All corrections
Wikipedia July 3, 2026 at 10:23 PM

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

2 corrections found

1
Claim
For the 14 years prior the book's appearance, the world population had been growing at accelerating rates, but immediately after the book's publication, the world population growth rate coincidentally began a continuing downward trend, from its 1968 peak of 2.09% to 1.09% in 2018.
Correction

This sentence gets the timing of the population-growth peak wrong. Authoritative datasets do not place the world's annual population-growth peak in 1968 at 2.09%; 1968 was already below the peak in both UN-derived and World Bank series.

Full reasoning

The specific claim that world population growth reached its peak in 1968 at 2.09% is contradicted by multiple authoritative datasets.

  • Our World in Data's UN-based series says: "global population growth peaked in 1963 at an annual growth rate of 2.3%" and adds that the rate "has been falling since the 1960s." That directly contradicts the statement that the peak was in 1968 and that the decline began only after the book appeared.
  • World Bank's world indicator SP.POP.GROW also contradicts the article's numbers. In the World Bank API series for the world, the value for 1968 is 2.05013360629479, not 2.09, and the series contains higher values in other years, including 1963 = 2.11676704326362 and 1971 = 2.0977123565674. So even in that series, 1968 is not the peak.

Different reputable datasets estimate the exact peak year somewhat differently because they use different methods and source series. But they agree on the key point needed here: 1968 was not the peak year at 2.09%, so the sentence as written is incorrect.

2 sources
2
Claim
the percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" has fallen by more than half, from 33 percent to about 16 percent, since the Ehrlichs published The Population Bomb.
Correction

This mixes up global and developing-country statistics. The FAO figures behind the 33% and 16% numbers refer to developing countries, not the world's population as a whole.

Full reasoning

The sentence misstates what the FAO percentages apply to.

  • In FAO's 2010 food-insecurity report, the 16% figure is explicitly the prevalence of undernourishment in developing countries: "Developing countries account for 98 percent of the world's undernourished people and have a prevalence of undernourishment of 16 percent."
  • The older FAO tables that give a 33% figure are likewise labeled developing countries, not the entire world population.

So the article is wrong to describe this as "the percentage of the world's population." It is a developing-country comparison that has been misapplied to the whole world.

2 sources
Model: OPENAI_GPT_5 Prompt: v1.16.0