That’s an Insane Gamble
Krishya Nema
FY BSc (2024-28)
Reading time – 6 minutes
The Premise:
Now as fun as it is to lose your money gambling, it’s not the most socially acceptable hobby. Turns out, two nerds didn’t need a casino to lose their money—just a good argument. So the story goes as follows, a biologist and an economist walk into a bar, the biologist orders a beer and says, “If we keep consuming at this rate, we’ll run out of beer.” The economist replies, “Wanna bet?”
That is the crux of what occurred between Paul R. Ehrlich (a biologist) and Julian Simon (an economist) back in 1980. No one knows if they walked into a bar or not, but we do know that the outcome of this bet pushes us to ask vital questions. Should I gamble tomorrow? What’s for lunch? Am I going to die alone? Does overpopulation actually exist?
The Bet:
Ehrlich and Simon essentially posed a question of scarcity vs. human ingenuity. Post WW2 the global population had seen a sharp increase opening the floor to talk about how the increase in demand will have effects on our stock of resources. Ehrlich had earlier written “The Population Bomb” a book that showcased his concern regarding the increase in total world inhabitants. He drew inspiration from the ideas of Albert Malthus, a killjoy for all free-market enjoyers, who argued that the rate at which the population was growing would always outpace food supply. Ehrlich and Malthus found it necessary to pose stern limits on reproduction to prevent the eventual extermination of the human race; they argued that economies could not grow infinitely. Julian Simon on the other hand was of the world view that technological improvements and economic growth would sustain humanity’s ever growing needs. Proving to be the only perpetual sources of prosperity.
The wager was straightforward. Over the course of 10 years Erhlich and Simon would monitor the prices of selected minerals betting 200 dollars on each: Chromium, Copper, Nickel, Tin, and Tungsten. Paul hypothesized that the rate at which all resources were being consumed would lead to resource depletion resulting in price rise. Simon, a techno-optimist, felt the marvels of scientific intellect would drive innovation to combat scarcity thus leading to no change, or fall in prices. So if prices rose, Erhlich was 1000 richer, and if they didn’t Simon would be one happy man.
After ten long years, the results were out, the prices had fallen and Ehrlich paid Simon 1000 dollars. To be fair, it has been argued that luck played a part more than anything else. From the choice of metals, to the assumption that market prices reflect absolute scarcity; there were several flaws within the premise of the bet from the get-go.
However it is this debate of depletion vs. innovation that can be applied to various allied fields of study such as demography. In the context of overpopulation, a term we’ve been hearing about since the 1700s, there is an imperative need to change perspectives. If overpopulation exists, is it truly a problem?
Too many…lives?
Overpopulation is widely defined as the human population exceeding the carrying capacity of the environment. It’s no secret that the number of humans is increasing exponentially, even hitting the 8 billion mark back in November of 2022. It’s also clear to see that resource depletion is a valid and prominent issue. So if 2+2 =4 then what are we missing?
Logically speaking several arguments can be made against overpopulation. The first addresses the term itself. Overpopulation might imply the existence of an ideal population. How do we estimate how many people fall into the category of “excess,” what kind of people would be burdening the environment (eugenics type beat if you’re following along). Moreover, defining an ideal population size depends on whose consumption habits we take as the global standard—do we base it on the average American or the Kenyan, whose footprint is much smaller? Our answers can vary from 1 billion to 10 billion based on the assumptions we make, signalling that measuring human to resource ratio is increasingly difficult.
Additionally, the historical origins of overpopulation don’t make this picture any prettier. Unsurprisingly, instead of worrying about growing scarcity or rapid consumption— colonisers were just, really bad people. They used the overpopulation excuse to cull the native population while setting up camp. During British rule in India, food resources were often diverted to England instead of feeding the population that grew them. Take the Bengal Famine of 1943, a tragedy resulting in over 3 million deaths, where food scarcity was labeled a result of “excess indian breeding.” The irony? India was producing enough food—the issue wasn’t scarcity but hoarding, mismanagement, and political choices. In fact history is still repeating itself. Human ingenuity has enabled us to cultivate more food than ever before, using less land than ever before, and yet in 2022 it was estimated that 1.05 billion tonnes of food is wasted everyday.
Carrying forward the issue of scarcity vs. inefficiency, the demand created by the emergence of new life is not as worrisome as the growing magnitude of demand for goods and services by the current population. It’s a knockout round between babies and consumerism (too bad no one wins in a capitalist society). Firstly, not all humans consume equally whether it’s across countries or tax brackets. The top 10% of earners are responsible for nearly half of all emissions, while billions of people live with minimal resource use. Not only is the number of people demanding goods on the rise, but a larger aspect of this is the rising magnitude of demand. Besides the global swell in purchasing power, modern capitalist society dictates that if firms cannot find a market, they can simply create them. The push to constantly consume more than what is required is the producer’s way of continuing to make profits at our expense.
Secondly, shortages exist largely because of inefficiencies in distribution and unchecked production processes that prioritize cost-minimization instead of sustainability. In 2022 headlines were plastered across all news channels warning of the looming coal shortage in India. We were faced with yet another indication of the price our planet is paying to sustain us… right? The coal shortage arose due to a multitude of factors, high demand post-pandemic recovery and scorching heat waves played a part, but they were overshadowed by the burden of logistical issues. The previous year’s rainfall had hampered coal mining and transport, factories had low stockpiles due to poor planning, the Russia-Ukraine war largely disrupted global markets, and the Indian Railways couldn’t move coal fast enough to meet power plants’ needs. The transient nature of such a shortage was highlighted in 2024 when India produced a record high of 997.826 million tonnes of coal. This goes to highlight a fundamental truth: while resources are finite, our ability to extract, manage, and distribute them is constantly evolving.
Lastly, an interesting approach to the overpopulation panic is that “it’s just a phase.” The Demographic Transition Model (DTM) clearly shows us that overpopulation will correct itself as country’s reach various points in their socio-economic growth. The more they develop the more birth rates slow down. It is already being observed in global north countries such as Japan and Australia, who are now facing stagnation or decline in birth rates due to factors such as education levels, access to healthcare and contraception, changing lifestyles and living standards, etc. Even India’s fertility rate has fallen below replacement level. The takeaway here is that reducing our numbers is a natural process whereas changing patterns of consumerism and unsustainable practice must be an active effort.
The Conclusion:
The bet Ehrlich and Simon made almost 45 years ago never truly ended. Everyday is a question of who will give up first, the planet, or us. Choosing not to believe in the concept of overpopulation may very sound like a conspiracy theory, but beliefs like these are necessary to objectively evaluate the status quo. How long will we let industrialists and corporations point fingers at us for the rise in demand they’ve induced and resources they’ve wasted? We’ve played our part, we’ve used the plastic straws, made the posters and marched the streets. It’s time we start hoping Simon relies on more than just luck this time. While we still don’t know what’s for lunch tomorrow, the real bet isn’t whether we’ll die alone—it’s whether we’ll be around long enough to find out.