"Conjuring Up Ogres Which Do Not Exist": Scientists, the Environmental Movement, and the Rise of Anti-Environmentalism, 1948–68

"‘Conjuring Up Ogres Which Do Not Exist:’ Scientists, the Environmental
Movement, and the Rise of Anti-Environmentalism, 1948-1968"

Following World War II, a handful of scientists boldly questioned postwar trends in population growth, resource consumption, and the use of synthetic and atomic technologies. Rather than confining their conclusions to the scientific community, scholars such as Fairfield Osborn, William Vogt, Rachel Carson, and Paul Ehrlich offered their observations to a wider reading public. This paper explores the popular and professional reaction to works such as Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet, Vogt’s The Road to Survival, and others. Through an analysis of published reviews, unpublished correspondences, interviews, and televised debates, this presentation examines how popular works by scientists not only contributed to the fledgling environmental movement, but also stimulated the rise of environmental opposition.

Arguing that scientists who delved into advocacy employed overly emotional arguments and inaccurate scientific methodology, critics not only portrayed these writers as alarmist and self-interested activists, but they also leveled charges of racism, biocentrism, and crass commercialism. Branding Osborn, Carson, and others as anti-progress neo-Malthusians or Luddites who sought to limit economic, demographic, and technological growth, opponents depicted these scientists as potentially dangerous and occasionally, un-American.

“’Conjuring Up Ogres Which Do Not Exist:’ Scientists, the Environmental Movement, and the Rise of Anti-Environmentalism, 1948-1968” addresses multiple questions. Why did scientists such as Vogt, Ehrlich, and others decide to present their research to a wide public? How did the success of their books (many of which were best-sellers) and the resulting notoriety influence their professional careers as scientists? Who challenged these scientists and why? Are there intellectual links between these mid-century critics of activist scientists and modern-day challengers of global warming theories? Ultimately, this project examines how opposition to Osborn, Vogt, Carson, and Ehrlich offered an ideological foundation for future anti-environmentalism.