccles, a former leader of the Federal Reserve System, described the fast growth of the world’s population as the most important problem facing the world, saying it might be "more explosive than the atomic or hydrogen bomb." D.B. Luten noted that while The Population Bomb is often seen as a key book in this area, it actually marked the end of the debate from the 1950s and 1960s. Paul Ehrlich said he developed his ideas about population limits after hearing a lecture by William Vogt during his university studies in the early 1950s. For Ehrlich, these writers helped him understand the global importance of the natural world he had studied as a young naturalist.
Criticisms
The book The Population Bomb has been criticized for repeating the Malthusian idea that population growth will outpace food production unless controlled. Ehrlich noted that from about 1930 to 1970, the world’s population doubled, growing from 2 billion to nearly 4 billion. He believed that food and other resources were nearly at their limits. Some critics compare Ehrlich to Thomas Malthus, who did not predict a sudden disaster, but Ehrlich warned of a major crisis within a few decades. Unlike Malthus, Ehrlich believed no solutions could fully prevent the disaster, though some steps might reduce its effects. He suggested extreme measures, like starving countries that refused to control population growth.
Ehrlich was not the only person making similar predictions in the 1960s and 1970s. Many believed severe famines were coming. The Ehrlichs made specific predictions that did not happen, and they admitted some were wrong. However, they claimed their overall argument still held, that their warnings led to action, or that their predictions might still come true. Others criticized them for not accepting mistakes or changing their views despite evidence. In 2015, Ehrlich said his warnings in The Population Bomb were not overly dramatic, and he believed they would be even more serious today.
In the book’s introduction, the authors claimed that millions would die from famine in the 1970s and that the global death rate would rise. They argued that even if action was taken, it was too late to stop the increase. However, the global death rate has dropped since then, from 13 per 1,000 people in 1965–74 to 10 per 1,000 in 1985–90. The world’s population has more than doubled, and food consumption per person has increased by 24%. The United Nations does not track deaths from hunger, making it hard to confirm the book’s claims. Ehrlich estimated 200–300 million people died of hunger from 1968 to 2009, but this was over 40 years, not the 10–20 years predicted.
Famine is not caused by global food shortages but by political problems. Economist Amartya Sen noted that democratic countries with free media rarely face long-term famines. A 2010 UN report stated that 925 million people were hungry, but the percentage of undernourished people has dropped from 33% to 16% since The Population Bomb was published.
Ehrlich claimed India could not feed 200 million more people by 1980, a view many shared. However, India’s food situation improved, and the book’s 1971 edition removed this prediction. By 2010, India’s population had grown to 1.2 billion, but malnutrition and poverty rates had dropped from 90% in 1947 to less than 40% in 2010. Experts say corruption, not overpopulation, causes malnutrition. Amartya Sen also noted that famines occurred in India during British rule but not since it became a democracy.
Journalist Dan Gardner criticized Ehrlich for overconfidence and refusing to admit errors. Ehrlich claimed he made few major mistakes, and even those he acknowledged, like missing rainforest destruction, supported his views. Jonathan Last called The Population Bomb "one of the most foolish books ever published."
Economist Julian Simon and statistician Hans Rosling argued that the book’s predictions relied on the false idea that population growth would continue forever without technological or social progress. Simon wrote that resources like copper are replaced by new technologies, such as fiber optics. He also noted that progress often happens in large steps, as seen in the Green Revolution. Rosling explained that high fertility rates in poor countries drop quickly as incomes rise. Environmentalist Stewart Brand, a friend of Ehrlich, said the book’s assumptions were proven wrong by changes in global population trends since 1963.
Critics say The Population Bomb focused on dramatic claims rather than accuracy. Some argue Ehrlich should have been more careful in his writing. Others note his style was emotionally powerful, like a prophet from the Old Testament, which made the book popular. Gardner wrote that Ehrlich did not use statistics to convince readers but instead used strong, emotional language.
Ehrlich's response
In a 2004 interview with Grist Magazine, Ehrlich admitted that some predictions he made around the time The Population Bomb was published did not happen. However, he said his main ideas and claims were still correct based on facts and science.
When asked, "Were your predictions in The Population Bomb right?" Ehrlich answered:
In a 2009 article, Ehrlich responded to criticism about his predictions not coming true by saying people had misunderstood some parts of his work.
In a 2018 interview with The Guardian, Ehrlich said he was proud of The Population Bomb for starting a global discussion about population issues. He admitted the book had some problems, such as not focusing enough on climate change, using too many resources, and unequal sharing of resources. He also addressed claims that his work had racist ideas. Ehrlich argued that having too many wealthy people is a big problem for the future, and that cultural and genetic diversity are important for humans. He supported a major change in how wealth is shared to reduce overuse of resources by the rich. However, he said the wealthy people who control the global system, such as those who attend meetings in Davos, are unlikely to allow this change.