The infamous overpopulation bet: Simon vs. Ehrlich - Soraya Field Fiorio

Summary

In 1980, a $1,000 bet was placed between Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, who warned of overpopulation leading to resource scarcity and famine, and economist Julian Simon, who believed in human ingenuity to find alternatives. They chose the price of five metals as a proxy for resource scarcity. Over the next decade, despite population growth, metal prices fell, proving Simon right. Today, experts focus on equitable resource distribution and sustainable practices rather than population control to address environmental and climate challenges.

Takeaways

• 💸 In 1980, Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon made a $1,000 bet on whether the Earth would run out of resources due to overpopulation.
• 🌍 Ehrlich, a biologist, predicted mass starvation due to population growth outpacing food supply, drawing on Malthusian theory.
• 📈 Simon, an economist, argued that population growth did not correlate with a decrease in living standards and believed in human ingenuity to find alternatives.
• 🗞️ Their debate was publicized through articles, including a contentious one by Simon in Science Magazine, sparking further debate.
• 🔥 The wager focused on the price trends of five metals over a decade as a proxy for resource scarcity and innovation.
• 📉 Simon won the bet as the prices of all five metals decreased, suggesting that resources were not as scarce as Ehrlich predicted.
• 🌱 The debate has evolved, with current understanding emphasizing equitable distribution of resources and sustainable practices over population control.
• 🌐 The focus has shifted from population size as a primary environmental concern to sustainable technology and economic growth.
• 🏆 In 1990, Ehrlich conceded by sending Simon a check, marking the end of their bet but not the discussion on resource management and population.
• 🔄 The story illustrates the complexity of predicting resource availability and the role of human innovation in addressing global challenges.

Q & A

What was the bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon about?

The bet was about whether the Earth would run out of resources to sustain a growing human population.

What was Paul Ehrlich's prediction regarding population growth and food supply?

Paul Ehrlich predicted that the population would grow faster than the food supply, leading to millions of people starving to death.

Which economist's ideas did Paul Ehrlich draw from in his predictions?

Ehrlich drew from the ideas of 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus, who posited that unchecked population growth would outpace food supply.

What was Julian Simon's argument against the predictions of Ehrlich and Malthus?

Simon argued that there was no correlation between a growing population and a decrease in standards of living, and that human ingenuity would find alternatives for diminishing resources.

How did Julian Simon's views differ from those of Ehrlich and Malthus in terms of population growth?

Simon believed that population growth was not inherently problematic and that human innovation would lead to solutions for any resource scarcity, contrary to the pessimistic views of Ehrlich and Malthus.

What was the wager between Ehrlich and Simon regarding the price of metals?

They bet $200 on the price of each of five metals, with the understanding that if the prices decreased or held steady over the next decade, Simon would win, and if they increased, Ehrlich would win.

What was the outcome of the bet between Ehrlich and Simon after ten years?

The world population continued to increase, but the price of all five metals decreased, making Julian Simon the winner of the bet.

Why might the price of metals not have been the best proxy for the debate on overpopulation?

The price of metals is influenced by many factors unrelated to overpopulation, such as market demand, technological advancements, and geopolitical events, making it a potentially unreliable indicator for the debate's core issue.

How has the understanding of the causes of starvation and famine evolved since the bet?

The current understanding acknowledges that while resources exist to support a growing population, the challenge lies in equitable distribution, rather than population size being the primary cause of famine.

What is the contemporary view on population growth and environmental degradation?

Today, experts agree that population size is not the main cause of environmental degradation and climate change. Instead, the focus should be on adopting sustainable technologies and practices.

What did Julian Simon receive from Paul Ehrlich in October 1990, and what did it signify?

Julian Simon received a check from Paul Ehrlich, signifying that Simon had won their bet and highlighting the importance of innovation and resource management over concerns of resource depletion.

Outlines

00:00

🌍 The Ehrlich-Simon Bet on Resource Scarcity

In 1980, American professors Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford biologist known for his book 'The Population Bomb,' and Julian Simon, a business and economics professor, engaged in a $1,000 bet. Ehrlich, influenced by Thomas Malthus's theories, predicted that population growth would outpace food supply, leading to mass starvation. Simon, however, believed that human ingenuity would find alternatives to diminishing resources, arguing against Ehrlich's pessimistic outlook. Their debate was not just academic; it also touched on the political discourse of the time, influencing discussions on environmental protection versus economic growth during the U.S. presidential race between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. The terms of the bet were set on the prices of five metals, with Ehrlich predicting an increase due to resource scarcity and Simon expecting stability or a decrease due to human innovation.

