Author
|
Topic: We are consuming more than the world can produce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 30 November 2004 05:11 AM
time for another anti-Malthusian, Julian Simon wager (Google: Ehrlich Simon wager resources population )Premises : we are always short of resources, always have been, always will be, that's their nature; otherwise they would not be worth digging up at great expense but catastrophic shortages a false alarm, I bet here is a good account of the original bet: http://tinyurl.com/5ql7r Julian Simon's Bet With Paul Ehrlich In 1980, economist |Julian Simon| and biologist Paul Ehrlich decided to put their money where their predictions were. Ehrlich had been predicting massive shortages in various natural resources for decades, while Simon claimed natural resources were infinite. Simon offered Ehrlich a bet centered on the market price of metals. Ehrlich would pick a quantity of any five metals he liked worth $1,000 in 1980. If the 1990 price of the metals, after adjusting for inflation, was more than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became more scarce), Ehrlich would win. If, however, the value of the metals after inflation was less than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became less scare), Simon would win. The loser would mail the winner a check for the change in price. Ehrlich agreed to the bet, and chose copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten. By 1990, all five metal were below their inflation-adjusted price level in 1980. Ehrlich lost the bet and sent Simon a check for $576.07. Prices of the metals chosen by Ehrlich fell so much that Simon would have won the bet even if the prices hadn't been adjusted for inflation. (1) Here's how each of the metals performed from 1980-1990. [........] [ 30 November 2004: Message edited by: Geneva ][B][/B [ 30 November 2004: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Chris Borst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 731
|
posted 30 November 2004 02:00 PM
quote: Originally posted by Geneva: Simon offered Ehrlich a bet centered on the market price of metals. Ehrlich would pick a quantity of any five metals he liked worth $1,000 in 1980. If the 1990 price of the metals, after adjusting for inflation, was more than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became more scarce), Ehrlich would win. If, however, the value of the metals after inflation was less than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became less scare), Simon would win.
Yes yes. This "test" proves nothing. The price of anything is determined by the supply coming to market relative to demand, not by the total supply relative to demand. All one needs to do is burn through our resources faster and, *presto!* falling prices.The planet is finite. It can't contain an infinite quantity of any mass. When it's gone, it's gone - with whatever effects on the ecosystem. Capitalist submorons talk about mining colonies on the moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. But things like hydrocarbons, water and air are Made on Earth™ or nowhere. The relevant test is the effect of human resource exploitation on the ecosystem's ability to sustain itself - including, rather than excluding, us.
From: Taken off to the Great White North | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|