Jonah Goldberg: Pessimism so pervasive that it defies even death

About the writer: Conservative D.C.-based commentator Jonah Goldberg serves as editor-in-chief of The Dispatch, hosts The Remnant podcast, authors a weekly Los Angeles Times column, holds a chair with the American Enterprise Institute and serves as a commentator with NPR and CNN. Previously, he spent 21 years as an editor at The National Review and 10 as a commentator at Fox News. He’s the author of three New York Times best sellers.

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week.

His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism. He core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world.

“The Population Bomb” opens with a bold declaration: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

During a speech in 1971, Ehrlich said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” He also prophesied that the U.S. would be rationing water by 1974 and food by 1980; that smog in L.A. and New York would cause some 200,000 deaths per year; and that Americans born after World War II wouldn’t live past 50.

It’s difficult to exaggerate the grip Ehrlich and his followers had on elite opinion and the popular imagination. A founder of Zero Population Growth, now Population Connection, Ehrlich inspired the modern population control movement.

As Charles Mann chronicled in Smithsonian Magazine, Ehrlich inspired global efforts to push abortion, birth control and even sterilization by governments, the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as foundations. He quoted Betsy Hartmann, author of “Reproductive Rights and Wrongs,” as saying, “The results were horrific.”

Mann said, “Some population-control programs pressured women to use only certain officially mandated contraceptives. In Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan, South Korea and Taiwan, health workers’ salaries were, in a system that invited abuse, dictated by the number of IUDs they inserted into women. In the Philippines, birth-control pills were literally pitched out of helicopters hovering over remote villages. Millions of people were sterilized, often coercively, sometimes illegally, frequently in unsafe conditions, in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia and Bangladesh.”

In the U.S. the Ehrlicheans talked about requiring licenses for babies and introducing birth control into the supposedly dwindling water supply.

Earlier, I said it’s difficult to exaggerate the grip Ehrlich’s thesis “had” on elite opinion. The truth, however, is that the grip endures.

The sub-head on The New York Times’ obituary reads, “His best-selling 1968 book, which forecast global famines, made him a leader of the environmental movement. But he faced criticism when his predictions proved premature.”

Premature?

England still exists. Life expectancy in the U.S. just set a record high of 79, and it stands at 81.5 in Europe. There is no country in the world with a life expectancy under 50.

Air and water quality are much better today than they were in 1968. Global food production has exploded. Famine is rare, and almost always a product of war or the backward command-and-control economic thinking Ehrlich supported.

Fertility rates are worrisomely declining throughout the developed world, and far beyond. Slightly more than half the world’s nations have sub-replacement birthrates. We have not run out of any resources and America has more forests than it did a century ago.

So, which predictions were “premature,” exactly?

There’s something about Malthusian dread that is simply too seductive to shake.

A few years ago, I noticed something weird. On the 50th anniversary of “Soylent Green,” a dystopian, Ehrlichean film about overpopulation and food shortages, a number of writers opined how “prescient” the movie was.

No less than the normally reasonable magazine the Economist wrote, “It is impossible to watch the film today without weighing up how accurate its predictions turned out to be.” It’s an “eerie prophecy,” they declared.

Really? It’s “impossible to watch” a movie about mass, state-sponsored euthanasia that turns human beings into high-protein crackers to fend off starvation — set in 2022! — without marveling at the accuracy of its predictions?

Perhaps the most remarkable point is not that Ehrlich turned out to be so wildly wrong, but that he was so obviously wrong from the beginning.

My old boss, Ben Wattenberg, battled Ehrlich throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The feud began with a 1970 article for The New Republic titled, “The Nonsense Explosion,” in which Wattenberg explained that even as Ehrlich was writing about soaring birthrates, they were actually already declining.

Ehrlich’s defenders — and they are legion — argue that he was a true prophet in that prophets issue apocalyptic warnings that, if heeded, can be avoided.

This is more nonsense.

He said mass “die-offs” were unavoidable, even with the best policies. And the anti-growth fads he supported largely made things worse.

Simply put, his pessimism was too big to fail.