Keywords

💡Population Bomb

The 'Population Bomb' refers to the 1968 book by Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, which argued that overpopulation would lead to a global crisis, including mass starvation. The book is a key reference in the video, illustrating Ehrlich's belief that population growth would outpace resources, leading to catastrophe. It sets the stage for the debate between Ehrlich and Simon on the sustainability of resources in relation to population growth.

💡Thomas Malthus

Thomas Malthus was an 18th-century economist whose ideas on population growth are central to the debate in the video. Malthus posited that population growth would naturally outpace the food supply, leading to widespread starvation. His theories are used by Ehrlich to support his predictions of future famines, highlighting the historical context of the overpopulation debate.

💡Julian Simon

Julian Simon was a professor of business and economics who disagreed with Ehrlich's predictions. He believed that human ingenuity would always find alternatives to compensate for diminishing resources. Simon's perspective is crucial in the video as it contrasts with Ehrlich's, leading to a bet on the prices of five metals, which serves as a proxy for the larger debate on resource scarcity and population growth.

💡Resource Scarcity

Resource scarcity is the concept that the world's finite resources will eventually be depleted due to overconsumption, particularly as the population grows. This is a central theme in the video, with Ehrlich arguing that resource scarcity would lead to higher prices, while Simon believed that substitutes would be found, keeping prices stable or causing them to decrease.

💡Economic Growth

Economic growth is the increase in the production of goods and services in an economy over time. The video discusses the debate between prioritizing economic growth and environmental protections. It reflects the broader societal debate of the time, where Simon's optimism about economic growth leading to innovation and resource discovery contrasts with Ehrlich's concerns about the sustainability of growth given resource constraints.

💡Environmental Degradation

Environmental degradation refers to the deterioration of the natural environment through processes like pollution and deforestation. The video suggests that contemporary understanding has moved beyond seeing population size as the primary cause of environmental degradation, instead focusing on sustainable practices and technology.

💡Sustainable Practices

Sustainable practices are methods of production and consumption that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The video concludes with the notion that the focus should be on replacing unsustainable technologies and practices with sustainable ones, indicating a shift in perspective from the debate of the 1980s.

💡Equitable Distribution

Equitable distribution refers to the fair and just sharing of resources among a population. The video points out that while resources exist to support a growing population, the challenge lies in their equitable distribution. This highlights a shift from the debate on population growth to the systemic issues of resource allocation and social justice.

💡Metal Prices

Metal prices are used in the video as a proxy for the debate on resource scarcity and population growth. Ehrlich and Simon's bet on the prices of five metals over a decade was meant to reflect their differing views on whether resource scarcity would drive up prices or if innovation would lead to price stability or decrease. The outcome, with metal prices decreasing, favored Simon's perspective.

💡False Prophet

In the context of the video, 'false prophet' is a term used by Simon to describe Ehrlich, suggesting that Ehrlich's predictions of doom due to overpopulation were incorrect. This term reflects the heated nature of the debate and the strong disagreements between the two professors on the future trajectory of resource availability and population growth.

💡Human Ingenuity

Human ingenuity is the capacity of humans to be inventive and resourceful, often in the face of challenges. Simon's argument in the video is heavily based on the belief in human ingenuity to find solutions and alternatives to resource scarcity, which he sees as a driving force behind economic growth and innovation, contrasting with Ehrlich's more pessimistic view.

Highlights

In 1980, a $1,000 bet was made between two American professors on whether the earth would run out of resources to sustain a growing human population.

Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford biologist and author of 'The Population Bomb,' predicted millions would starve due to population outgrowing food supply.

Ehrlich's views were influenced by 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus, who believed population growth would always exceed food supply.

During the 1970s, Ehrlich's predictions seemed accurate with widespread famines, pollution, and political unrest.

Julian Simon, a professor of business and economics, disagreed with Ehrlich, finding no correlation between population growth and decreased living standards.

Simon argued that real-world data showed the opposite of Ehrlich's theoretical calculations.

