Please read John Tierney\'s December 2, 1990 New York Times article, Betting on

Question

Please read John Tierney's December 2, 1990 New York Times article, Betting on the Planet, about a bet, in 1980, between ecologist Paul Ehrlich and economist Julian Simon over the future price of five metals. The bet was really about something more: two radically divergent views on the Earth's resource limits. We learn the outcome of the bet, ten years hence. What are your impressions of Ehrlich's arguments? Of Simon's? What do you think of the outcome? Have things changed much since? Please limit your response to one page

Explanation / Answer

In 1980, a ecologist and an economist bet $1000 to resolve their differences. A bet over what the future holds in for the prices of five metals - chrome, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. It was more than that - of how much can the planet endure, how long can it sustain in accordance to the needs and greed of mankind.

Two contrary beliefs - one Malthusian (one that refers to the calamity/disaster to put a check on thegrowth of a population relative to its subsitance or inevitably fall into the depths of poverty and degradation) versus the other, Cornucopian (with advances in technology the growing demands can be met). A pessimist vs. a futurist.

This discussion turned verbal battle has been going on for ages. Both sides address to the same overall problem, yet the nature of the addressing is bigot - they never look at the same part of the world at the same time. But for once they did.

Ecologist Paul R. Ehrlich and economist Julian L. Simon - the two battling candidates. Ehrlich, a stern naturalist by ideology and profession, acclaimed for his works and take on the situation of environmental crisis. Simon, a new-age economist (his 'predecessors' would have favored Ehrlich), the flagbearer whose work prompted the NAS to note that there was no clear evidence that population growth makes countries poorer.

According to Simon - the problem of population boom has and is never a problem per se. It is a boon in disguise to push the creative minds in search for better options and leaps in the technology to suit the purpose.

Simon issues an open challenge driven by the idea that the prices of these commodities would decline instead of the obvious. Ehrlich responds. The time is set to 1990, a ten year gap. The results come in. Simon wins. Even the inflation was on his side. The boom crops have played in his favor. And somehow, the perishable and depleting 'five metals' stumped in their prices.

Even today, the situation hasn't changed much. Rather in that time it is estimated that the population growth has by far been the most rapid. So, we may be better off by current standards. But the question still remains.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.