The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth's Future.

AuthorWhaples, Robert
PositionBook review

The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth's Future

By Paul Sabin

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2013.

Pp. xv, 304. $28.50 (hardcover).

Humans are not butterflies.

Paul Sabin explores a half-century of environmental policy and environmentalism through the lens of two outsized personalities--biologist Paul Ehrlich and economist Julian Simon. Tired of the fawning attention given to Ehrlich and his unfulfilled gloom-and-doom predictions, Simon famously challenged him to put his money where his mouth was. In the pages of the Social Science Quarterly in 1980, Simon asked, "How often does a prophet have to be wrong before we no longer believe that he or she is a true prophet?" (qtd. on p. 134), and goaded Ehrlich into a wager on resource scarcity as demonstrated by the trend in raw material prices. They settled on a bet covering $1,000 worth of five metals (a $200 contract for each metal). If the inflation-adjusted price of the metals rose from 1980 to 1990, Simon would pay the difference; if the prices went down, Ehrlich would pay the difference to Simon. In monetary terms, Simon bore almost all the risk--at most he could win $1,000 (if the prices all fell to zero), but his potential losses were unbounded. Aid he gave Ehrlich a blank check by letting him pick the five commodities. As you've probably heard, Ehrlich lost the bet about as spectacularly as possible. The prices of all five of the commodities fell. Jointly, they fell a remarkable 57 percent.

Simon had no way of knowing that commodity prices would fall so sharply during the 1980s. Over many recent ten-year periods, the prices of natural resources have risen; in many other periods, they have fallen. But it's fitting that Ehrlich lost this particular bet so convincingly. He (and his friends John Holdren and John Harte) failed to do their homework, choosing to bet on copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten based on little more than gut instincts. For example, as Paul Sabin points out, the price of copper was abnormally high at the start of the bet due to temporary factors, including strikes in Chile and political disruptions in Zaire and Zimbabwe. Simple economic theory suggests that the price would drop after these temporary supply reductions ended. More importantly, it's fitting that Ehrlich lost the bet because his other, better-known, and emphatic predictions were so profoundly wrong.

Sabin details Ehrlich's upbringing, his youthful fascination with...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT