“The majority of economists have never been taught that ecosystems provide humanity with an absolutely indispensable array of services, services that are “free,” but would, of course, be infinitely costly to replace.” – The Population Explosion, 1990

It was sad to learn that population biologist Paul Ehrlich died on Friday the 13th in March, 2026, though that’s a fitting day for a “doomer” to exit this troubled world. And it was predictable to see cornucopian imbeciles (a word he used) dismissing his entire body of work, as if all he ever accomplished was worst-case predictions at the height of his fame. When speaking to laymen audiences he resorted to blunt themes, e.g. the Johnny Carson show, but his writings contained a lot of nuance (see Stanford-based articles). Most critics have likely not read his work in much depth, if at all. They see him as ‘that depopulation guy that Alex (Sandy Hook denier) Jones hated.’ Throw in some Bill Gates misquotes and it’s a wrap.

After Ehrlich’s death, hit pieces trivialized his logical math of carrying-capacity overload while harping on specific timing forecasts and dodging his physical limits philosophy, yet these types don’t argue with limiting government budgets. They just seek ruses to detach money from the physical world that makes money possible. Those who think “if a worst-case hasn’t happened yet it may never happen” are lousy planners in any context. If your car’s temperature gauge rises and you crest one hill without overheating, will your engine manage all future grades? Are traffic jams easing with more people jamming roadways? Can a beach or national park ever be too crowded? Why are food prices really rising? Those who laugh off such questions tend to think global warming is a hoax and Peak Oil may never really happen, though it’s closer than ever now. If anything will derail growthist fantasies, it’s unaffordable oil.

Wiser people see that Paul Ehrlich was only “wrong” in the sense that a smoker or druggie (overcrowding his system with toxins) luckily outlived one doctor’s dire prediction. The addict didn’t gain immortality by dodging that particular date! But millions of rubes and marketers can’t accept that a rock 7,926 miles in diameter, with economies grown by hydrocarbons & minerals from the crust-equivalent of an apple skin, will never support endless human numbers. Why not plan for what the math says is coming instead of always pushing the envelope?

Growthmaniacs (another Ehrlichism) lament necessary yet painful birthrate declines in modern nations, and try to normalize unnatural debt that demands endless young labor. We have to face fundamental math sooner or later, not just market gambles, as in the bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian (fuzzy fractal math) Simon. Do Ehrlich’s critics have any concept of the future and diminishing returns? Do they think today’s comforts & health gains are locked in by some innate warranty? Growing homelessness is a highly visible result of overpopulation and societal decline, but people tend to look away and count their own dollars.

Adequate time will confirm Ehrlich’s wisdom if today’s ecological destruction isn’t ample evidence that he’s always been right in principle. Anthropocentric money-grubbers just don’t care about nature itself, seeing it as a separate entity from human progress. You can never quite explain to them that nature was here before Man and the latter can’t exist without the former staying in balance. Glibness toward nature now includes “clean, green” excuses for sprawling “renewables” ruining what’s left of scenic landscapes & oceans.

Ehrlich was hardly alone in understanding Earth’s limits, just a famous name in books and TV when environmentalism gained serious traction. This was shortly before the EPA was mandated in 1970 by a Republican President. It took multiple pollution crises to inspire action back then, and ecologists have never been taken seriously by louts who treat nature like a materials warehouse built solely for Man. We now have dummies like Trump scaling back environmental laws that are taken for granted, though he’s at least willing to call wind turbines ugly, unlike neo-environmentalists who play the old growthism game under new branding.

People like Nate Hagens, Chris Martenson and Richard Heinberg are saying many of the same things Ehrlich did for decades, though wary of making timeline predictions, as Paul Ehrlich regretted in hindsight. The late Carl Sagan covered many of the same topics and was generally respected, though mocked for his pronunciation of “billions.” The work of scientists is often barely grasped by the dull-eyed masses unless they invent money-making gadgets or save lives with medical advances. Try to educate them on long term hazards and you’ll get called a doomsayer by shallow optimists. Ironically, many people enjoy watching & reading apocalyptic fiction, but show them real threats like AGW and you get smirking comments about “tax scams.” More than ever, we need unambiguous pundits urging sanity on human overpopulation and avarice.

R.I.P. Paul R. Ehrlich.

This page may be updated with new information. If you cite it, please post the link instead of a snapshot.