fbpx
01 / 05
Paul Ehrlich Ignores Abundance Again

Blog Post | Economic Growth

Paul Ehrlich Ignores Abundance Again

Food has never been more abundant, and the population is higher than ever. Nevertheless, Paul Ehrlich is still ringing the population alarm.

Summary: Paul Ehrlich is a notorious doom-monger who has repeatedly predicted mass starvation and resource depletion due to overpopulation. His latest complaint is that the UN summit on food systems ignored the population issue. This article refutes Ehrlich’s claims and shows how food abundance has increased dramatically over the past four decades thanks to market-driven innovation and efficiency.


Paul Ehrlich can’t admit when he’s wrong. In his 1968 book, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich predicted that “in the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death” due to unchecked population growth. Instead, people started farming more efficiently. Then, Ehrlich famously lost $576.07 to Julian Simon in 1990 when he made a 10-year bet that five basic metals would increase in price. The five-metal basket actually fell in price by an average of 36 percent, despite the global population increasing by 800 million.

Nevertheless, Ehrlich is still ringing the population alarm. This month, he complained in the journal Nature that overpopulation was not mentioned as a factor in a recent UN summit on food systems. While it is true that some places still suffer from food scarcity, these shortages tend to be temporary or politically driven. The fact is, food has never been more abundant, and the population is higher than ever. More people are enjoying more calories from a greater variety of food than any other time in history.

Ehrlich made his bet with Simon in 1980, so let’s look at what’s happened with food abundance since that date. The World Bank and the IMF track global prices on 24 basic food items from bananas to wheat, coffee to rice, and salmon to sugar. We first calculated the “time price” for each of these food items each year. Time prices are superior to money prices for a host of reasons. A time price is simply the amount of time required to earn the money to buy an item. While money prices are expressed in dollars and cents, time prices are expressed in hours and minutes. Put more concretely, time prices equal the nominal price divided by hourly income. We estimated global hourly income by calculating GDP per Hour Worked using data from the World Bank and the Conference Board.

Let’s look at wheat for an example of how time prices work. The nominal price of a metric ton of wheat in 1980 was $172.73 and GDP per hour worked was $3.24, indicating a time price of 53.38 hours. In 2020 the nominal price had increased to $212.01 per metric ton, but GDP per hour increased to $16.60, so the time price had decreased to 12.77 hours. This represents a 76.1 percent decrease. For the time required to earn the money to buy one ton of wheat in 1980, you would get 4.18 tons in 2020. This means that, between 1980 and 2020, wheat became 317.9 percent more abundant, indicating a 3.64 percent compound annual growth rate. At this rate, wheat abundance would double every 19.39 years.

While the average nominal price of these 24 basic foods increased by 35.1 percent, the average time price decreased by 77 percent. Not a single item increased in time price. For the time required to buy one basket of these items in 1980, you would get 4.35 baskets in 2020, meaning personal food abundance increased by an astonishing 335.2 percent. At a compound growth rate of 3.75 percent a year, personal food abundance doubles every 18.85 years.

Measuring Global Food Abundance

We can think of global food resources as the product of personal food abundance multiplied by how many people there are. This can be illustrated in a graph with population on the horizontal axis and food abundance on the vertical axis. If we index the 1980 population to a value of one and food abundance to a value of one, the 1980 global food would be a one-by-one box. This is represented by the red box.

We then draw 2020 as a green box. From 1980 to 2020, the global population increased 75.8 percent, from 4.434 billion to 7.795 billion. So, population on the horizontal axis increases from a value of 1 in 1980 to 1.758 in 2020. Since personal food abundance increased by 335.2 percent during this same period, it increases on the vertical axis from a value of 1 to 4.352. The area of the green box represents global food abundance, which increased to a value of 7.651 in 2020 (1.758 x 4.352). Overlaying the 1980 red box on the 2020 green box shows that global food abundance grew 665.1 percent, from an indexed value of one in 1980 to a value of 7.651 in 2020.

Food Abundance Elasticity of Population

Now we turn to the relationship between food abundance and population. Over this 40-year period, personal food abundance increased by 335.2 percent, while global food abundance increased by 665.1 percent. Since the population increased by 75.8 percent, every one percent increase in population corresponded with a 4.42 percent increase in personal food abundance and an 8.77 percent increase in global food abundance. It’s as if more people are creating exponentially more food to share with the rest of us.

Conclusion

The lesson for Ehrlich and company is don’t bet against human beings that are free to create and innovate. While there are still lots of problems on our planet, we have made astonishing progress in lifting ourselves out of poverty and feeding one another.

Washington Post | Health & Medical Care

FDA Authorizes AI-Driven Test to Predict Sepsis in Hospitals

“Bobby Reddy Jr. roamed a hospital as he built his start-up, observing how patient care began with a diagnosis and followed a set protocol. The electrical engineer thought he knew a better way: an artificial intelligence tool that would individualize treatment.

Now, the Food and Drug Administration has greenlighted such a test developed by Reddy’s company, Chicago-based Prenosis, to predict the risk of sepsis — a complex condition that contributes to at least 350,000 deaths a year in the United States. It is the first algorithmic, AI-driven diagnostic tool for sepsis to receive the FDA’s go-ahead.”

From Washington Post.

BBC | Conservation & Biodiversity

How AI is being used to prevent illegal fishing

“Global Fishing Watch was co-founded by Google, marine conservation body Oceana, and environmental group SkyTruth. The latter studies satellite images to spot environmental damage.