Simon claimed human ingenuity would always find alternatives for diminishing resources, a view Ehrlich and others found overly optimistic.

In 1980, Simon challenged Ehrlich to a bet in Science Magazine, sparking a heated debate.

The bet's terms were based on the price of five metals, with Simon betting on stability or decrease and Ehrlich on increase.

The bet's outcome was tied to the broader debate on prioritizing environmental protections or economic growth.

The choice of metal prices as a proxy for the debate's outcome was questioned due to multiple factors affecting metal prices.

Ehrlich believed finite resources like metals would become scarce and expensive with population growth.

Simon thought substitutes for metals would be found, keeping prices stable or causing a decrease.

Over the next 10 years, the world population increased, but the price of all five metals decreased, making Simon the winner.

The bet's outcome does not necessarily reflect the actual state of resources and population sustainability.

Current understanding has shifted from seeing population size as a primary cause of environmental issues to focusing on resource distribution and sustainable practices.

Economic growth and environmental protections are no longer seen as mutually exclusive.

In 1990, Simon received a check from Ehrlich, marking the end of the bet without further comment.

Transcripts

In 1980, two American professors bet $1,000

on a question with stakes that couldn’t be higher:

would the earth run out of resources to sustain a growing human population?

One of them was Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich,

who wrote the bestselling 1968 book, “The Population Bomb.”

The global population had grown rapidly since World War II,

and Ehrlich predicted that millions would starve to death

as the population increased faster than the food supply.

He drew from the ideas of 18th century economist Thomas Malthus

and related work from the 20th century.

Malthus had posited that population growth,

if unchecked over time, would always outpace food supply.

Through the 1970s, it seemed like Ehrlich was right:

famines, pollution, and political unrest

had many concerned that humanity was on the brink of such a crisis,

and some governments considered and even implemented

policies to limit population growth.

Betting against Ehrlich was Julian Simon, a professor of business and economics.

He analyzed historic data from around the world,

and found no correlation between a growing population

and a decrease in standards of living—

in fact, he found the opposite.

He argued that Ehrlich’s work, and that of Malthus before him,

was based on theoretical calculations,

while the real-world data told a different story.

But then, he departed from the data himself,

claiming human ingenuity would always find alternatives

to compensate for diminishing resources.

If that seems overly optimistic to you, well, you're not alone.

Ehrlich and other experts found Simon’s claims preposterous.

In June 1980, Simon wrote a scathing article for Science Magazine

that incited a heated debate of published articles between the two men.

Simon said he should have placed a wager against Ehrlich years before,

when Ehrlich ventured that,

“England would not exist in the year 2000.”

Later that year, Simon called Ehrlich a false prophet

and challenged him to a bet.

Their feud also touched on the debate

about whether to prioritize environmental protections or economic growth,

a key issue in the American presidential race

between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

After some debate, they set the final terms:

$200 on the price of each of five metals.

If the price of the metal decreased or held steady over the next decade,

Simon won.

If the price increased, Ehrlich won.

Wait, what?

Weren’t we talking about overpopulation and famine?

What could the price of metals possibly have to do with that?

Well, the reality is that the price of metals may not have been the best choice—

many factors impact these prices that have nothing to do with overpopulation.

But their reasoning was as follows: metals are finite natural resources

used in all sorts of manufacturing.

Ehrlich believed a growing population would consume such finite resources,

and scarcity would drive the prices up.

Simon thought humanity would find substitutes for the metals,

and the prices would stay stable or even decrease.

So, what happened?

The world population continued to increase over the next 10 years,

but the price of all five metals decreased,

making Simon the clear winner of a bet that may not have been a great proxy

for the question they were debating, anyway.

As for the question itself, today,

their focus on overpopulation represent a snapshot of history.

Our understanding of what causes starvation and famine has progressed:

we have the resources to support a growing human population,

but we’re currently failing to distribute those resources equitably,

and changing that should be our priority.

And we no longer see population size as a primary cause

of environmental degradation and climate change,

or limiting population growth as a viable solution to these problems.

Rather, experts largely agree that our focus should be

on replacing unsustainable technologies and practices with sustainable ones,

and that economic growth and environmental protections

don’t have to be at odds.

In October 1990, Julian Simon received a check from Paul Ehrlich.

There was no note.