My point in mentioning Borlaug specifically was that 1) he's the single person most responsible for the post-1950s population boom not ending in mass global famine and 2) he was scared fucking spitless himself. Which means that Ehrlich was far from the only person voicing such views and that the views were not some environmental fringe. I've spent quite a bit of time going through literature of the time, and strongly recommend William Ophuls book Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (1977) for, if nothing else, its bibliography which is an excellent and largely balanced selection of the literature of its time.

<https://archive.org/details/ecologypoliticso0000ophu>

(Ophuls bibliographies and biblographic notes are in general absolute gold mines.)

Ehrlich himself rapidly learnt, and spent much of his career arguing, that coercive measures are hugely harmful and largely don't work. What does work best and foremost is women's education, along with social stability, medical and family planning services, and the like. Ehrlich wrote about 40 books as well as numerous papers and articles, he's remembered most for one of the earliest. A quite different thought process is evident in later ones, such as One With Niniveh (2004)

<https://archive.org/details/onewithninevehpo0000ehrl_z0h7/pa...>

Or this 2013 release:

"Equal rights, education for women key to avoiding civilization's collapse"

[T]he Ehrlichs offer a roadmap for avoiding society's total collapse, emphasizing that giving women equal rights worldwide is a critical first step.

<https://phys.org/news/2013-01-equal-rights-women-key-civiliz...>

Not a step, but a critical and first step.

In 1968 the situation appeared absolutely calamitous, Borlaug's Nobel speech came two years later, and concerns over overpopulation continued in the mainstream well through the 1970s and 1980s. That's 40 and 50 years ago now, beyond the ken of most reading this no doubt, but very much the spirit of the times. Influenced in part by Ehrlich, but also by many others. Drastic measures, as one possible tool, and proposed with grave concern, were among the possible interventions.

What ultimately did occur was that, despite several more famines (Sahel drought, 1968--1972, 1,000,000 dead; Ethiopia, 1972-1973, 60,000; Bangladesh, 1974, up to 1.5 million; Khmer Rouge, 1975--1979, 500,000; Ethiopia, 1983--1985, ~500,000; Sudan, 1988, 100,000; Somalia, 1991--1992, 300,000; North Korea, 1994--1998, up to 3.5 million, Congo, 1998--2004, 2.7 million; Somalia, 2011--2012, 285,000; Tigray, Ethiopia, 2020--present, up to 200,000; Gaza, 2023--present, 62,000, and many others <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines>), overall population growth has decreased markedly through much of the world, to the extent that low birth rates are a concern in Europe, Japan, and the United States, and most of the world, and quite notably the largest populations in India, China, and elsewhere aren't living with looming hunger. But that balance is delicate and precarious as we're constantly reminded.

And for those scanning my or Wikipedia's larger list and objecting "but most of those were political, civil war, or other conflicts", I ask preëmptively what the hell do you think drives most such conflict and unrest? Food insecurity (or its near peer, water insecurity) is a primary driver of social unrest around the world and throughout history:

See e.g., "Food Insecurity and Unrest: What You Need to Know" (2022)

<https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2022/07/12/food-insec...>