To try to better monitor and quantify the problem of overfishing, Global Fishing Watch is now using increasingly sophisticated AI software, and satellite imagery, to globally map the movements of more than 65,000 commercial fishing vessels, both those with – and without – AIS.

The AI analyses millions of gigabytes of satellite imagery to detect vessels and offshore infrastructure. It then looks at publicly accessible data from ships’ AIS signals, and combines this with radar and optical imagery to identify vessels that fail to broadcast their positions.”

From BBC.

Blog Post | Communications

The Forgotten War on Beepers

Before smartphones, beepers were in the crosshairs of parents, schools and lawmakers.

30 years before parents and lawmakers sought to save youth from smartphones via age limits and bans in schools, a similar conversation took place about a pre-cursor to the cellphone: pagers.

Through the 1980s pagers became increasingly popular with teens, and also: drug dealers. This fact would eventually drag the gadget into the existing moral panic about adolescent drug use of the era.

The pager panic began with a 1988 Washington Post report on the gadgets prevalence in the drug trade, quoting DEA and law enforcement officials. The piece was syndicated throughout the US under headlines like “Beepers flourish in drug business,” “Beepers Speed Drug Connections” and “Drug beepers: Paging devices popular with cocaine dealers.

The spread of the story stoked concerns that beepers in the hands of youths weren’t just a distraction – a common complaint from teachers – but also a direct line to drug dealers. One school district official told The New York Times: “How can we expect students to ‘just say no to drugs’ when we allow them to wear the most dominant symbol of the drug trade on their belts.”

How can we expect students to ‘just say no to drugs’ when we allow them to wear the most dominant symbol of the drug trade on their belts

The New York Times, 1988

In response schools, towns, states and even the Senate would pass rules against beepers. New Jersey prohibited beepers for under-18s entirely, possession could result in a 6-month jail-term – a law proposed by ex-policeman and Senator Ronald L. Rice.

A city ordinance in Michigan mandated 3-month jail terms for children caught in possession of one within school grounds. Chicago passed a ban that its Public Schools Security chief said would also reduce prostitution:

We’ve got girls 11 years old. They get a call and they’re out of school to turn a trick.

George Sims, Chicago Public Schools Security Chief , Associated Press

Other states proposed community service, fines and 1-year drivers license bans as punishment. Thousands of of young people were victims of these heavy handed prohibitions – some of which made headlines:

Some schools regularly referred students found with pagers to police, one 16-year-old – Stephanie Redfern – faced a disorderly persons charge. A 13-year-old was handcuffed. Chicago was particularly aggressive in its enforcement: over 30 children were arrested and suspended for ‘beeper violations’ in one police sweep at a school – many parents couldn’t locate their kids for more than 6-hours. This was just the start:

According to Police Lt. Randolph Barton – head of the Chicago public school patrol unit at the time – by April 1994 there had been 700 beeper arrests in Chicago schools, with the prior school year seeing 1000. Some still felt these numbers were too low:

Right now I don’t think enough people are being arrested for wearing or bringing beepers into Chicago schools.

Ald. Michael Wojcik (35th)

In 1996 a 5-year-old in New Jersey was suspended for taking a beeper on a school trip, outrage ensured – catching the attention of Howard Stern, leading to calls for the laws to be amended or repealed.

Even young adults didn’t escape the beeper prohibition: 18-year-old Anthony Beachum feared a jail term after trying to sell a beeper to a student on school grounds. State prosecutors sought a criminal conviction for Beachum – that would have barred him from his hopes of joining the military. The judge settled for probation and 10 hours of community service.

Hampton University required students register beepers with campus police, even though there was no evidence of them increasing drug access. VP of student affairs at the time would admit as much:

There is not a single case where I can make a connection between beepers and drugs.

Hampton University, VP of Student Affairs

Big Beeper Fights Back

The beeper backlash was a BIG problem for Motorola who had 80% of the pager market at the time. The company had a hit on its hands – that was introducing the brand to a whole new generation – so in 1994 it fought back, partly by rallying youth. A move reminiscent of TikTok’s recent lobbying tactics.

Motorola enlisted children of its employees to help design pro-beeper campaigns, emphasizing the importance of pagers as legitimate communication devices for the young. “Who better to help plan for the battle than teens themselves” one report on the efforts would say. At a week long event, one attendee came up with the slogan “Pages for All Ages.”

The company ran television ads promoting pagers as a tool for child parent communication and in 1996, partnered with PepsiCo to offer 500,000 pagers to youths at a low price.

The promotion angered lawmakers – like State Senator Ronald Rice – who’d been a leading player in the war on beepers. Around this time moves to over-turn bans emerged, by other lawmakers calling them outdated – partly fuelled by the suspension of a 5-year-old alluded to earlier. New Jersey would amend the law in 1996, but not repeal it.

Three decades later, the New Jersey law was still on the books. The original sponsor of the bill – Senator Ronald Rice – sought to repeal it in 2017 saying “Fast forward almost three decades and it’s no longer an issue.”

There is little evidence it ever was an issue, in-fact – the subsequent rise of cellphones in schools coincided with a massive reduction in youth drug taking, while causation has been suggested by some – it certainly serves as stronger evidence against the idea of mobile messaging increasing drug access.

Senator Ronald Rice passed away in 2023 – the New Jersey Pager ban still in place – months later The Washington Post editorial board would call on schools to ban cellphones entirely – part of a new moral panic about kids and digital devices, many of whose parents were once prohibited from bringing pagers to school.

Nod to Ernie Smith of Tedium.co the only other person to cover the beeper bans, a piece that helped highlight a few fun examples included in this piece.

This article was published at Pessimists Archive on 4/10/2024.