Editor's Note, June 2026
Written by Marian Starkey | Published: June 8, 2026
Paul Ehrlich passed away in March and was promptly disparaged by several columnists who mislabeled him “anti-human” and blamed him for coercive population control in India and other countries because of warnings about food supply that he issued as a young scientist. Few bothered to delve into his prolific and illustrious career, his outspokenness around women’s and children’s rights, or his efforts to debunk the notion of biological race and to desegregate restaurants during the civil rights movement.
I didn’t know Ehrlich, nor did anyone else on our staff. I’m not a “diehard Ehrlichian,” which is a term I hadn’t known until The Guardian published a derisive column about him in April. But I know from his books, articles, and interviews, and from testimonials by his admiring colleagues, that his guarded hope for humanity and the rest of the living world was intact until his final days.
Polling firm YouGov surveyed over 1,100 Americans about Paul Ehrlich soon after his death. Most (80%) selected “don’t know” when asked whether they “have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion” of Ehrlich; the rest were split evenly between having a very or somewhat favorable opinion and a very or somewhat unfavorable opinion. The breakdown was similar when respondents were asked their opinions of Thomas Malthus, who issued warnings about exponential population growth in the late 18th century, and Norman Borlaug, the “father of the Green Revolution,” which was largely responsible for rendering Ehrlich’s famine forecasts “wrong.” It tracks that most Americans don’t have an opinion of Ehrlich since only 13% of respondents said they are familiar with The Population Bomb and only 3% said they had actually read the book.
Encouragingly, the YouGov survey found that Americans are more likely to say overpopulation is a problem than they are to say low birth rates are a problem. When asked, In the US, do you think [overpopulation is / low birth rates are] …?, the percentage of respondents who said overpopulation is a somewhat or very serious problem was six points higher than for those who said low birth rates are a somewhat or very serious problem (47% vs 41%). When asked, Worldwide, do you think [overpopulation is / low birth rates are] …?, the percentage of respondents who said overpopulation is a somewhat or very serious problem was 25 points higher than for those who said low birth rates are a somewhat or very serious problem (62% vs 37%).
The feature article in this issue, by UK economist Lord Adair Turner, expertly details why we should embrace low birth rates and continue working to slow population growth in low-income countries, where it’s weakening sustainable development efforts. Like Ehrlich, Turner emphasizes the power of population stabilization to reduce environmental pressures. And like Ehrlich, Turner believes that women having the freedom to choose smaller families is a reflection of great societal progress. We at Population Connection agree.
Email Marian at mstarkey@populationconnection.org