🚀 go-pugleaf

[crossposted to sci.environment]

Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich and Stephen H. Schneider have
accepted Julian Simon's challenge to find "any trend pertaining to
material human welfare" that will get worse in the next decade.  Their
wager is in response to Simon's article in the 05/12/95 San Francisco
Chronicle, expressing his willingness to bet that all such trends will 
only get better.  Since Simon issued the original challenge, I'd say 
the bet is on!

The full text of their response, submitted to the Chronicle and other
papers, follows.  (I believe the text of Simon's original challenge is
still available at http://sfgate.com/new/schron/old/may-12-95/ed43802.html)

-kalon


SCIENTISTS CHALLENGE BUSINESS PROFESSOR TO BET ON HUMAN FUTURE

     STANFORD -- Asserting that there is now a "brownlash" in the
form of deceptive books and articles downplaying environmental
problems, scientists from Stanford's Department of Biological
Sciences challenged Julian Simon to bet on significant trends in
the human future.
     Simon, a professor of business administration at the Uni-
versity of Maryland, has repeatedly claimed that all environmen-
tal trends are positive and that "doomsaying environmentalists"
are wrong.  In the San Francisco Chronicle of Friday, May 12, he
suggested environmentalists bet that "any trend pertaining to
material human welfare" will get worse, since Simon writes they
will "all" get better.
     The Stanford scientists, ecologist Paul R. Ehrlich and
climatologist Stephen H. Schneider actually challenged Simon to
bet on 15 current trends whose direction is not positive now,
betting $1000 that each will get worse over a ten year stretch
into the future.  They pledged themselves to be bound by the
decision of "a panel of scientists chosen by the President of the
National Academy of Sciences in 2005."
     Among the negative trends they bet would continue were:
     * Rising global temperature.
     * Shrinking amount of cropland per person.
     * Decline in amount of wheat and rice grown per person
     * Shrinking area of tropical moist forests.
     * Decreasing oceanic fish harvest per person.
     * Increasing number of people dying of AIDS.
     * Declining human sperm count.
     * Growing gap between rich and poor.
     The Stanford scientists explained that they had chosen "15
trends to avoid the result of a statistical fluke" deciding the
bet, as may well have happened in a previous bet on a minor issue
marginally related to environmental quality.
     They pointed out that the trends in their wager "are more
relevant to human welfare than direct ones such as the prices of
metals" and that deterioration in those trends "makes society
increasingly vulnerable to severe negative impacts."
     They concluded "We hope we lose all parts of the bet, and
will be doing everything in our power to make that happen.
Sadly, the misinformation you are spreading, Mr. Simon, increases
the chances we will win the bet -- while humanity loses."
     The complete text of the response sent to the Chronicle fol-
lows:
               IT'S NO TIME TO HEED THE BROWNLASH
           by Paul R. Ehrlich and Stephen H. Schneider

