Watch a Young Paul Ehrlich Propose Jailing Americans Who Have "Too Many" Children

For years, Paul Ehrlich received attention for his alarmist theories on population. It’s past time the tyrannical nature of his policy proposals received attention.

Readers already know how I feel about Paul Ehrlich, the American biologist known for his apocalyptic warnings about population growth and finite resources.

In college I learned about Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, a text that was widely discredited by dire predictions that never came to pass, but was nevertheless trotted out as an example of neo-Malthusianism.

What I didn’t learn in college was how tyrannical Ehrlich’s population control proposals were. He supported forced sterilization in India, a policy he said the US government should support. The policy came to pass a few years after Ehrlich’s book was published, and the BBC says “6.2 million Indian men were sterilised in just a year, which was ‘15 times the number of people sterilised by the Nazis’.

If that’s not tyrannical enough for you, consider this television appearance from 1970, in which Ehrlich proposes that the Federal Communications Commission should see to it that large families “are always treated in negative light on television." If that doesn't work, Ehrlich says, then the government should "legislate the size of the family" and "throw you in jail if you have too many" children.

Shawn Regan @Shawn_Regan

Paul Ehrlich in 1970: "The FCC should see to it that large families are always treated in negative light on television." If that doesn't work, then the government should "legislate the size of the family" and "throw you in jail if you have too many" kids.

Ehrlich’s proposals are clearly tyrannical and human rights violations.

This might lead one to believe Ehrlich is an outlier, and that such views are not representative of progressive views inside academia or in media. Don’t be to sure.

First, it’s worth noting that Ehrlich’s support of forced sterilization and jailing of Americans who have “too many” children have received very scrutiny or pushback.

Second, the esteemed British historian Paul Johnson has suggested that bad ideas seem to be more the rule than the exception among those in the intelligentsia.

Consider this passage from his 2007 book Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky:

“A dozen people picked at random on the street are at least as likely to offer sensible views on moral and political matters as a cross-section of the intelligentsia. But I would go further. One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is—beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice.”

Johnson offers good advice. And though his scorn for intellectuals is palpable, it would also be a mistake to discount their influence.

In his book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray Rothbard explains why intellectuals are so important—and how they rise.

“In all societies, public opinion is determined by the intellectual classes, the opinion moulders of society. For most people neither originate nor disseminate ideas and concepts; on the contrary, they tend to adopt those ideas promulgated by the professional intellectual classes, the professional dealers in ideas.

Now, throughout history…despots and ruling elites of States have had far more need of the services of intellectuals than have peaceful citizens in a free society. For States have always needed opinion-moulding intellectuals to con the public into believing that its rule is wise, good, and inevitable; into believing that the ‘emperor has clothes.’”

For years, Ehrlich received attention for his alarmist theories on population. It’s past time the tyrannical nature of his policy proposals received a bit of attention.