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