     There is now a campaign of deceptive books and articles
designed to persuade people that all is well on the environmental
front.  The basic message of this campaign is that some favorable
trends show green concerns to be "doomsaying."  Our basic message
is that indirect trends such as those listed below are more
relevant to human welfare than direct ones such as the prices of
metals.
     Julian Simon has been a leader in this campaign.  He is best
known for his belief that resources are infinite (he wrote in
1980 that the theoretical limit to the amount of copper that
might be available to human beings was "the total weight of the
universe"!) and that population can and should grow indefinitely.
He's still at it ("Earth's Doomsayers are Wrong," Chronicle, May
12), this time citing a 1986 report prepared by social scientists
for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that was subsequently
protested by a substantial number of Academy scientists.  Somehow
he missed the 1994 statement from the NAS and 57 other national
academies of science worldwide that contradicted his position.
He also ignored the 1993 "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity,"
signed by some 1700 leading scientists, including over half of
all living Nobel Laureates in science, which reads in part: "A
great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it
is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global
home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated....A new
ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our
responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth.  We
must recongize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us.
We must recognize its fragility....The scientists issuing this
warning hope that our message will reach and affect people every-
where.  We need the help of many."
     It is impossible to say exactly how direct measures of human
well-being will be impacted by the general deterioration of
Earth's life-support systems.  We know, however, that deteriora-
tion makes society increasingly vulnerable to severe negative
impacts.
     One of us (PRE) once made the mistake of being goaded into
making a bet with Simon on a matter of marginal environmental
importance (prices of metals).  Simon says he still wants to make
bets.  We are thus now challenging Simon to bet on "trends" of
much greater significance to long-term human material welfare.
We wager $1000 per trend that each of the following 15 continen-
tal and global scale indicators will change in the direction
indicated ("get worse") over the next decade:
     1. The three years 2002-2004 will on average be warmer than
1992-1994 (rapid climatic change associated with global warming
could pose a major threat of increasing droughts and floods).
     2. There will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in
2004 than in 1994 (carbon dioxide is the most important gas
driving global warming).
     3.  There will be more nitrous oxide in the atmosphere in
2004 than in 1994 (nitrous oxide is another greenhouse gas that
is increasing due to human disruption of the nitrogen cycle).
     4.  The concentration of tropospheric ozone globally will be
greater in 2004 than in 1994 (tropospheric ozone has important
deleterious effects on human health and crop production)
     5. Emissions of sulfur dioxide in Asia will be signficantly
greater in 2004 than in 1994 (sulfur dioxide becomes sulphuric
acid in the atmosphere, the principal component of acid rain, and
it is associated with direct damage to human health).
     6. There will be less fertile cropland per person in 2004
than in 1994 (as the population grows, some of Earth's best
farmland is being paved over).
     7. There will be less agricultural soil per person in 2004
than in 1994 (about a quarter of the world's topsoil has been
lost since World War II, and erosion virtually everywhere far
exceeds rates of soil replacement).
     8. There will be on average less rice and wheat grown per
person in 2002-2004 than in 1992-1994 (rice and wheat are the two
most important crops consumed by people).
     9. In developing nations there will be less firewood avail-
able per person in 2004 than in 1994 (more than a billion people
today depend on fuelwood to meet their energy needs).
     10. The remaining area of tropical moist forests will be
significantly smaller in 2004 than in 1994 (those forests are the
repositories of some of humanity's most precious living resourc-
es, including the basis for many modern pharmaceuticals world-
wide).
     11. The oceanic fisheries harvest per person will continue
its downward trend and thus in 2004 will be smaller than in 1994
(overfishing, ocean pollution, and coastal wetlands destruction
will continue to take their toll).
     12. There will be fewer plant and animal species still
extant in 2004 than in 1994 (continuing habitat destruction is
wiping out organisms that are the working parts of humanity's
life-support systems).
     13.  More people will die of AIDS in 2004 than did in 1994
(as the disease takes off in Asia).
     14.  Between 1994 and 2004, sperm counts of human males will
continue to decline and reproductive disorders to increase (over
the last 50 years there has been a roughly 40 percent decline in
the count worldwide.  We bet this trend will continue due to the
widespread use of hormone-disrupting synthetic organic chemical
compounds).
     15. The gap in wealth between the richest 10 percent of
humanity and the poorest 10 percent will be greater in 2004 than
in 1994.
     We "doomsayers," of course, are not arguing that there are
only unfavorable human or environmental trends, rather that too
many of the most important are very unfavorable and thus demand
prompt attention.  Virtually all long-term trends have short-term
fluctuations, thus we challenge Simon on 15 trends to avoid the
result of a statistical fluke deciding this bet.  To determine
the direction of the trends, we will accept the decision of a
panel of scientists chosen by the President of the National
Academy of Sciences in 2005.  Referees will be necessary, since
terms like "significantly" (e.g., 5 and 10 above) and estimates
of such things as agricultural soils involve questions of judg-
ment.  But there is an empirical basis on which competent scien-
tists can make reasonable judgments.
     The bet is binding on our heirs, and our winnings will go to
non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving environmental
quality and human well-being.  Since humanity is gambling with
its life-support systems, we hope to lose all parts of the bet.
In fact, we will be doing everything in our power to make that
happen.  Sadly, the complacency and misinformation you are
spreading, Mr. Simon, increases the chances we will win the bet
-- while all of humanity loses.  We hope this wager will cause
you to reconsider the risks you so blythly suggest the American
public undertake by promoting the fantasy of benign indefinite
growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul R. Ehrlich and Stephen H. Schneider are Professors in the
Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.