“Sadly, in Paul Sabin’s account, the main villain turns out to be the morally upstanding Simon who, fifteen years after his death, is blamed for creating policy logjams and fueling uncivil discourse. In the meantime, Paul Ehrlich keeps issuing ‘important warnings’ such as a recent prediction that humans might soon have to resort to cannibalism to survive the ecological apocalypse.”

The background and story of the famous bet between catastrophist biologist Paul R. Ehrlich and optimist economist Julian L. Simon was first told in some detail over twenty-five years ago by journalist John Tierney in the pages of the New York Times Magazine. The bet, ostensibly on the future prices of five commercially important metals – copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten – provided a platform upon which two opposing worldviews, that of Ehrlich’s depletionist catastrophism and Julian’s optimistic resourceship, confronted each other.…

This reprint from a collection of essays at Julian Simon.com is published in connection with the recent death of Paul R. Ehrlich (1932–2026). This piece was finalized in Simon’s treatise, The Ultimate Resource 2 (1996), pp. 604–607. Simon’s relative politeness to his adversary is a tribute to open, honest, and respectful debate (versus the infamous Ehrlich approach).

“When you launch a space shuttle you don’t trot out the flat-earthers to be commentators. They’re outside the bounds of what ought to be discourse in the media. In the field of ecology, Simon is the absolute equivalent of the flat-earthers.” (Paul Ehrlich, quoted below)

For economy of treatment of the matter of attack rhetoric, let’s focus on just one critic, Paul Ehrlich, who has directed a great deal of colorful language in my direction (see also his comments in the Afternote to Chapter 15, and my interchange with him in Simon, 1990, Selection 43).…

Ed. Note: This repost from seven years ago (January 11, 2018) is reprinted for its relevancy today. What 12 or more would you add today? Here are some of mine: Craig Idso, Jr., Anthony Watts (WUWT), Kevin Dayaratna, and the other four DOE science study authors in addition to Judith Curry, profiled yesterday (John Christy, Steven Koonin, Ross McKittrick, Roy Spencer).

I previously recognized twelve individuals associated with free-market, classical-liberal energy analysis and advocacy. Here is a second “tribute” to those who have labored against the mainstream of Malthusianism and energy statism–and now find themselves with new opportunities to formulate, summarize, and promote pro-consumer, taxpayer-neutral energy policy.

This list is in alphabetical order. It is subjective and hardly exhaustive. Other candidates (such as the present writer) could also be included–and could be in a future iteration.…

Always wrong but never in doubt. Welcome to the-end-is-always-near world of Paul R. Ehrlich, where humans are the problem–or at least everyone that does not see what the neo-Malthusians warn against. The land of the living dead–something to think about this Halloween.

I was reminded of neo-Malthusianism come Halloween 2025 upon rereading a piece in the (Progressive Left) The Guardian, “Paul Ehrlich: ‘Collapse of Civilisation Is a Near Certainty Within Decades‘”, published eight years ago (March 2018).

“Fifty years after the publication of his controversial book The Population Bomb, biologist Paul Ehrlich warns overpopulation and overconsumption are driving us over the edge,” the subtitle of Damian Carrington article states. He continues:

A shattering collapse of civilisation is a “near certainty” in the next few decades due to humanity’s continuing destruction of the natural world that sustains all life on Earth, according to biologist Prof Paul Ehrlich.