From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:06:46 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <JMC.92Aug20232000@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Sorry I didn't read carefully enough.  I thought they were Dean Alaska's
>rather than the source he cited.
>
>No-one claimed that commodity prices were an accurate measure of the
>quality of life - especially the prices of metals.  The poorer you
>are, the more important the price of food commodities, assuming you
>are in a monetary economy at all.

The implication of the article was that Ehrlich and Simon saw it that
way.  I haven't seen any quotes from either of them to verify that, however.
>
>Paul Ehrlich said metal prices would go up and was confident enough
>in his doctrine of general scarcity to accept a bet.
>
>Alaska asks:
>
>     Do you believe that it is reasonable to assert that lower
>     labor costs from increased population could hold commodity
>     prices level in the face of increasing scarcity or
>     increasing costs of extraction?
>
>Conceivably they could, but more likely there was greater abundance
>and reduced costs of extraction.  I think the facts of the matter can
>be determined from reference books, and I think a $50 bet would
>stimulate me to go to the library and look them up.  By reduced
>costs of extraction I mean a reduced number of man hours.  How
>about copper as the commodity about which to bet?

Sorry to disapoint you on this one but I'm not much of a gambler, and
yes, you could infer that I'm not sure in Abernathy's hypothesis is
correct.  Some of it is reasonable, and some of it had holes in it.
Particularly when applied to a single commodity that is not tied
heavily to over-populated countries, as your bet would be.  Maybe
you should suggest the bet to her.  The
general point is that simple measures such as a few commodity prices
can be affected by numerous factors.

However, if _you_ are the betting type, read the following.  I might
almost be convinced to take this one up.
>
>Darned if I know whether Dean Alaska's last name is Alaska.
>What name does he put on checks when he pays bets?
>
I guess some things are forever to remain secrets.
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

[start of included article]

		Julian Simon's Latest Bet

[Julian Simon is the economist who won a bet with Paul Ehrlich that prices
for certain commodities would go down over a 10 year period.]

Eight people have accepted Professor Simon's most recent challenge to bet on
the future effect of population growth on specific measures of human welfare.
The following criteria were selected:

1. For nations with a population of more than 10 million, the 5 with
the fastest rate of population growth between 1990 and 2000 as reported in
the Britannica Book of the year 2002 would be selected.

2. For these 5 nations, the following measures of human welfare as published
in the 1992 Britannica Book of the Year would be compared with the same 
measures as published in the same source in the 2002 volume:

	a) Per capita GNP
	b) Per capita food consumption (calories); and
	c) Infant mortality rate

3.  For each of the above 15 comparisons (5 countries by 3 factors), a bet
of $100 each (for a total of $1500) was placed with the expectation that that
particular condition would worsen, against Dr. Simon's contention that they
would improve.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The challengers did relevent domparisons of these measures from the 1985 and 
1992 Britannica yearbooks and concluded that countries with the highest rate of
population growth suffer as a consequence.

If you want to know more details about the bet, contact Carol Benson Holst,
Director, Ministry of Population Concerns, POB 9955, Glendale, CA 91226.

[end of included article]

This looks like an interesting bet, but the GNP part is not a reliable
measure, IMO, since its relevance depends on an equitable distribution
of wealth or income.  The other two should make up for it, though.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3255 talk.politics.misc:39798 alt.politics.clinton:1975