Dan Brown's latest conspiracy theory - and the powerful people who believe it

The novelist is not the first to say that we’re all doomed

25 May 2013

You know Inferno, the new Dan Brown novel, the one that’s had such fabulously bad reviews? Well, it’s not really about Dante’s Inferno at all. What it’s really about — spoiler alert — is that old bogey: global population explosion.

For the baddie, a genetic scientist called Bertrand Zobrist, the big threat to humanity is the inexorable increase in the world population to nine billion by 2050. ‘By any biological gauge’, he tells the head of the World Health Organisation, Dr Elizabeth Sinskey, whom he has lured into a darkened lecture room, ‘our species has exceeded our sustainable numbers… Under the stress of overpopulation, those who have never considered stealing will kill to provide for their young. All of Dante’s deadly sins — greed, gluttony, treachery, murder and the rest — will begin percolating… rising up to the surface of humanity… we are facing a battle for the very soul of man’.

Obviously Dr Sinskey, being an expert scientist herself, has an answer for that one. ‘Recently we spent millions of dollars sending doctors into Africa to deliver free condoms and educate people about birth control,’ she seethes. Zobrist is having none of it. ‘And an even bigger army of Catholic missionaries marched in on your heels and told the Africans that if they used the condoms they’d all go to hell. Africa has a new environmental issue now — landfills overflowing with unused condoms.’ Elizabeth falls silent, ‘He was right on this one,’ she reflects, somehow missing out both on Africa’s Muslim population and population increase in India, neither of which can be blamed on the Vatican. There you have it: the real villain of the new Inferno as seen by Dan Brown: the Catholic church. And yes, this is about as close to up-ending Dante as you can get.


But it would be wrong to imagine that apocalyptic vistas about overpopulation are the preserve of Dan Brown. Zobrist’s rhetoric, in fact, is not unlike that of Prince Charles’s favourite population gurus, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, whose latest paper on the subject, published by the Royal Society, is headed: ‘Can a Collapse of Global Civilisation Be Avoided?’ No, is the short answer, unless we adopt ‘dramatic cultural change’. As they observe, ‘Today, for the first time, humanity’s global civilisation… is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as “an act of suicide on a grand scale”… The human predicament is driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies.’ The authors assume an increase in population to 9.5 billion by 2050. Result: ‘global collapse’.

Indeed, if Dan Brown’s background research did not manage to include a close reading of Dante, it does seem to have taken on board Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 classic The Population Bomb, which cheerily predicted that the US would be enduring mass famine by 2000 and that half the population of Britain would be lucky to survive.

The reality is, there are no guarantees about population growth. A more sober projection by Wolfgang Lutz and Samir K.C., also for the Royal Society, suggested that the world population is likely to increase by at least a billion from its current 7 billion to 8-10 billion by 2050, quite a big margin of error. But it suggests in the second half of the century, the population is likely to stabilise, then decline, with the critical factor being the spread of education, particularly for women.

One place where Paul Ehrlich’s doomsday scenarios do seem to have been taken seriously is China, whose one-child policy since 1979 has led to an abortion rate of about 13 million a year and the perpetration of grotesque human rights abuses in forced abortion and sterilisation. The human rights activist Chen Guangcheng, in London this week, observed that in one year in his home city, there were 120,000 forced abortions. That’s demographic containment, if you like.

Dan Brown’s Zobrist has a neat solution to demographic catastrophe, viz the release of a clever virus, Inferno, which would humanely reduce the global population by making one in three people sterile. Clever, eh? And the scary thing about it is that Brown’s head of the World Health Organisation thinks he might be on the right lines. It’s tosh, obviously. But tosh that’s not very far from received wisdom.

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • Chris Morriss

    We are told that to avoid the bad effects of climate change we must all consume less…a lot less, while the same deluded talking heads studiously avoid the mammoth in the wardrobe. TOO MANY PEOPLE. A slow but relentless drive to strongly encourage all of the world’s population to have fewer children is the only sustainable way to achieve the desired end. A benign virus that caused sterility to one in three seems a painless way to get this to happen, and would certainly not be “tosh” as the reality-challenged writer of this piece states.
    Sadly such a thing will not happen, and we will all have to wade in rivers of blood before the world population stabilises at a sensible level.

    • La Fold

      Please tell me you are on the wind up fella?

      • treborc1

        I think he’s right we would all have to pick the people who would not have the virus, like the rich, and MP’s, the middle class plus MP’s and the people who are well entertainers they can have kids.

        The poor well we would have to stop having sex, and since we cannot do that, we will have a virus in which our penis drops off. You cannot claim, benefits because Labour have told ATOS to tell people a Penis is not for life.

        • Studley

          Ever heard of contraception?

          By the way, not having sex is not a catastrophe. You should try it some time. It makes one feel like a conscious being and not like a walrus or a horny lizard….

  • Wilhelm


  • Wilhelm


  • Iamreplete

    Population increase is not new, it has been going on relentlessly, such is human nature. Several times in the past writers have produced books forecasting disaster for humanity resulting in increased population, from what we would now call quite small populations to populations which we would consider to be only slightly larger. In every case, mankind has survived simply by technological improvements, either in crops or machines to harvest them. The same will happen now, in that, whereas in previous times the increased food was simply the same food but more of it, in the future, food itself, as well as becoming more plentiful, will become of more varied origin. As an example, when I was in BP, about 50 years ago, they were operating a refinery in the Netherlands which produced protein (indistinguishable from normal protein) from crude oil. And so humankind will continue. As it should.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here