The infamous overpopulation bet: Simon vs. Ehrlich - Soraya Field Fiorio

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Claire Hsu

In 1980, two American professors bet $1,000

1980 年，兩位美國教授

將一千美金押在 一個賭注極高的問題上：

on a question with stakes that couldn’t be higher:

would the earth run out of resources to sustain a growing human population?

地球的資源是否會耗盡， 不足以供養持續成長的人口呢？

One of them was Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich,

其中一人是史丹佛的 生物學家保羅艾爾利克，

who wrote the bestselling 1968 book, “The Population Bomb.”

他是 1968 年暢銷書 《人口爆炸》的作者。

The global population had grown rapidly since World War II,

從二次大戰之後 全球人口就快速成長，

and Ehrlich predicted that millions would starve to death

艾爾利克預測，數百萬人將會餓死，

as the population increased faster than the food supply.

因為人口成長速度 會超越食物供應成長的速度。

He drew from the ideas of 18th century economist Thomas Malthus

他參考了十八世紀經濟學家 托馬斯馬爾薩斯的想法，

and related work from the 20th century.

以及二十世紀的相關研究。

Malthus had posited that population growth,

馬爾薩斯認為， 人口成長若長期未受控制，

if unchecked over time, would always outpace food supply.

必定會超越食物供應的速度。

Through the 1970s, it seemed like Ehrlich was right:

從 1970 年代來看， 艾爾利克似乎是對的，

famines, pollution, and political unrest

饑荒、污染、政治動盪 導致許多人擔心

had many concerned that humanity was on the brink of such a crisis,

人類即將面臨這類危機，

and some governments considered and even implemented

有些政府在考慮，甚至也確實實施了

policies to limit population growth.

限制人口成長的政策。

Betting against Ehrlich was Julian Simon, a professor of business and economics.

和艾爾利克對賭的是朱利安西蒙，

他是商學與經濟學的教授。

He analyzed historic data from around the world,

他分析了世界各地的歷史資料，

and found no correlation between a growing population

發現人口成長與生活水準下降 之間並沒有關聯──

and a decrease in standards of living—

in fact, he found the opposite.

事實上，他發現情況正好相反。

He argued that Ehrlich’s work, and that of Malthus before him,

他主張，艾爾利克 以及更早前馬爾薩斯的研究

was based on theoretical calculations,

是以理論計算為根據，

while the real-world data told a different story.

但真實世界的資料呈現出不同的現象。

But then, he departed from the data himself,

但接著，他自己也偏離了資料，

claiming human ingenuity would always find alternatives

主張人類的才智一定會找到替代方案，

to compensate for diminishing resources.

來彌補越來越少的資源。

If that seems overly optimistic to you, well, you're not alone.

如果你覺得他太過樂觀， 不是只有你會這麼想。

Ehrlich and other experts found Simon’s claims preposterous.

艾爾利克和其他專家認為 西蒙的主張十分荒謬。

In June 1980, Simon wrote a scathing article for Science Magazine

1980 年 8 月，

西蒙在《科學》期刊上寫了 一篇尖刻的文章，

that incited a heated debate of published articles between the two men.

導致這兩人發表文章， 進行激烈的辯論。

Simon said he should have placed a wager against Ehrlich years before,

西蒙說他幾年前就應該 和艾爾利克打賭，

when Ehrlich ventured that,

那時艾爾利克曾大膽提出

“England would not exist in the year 2000.”

「到了 2000 年， 英格蘭將不復存在」。

Later that year, Simon called Ehrlich a false prophet

同年晚些時候， 西蒙說艾爾利克是假先知，

and challenged him to a bet.

並向他提出打賭。

Their feud also touched on the debate

他們的長期爭執中也曾辯論

about whether to prioritize environmental protections or economic growth,

環境保護和經濟成長之間， 應優先考量何者，

a key issue in the American presidential race

這是卡特和雷根的 美國總統選戰當中的關鍵議題。

between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

After some debate, they set the final terms:

一番爭辯之後， 他們訂下了最終版的條件：

$200 on the price of each of five metals.

用兩百美金分別對 五種金屬的價格下注。

If the price of the metal decreased or held steady over the next decade,

如果金屬的價格 在接下來的十年中下跌或持平，

Simon won.

就是西蒙贏。

If the price increased, Ehrlich won.

如果價格上漲，則艾爾利克贏。

Wait, what?

等等，什麼？

Weren’t we talking about overpopulation and famine?

我們不是在談人口過剩和饑荒嗎？

What could the price of metals possibly have to do with that?

那和金屬價格有什麼關係啊？

Well, the reality is that the price of metals may not have been the best choice—

嗯，現實而言，

金屬價格可能不是最好的選擇——

many factors impact these prices that have nothing to do with overpopulation.

這些價格會受到許多 人口過剩以外的因素影響。

But their reasoning was as follows: metals are finite natural resources

但他們的理由如下：

金屬是有限的天然資源，

used in all sorts of manufacturing.

用於各種製造過程。

Ehrlich believed a growing population would consume such finite resources,

艾爾利克相信，人口成長 會消耗這類有限資源，

and scarcity would drive the prices up.

資源變稀少，價格就會上升。

Simon thought humanity would find substitutes for the metals,

西蒙認為人類會找到金屬的替代品，

and the prices would stay stable or even decrease.

因此價格不會改變，甚至會下跌。

So, what happened?

結果如何？

The world population continued to increase over the next 10 years,

在接下來的十年間， 世界人口持續成長，

but the price of all five metals decreased,

但這五種金屬的價格通通都下跌了，

making Simon the clear winner of a bet that may not have been a great proxy

很明顯，西蒙贏了賭注，

不過這賭注不見得能夠 確實反映他們辯論的問題。

for the question they were debating, anyway.

As for the question itself, today,

至於這個問題本身，

現今，他們對人口過剩的關注 代表了歷史的一段縮影。

their focus on overpopulation represent a snapshot of history.

Our understanding of what causes starvation and famine has progressed:

我們對於饑荒成因的了解 已經有所進步：

we have the resources to support a growing human population,

我們有資源可以養活不斷增加的人口，

but we’re currently failing to distribute those resources equitably,

但目前我們沒有公平分配資源，

and changing that should be our priority.

而改善這一點是當務之急。

And we no longer see population size as a primary cause

我們不再把人口規模視為

of environmental degradation and climate change,

環境惡化和氣候變遷的主因，

or limiting population growth as a viable solution to these problems.

也不再把限制人口成長視為 解決這些問題的可行方法。

Rather, experts largely agree that our focus should be

反而，專家們普遍認為，

我們的焦點應該放在 以永續的技術取代不永續的做法，

on replacing unsustainable technologies and practices with sustainable ones,

and that economic growth and environmental protections

以及，經濟成長和環境保護

don’t have to be at odds.

其實是可以並存的。

In October 1990, Julian Simon received a check from Paul Ehrlich.

1990 年 10 月，

朱利安西蒙收到了 保羅艾爾利克的支票。

There was no note.

對方未附上任何留言。