Bet Blogger To bet or not to bet

14May/101

Why Ehrlich lost in Simon-Ehrlich wager

According to Paul Ehrlich's website:

In 1980, Julian Simon repeatedly challenged environmental scientists to bet against him on trends in prices of commodities, asserting that humanity would never run out of anything... Paul and the other scientists knew that the five metals in the proposed wager were not critical indicators and said so at the time... They emphasized that the depletion of so-called renewable resources — environmental resources such as soils, forests, species diversity, and groundwater — is much more indicative of the deteriorating state of society's life-support systems... Nonetheless, after consulting with many colleagues, Paul and Berkeley physicists John Harte and John Holdren accepted Simon's challenge in late 1980...[1]

It's not clear if Ehrlich consulted with economists. If he had, the flaw in using commodity prices as the best way to understand biophysical limits might have become obvious. Many economists understand the principle of substitution and the dynamic influence of technology with respect to commodity prices. For example, in the absence of any new technologies, copper prices would indeed be expected to increase as growing economies demanded more copper to meet the needs of expanding communications networks and plumbing infrastructure. Technological changes mitigated much of this expected demand as fiber optics replaced copper wire networks and various plastics replaced the once ubiquitous copper pipes throughout the construction industry.

Julian Simon won because the price of three of the five metals went down in absolute terms and all five of the metals fell in price in inflation-adjusted terms,[1][2] with both tin and tungsten falling by more than half. So, per the terms of the wager, Ehrlich paid Simon the difference in price between the same quantity of metals in 1980 and 1990 (which was $576.07). The prices of all five metals increased between 1950 and 1975, but Ehrlich believes three of the five went down during the 1980s because of the price of oil doubling in 1979, and because of a worldwide recession in the early 1980s.

Yet, it is significant that, according to an article in Wired:

All of [Ehrlich's] grim predictions had been decisively overturned by events. Ehrlich was wrong about higher natural resource prices, about "famines of unbelievable proportions" occurring by 1975, about "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" in the 1970s and '80s, about the world "entering a genuine age of scarcity." In 1990, for his having promoted "greater public understanding of environmental problems," Ehrlich received a MacArthur Foundation Genius Award." [Simon] always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.[3]

Exponential population growth cannot continue indefinitely for any species, whether it exists as microbes in a petri dish, wild salmon at sea, caribou in the taiga, or a global human society. However, world population is no longer growing exponentially; it has been decelerating for the last half century or so, and UN projections show that it may actually decline after 2040.[4][5]

Simon offered to raise the wager to $20,000 and to use any resources at any time that Ehrlich preferred. Ehrlich countered with a challenge to bet that temperatures would increase in the future.[1] The two were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of a second wager before Simon died.

Inflation-adjusted price movements of the commodities in the wager between Simon and Ehrlich may be seen in the larger 1950–2002 context in the following chart. Prices for these five commodities were generally rising from 1960 up until 1978, and generally falling thereafter.[6]

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Center for Conservation biology". Stanford.edu. 2005-03-16.
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ Regis, Ed (February 1997). "The Doomslayer". Wired 5 (2).
  4. ^ Population Division, UNDESA (2004). World Population to 2300. New York: United Nations.
  5. ^ Cobb, Loren (October 2006). "Population Implosion". The Quaker Economist 6 (#149).
  6. ^ Kelly, Thomas D; Matos, Grecia R (2005). "Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States". U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 140. U.S. Geological Survey.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.

Share
18Mar/100

Precedent and legacy of the Simon-Ehrlich wager

This bet is admitted by both parties to be a good-natured resurrection of the same spirit and tradition behind the famous Simon-Ehrlich wager which spanned the years 1980-1990.

Tierney was a life-long friend and protégé of the late Julian Simon (the winner of the Simon-Ehrlich wager), and eagerly embraced the opportunity to follow in his mentor's footsteps. Tierney is (as was Simon) an avowed Cornucopian, believing in the ingenuity of humankind to adapt and improvise. Meanwhile, Simmons' "Twilight in the Desert" seemed to Tierney to be cut from the same gloom-and-doom cloth as Paul R. Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, a book published in 1968 which later became the impetus for the Simon-Ehrlich wager. When that well-renowned wager was settled in 1990, Simon's boomster victory over Ehrlich's doomster philosophies was heralded as a triumph for Cornucopian economics.

Tierney made unabashed reference to that infamous wager as he gave his apologetic for embarking upon this redux of it:

I didn't try to argue with [Simmons] about Saudi Arabia, because I know next to nothing about oil production there or anywhere else. I'm just following the advice of a mentor and friend, the economist Julian Simon: if you find anyone willing to bet that natural resource prices are going up, take him for all you can.

The inclusion of Rita Simon

After the bet was agreed upon (but before it was made public) Tierney immediately called Rita Simon, the widow of Julian Simon. She delightedly joined with Tierney's effort to carry on with her late husband's legacy, and even financed one half of Tierney’s obligation to the bet by contributing USD$2,500.00 of her own.

Ongoing updates

The price-per-barrel of crude oil is being heavily scrutinized by oil industry watchers aware of this bet. Many peak oil websites make frequent reference to the Simmons-Tierney bet[1] and some have already begun daily tabulations and adjusted-for-inflation charts on the latest price-per-barrel. (The price-per-barrel of oil at the time of the bet — August 2005 — was around $65.00. The price as of the initial publishing of this article — May 10, 2008 — was $125.96; the record high of $147 in July 2008 was in large part attributable to a weak U.S. dollar.)

With the dramatic drop in demand and prices for many commodities in the economic crisis of 2008, the average per-barrel price for December 2008 reached a post-spike low of $40.88, then steadily climbed back to an average of $78.33 for the month of January 2010.[2]

Both Simmons and Tierney (as of this writing) have publicly availed their e-mail addresses with a formal and open invitation to anyone else in the general population who might like to make similar wagers.

References

  1. ^ Update on the Simmons-Tierney Bet, theoildrum.com, by Stuart Staniford on March 17, 2008
  2. ^ Spot Prices for Crude Oil and Petroleum Products, WTI - Cushing, Oklahoma. Retrieved 2010-02-26.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.

Share