The Simon Ehrlich Wager Case Summary

This New York Times article discusses the ideas of Paul Ehrlich on population and the environment. Although Ehrlich often resorted to dramatizations and apocalypse-type imagery in his writings, they often had some very poignant objective. Ehrlich discussed the “Population Bomb”, the idea that population was rising so rapidly, that widespread famine would soon be an issue for millions of people. As we saw, no such event occurred, but Ehrlich still firmly believes measures should be taken to limit population growth such as “tax benefits for having additional children” and taxes on childcare items such as diapers and strollers. These proposals and ideas remain highly controversial, as they were in the 1970’s and continue to create a stir even

On the other hand, Thomas Malthus had little hope for the future. He believed that the world’s population will increase faster than the production of food. The human race, he believed, would starve and there would be periods of chaos. Malthus said that the population increases at an exponential rate, nearly doubling amount. There is no way food growth would be able to catch up with population growth. Malthus’ solution was “War, Famine, and Plagues”. He believed that was the only way to decrease population and hopefully salvage the human race. These events would increase death rates liberating the world of disaster. Malthus tried to persuade lower classes form creating children and from marriage. At that time the lower classes were considered to be given higher wages, which would increase the makings of children and marriages. Thomas Malthus pleaded with everyone to make a change in order to decrease population.

In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.

In 1798 utilitarian Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population as an argument against an utopian society based on social and economic equality. Malthus believed that if the human population is left unchecked then the population would outgrow the resources necessary to maintain the population. Malthus’s argued that the population will continue to grow and the burden will unavoidably put on the poor population. However, the inequality of population would be a good thing in terms of controlling the population.

However, Simon strongly disagrees on the environmentalist’s outlook he believes the exact opposite. Fear is their primary motive... "Fear is rampant about rapid rates of species extinction," he continues, "but the fear has little or no basis. The air in the US and in other rich countries is irrefutably safer to breathe. Water cleanliness has improved. The environment is increasingly healthy, with every prospect that this trend will continue. The highest rate of observed extinction, though certainly more have gone extinct unobserved, is one species per year. "The scare that farmlands are blowing and washing away is a fraud upon the public. The aggregate data on the condition of farmland and the rate of erosion do not support the concern about soil erosion. The data suggest that the condition of cropland has been improving rather than

Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.

Dr. Forsyth implements plenty of evidence as well as proven statistics to back up his outlook on these issues. The growth of human population is happening at an exponential rate, implying that in a short period of time population growth will double. “We find it difficult to comprehend exponential growth, but it may prove to be our fatal blind spot” [3]. When analysing the world’s population over a long period of time, it took roughly 19,000 years for the world’s population to go from 5million people to 500 million people in 1500 A.D. [4] With an estimated population of 7.5 billion people [5], for a period less than 1000 years, population increased more than 1500 times its size than it was in the 1500’s. In addition, on a more minute scale of time, in 1950 the world’s population was roughly 2.5 billion people [6] in merely 50 years the world’s population has tripled. With these statics, it is evident that the world’s population is increasing at an incomprehensive rate. With populations at their peak, overconsumption is another problem this world faces, as Dr. Forsyth affirms “humans consume far more than their fair share of the Earth’s natural productivity.”[7] Due to this over consumption of resources, there is a vast demand for cheap food which results in the clear cutting of large forest to generate room for new plantations of food. When doing so, humans destroy habitats that

No matter how many people do claim overpopulation is not a relevant issue, it very much is because of the simple fact that starvation and pollution are very real and existing issues that are ultimately offset by overpopulation. In an article titled “Overpopulation Is Not the Problem,” author Erle C. Ellis uses the analogy “Like bacteria in a petri dish, our exploding numbers are reaching the limits of a finite planet, with dire consequences,” to argue that overpopulation is not a problem by stating the opposing claim. “We are nothing like bacteria in a petri dish,” Mr. Ellis solemnly asserts, “...these claims demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the ecology of human systems. The conditions that sustain humanity are not natural and never have been. Since prehistory, human populations have used technologies and engineered ecosystems to sustain

During the late 1700s, Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus each entered their predictions on the future of the world’s economies into the history books. In his writings in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Smith theorized that national economies could be continuously improved by means of the division of labor, efficient production of goods, and international trade. In An Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Malthus predicted that the sustainable production of food in relation to population was vital to the mere existence of national economies in order to ensure an able labor force. Smith believed that the success or

Hardin begins the article with his conclusion. He uses the example of the lifeboat to support his claim; the lifeboat cannot rescue everyone and there will be some who perish. Further, his examples of population increase and the tragedy of the commons support the first premise: the future world will be ruined. He buttresses this with examples of the food bank and immigration which support his claim that the environment will be ruined. Hardin relies on science and statistical trends as support for his premises; the facts he presents support his antecedent.

Thomas Robert Malthus is one of the most controversial figures in the history of economics. He achieved fame chiefly from the population doctrine that is now closely linked with his name. Contrary to the late-eighteenth-century views that it was possible to improve people’s living standards, Malthus held that any such improvements would cause the population to grow and thereby reverse these gains. Malthus also sparked controversy with his contemporaries on issues of methodology (by arguing that economics should be an empirical rather than a deductive science), over questions of theory (by holding that economies can experience prolonged bouts of high unemployment), and on policy issues (by arguing against free

In the late eighteenth century, Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus described how human population, when unchecked, grows exponentially while resources (specifically food) exhibits arithmetical growth (Moseley, Perramond, Hapkie, & Laris, 2014). Malthus primarily blamed the poor for high fertility rates and argued for the abolishment of all welfare, believing that if the poor succumbed to the negative effects of poverty, overpopulation could be stopped. While this may seem a distasteful solution to modern environmentalists, one cannot completely erase population from the environmentalist equation. Despite the technological advances that rendered much of Malthus' musings passé, one cannot ignore the idea that the carrying capacity of earth loom unknown

It is a fairly universal strategy to examine past and present trends in order to forecast the future. This can be commonly observed in everyday existence, as people rely on previous climate trends and recent weather phenomenon in order to make decisions such as how to dress and mode of transportation to use to go to work. Likewise, by employing the use of past and present data and trends, policymakers can make predictions of the future in order to create more effective policies, as well as find better “prescriptions” to solve existing problems (Lecture, 4/1/2010). There are existing neo-Malthusian theories, such as those made by Donella Meadows, et al., that the current trends, including increased population growth, subsequently

While they make the general prediction about things getting better for mankind, they tend to avoid making specific and concrete predictions themselves about what solutions people will come up with. In Most of the book is consists of a large number of examples of solutions created or in development to help people move up the abundance pyramid and show the importance of the four tenets in mankind’s progress to abundance. Two authors do well in showing that predicting doom and gloom for humanity forces one to ignore the growth in the standard of

Hartmann states, " Affluence has more to do with the depletion of natural resources than does population size" because similarly to the issue of food distribution, too few people consume too much of the world 's energy, metals and wood (Hartmann 1995: 23). For this reason, " on a global level, it simply does not make sense to blame environmental degradation on population growth" (Hartmann 1995: 23); consumption patterns illustrate that one group of people are obviously creating the damage, and that group is not the "overpopulated" nations of the Global South. Hartmann explains that the goal of achieving a Western lifestyle, which necessitates environmental exploitation, cannot become a reality for a global population of this size but that the globe does have the ability to support every life on the plant. She is effectively calling into question the notion that a Western existence is inherently desirable and better, forcing people to examine if they cry "overpopulation" as a way of protecting their extravagant and environmentally harmful existences. This connects to the final overpopulation myth, analyzed here, which paints the developing world 's inability to reach Western levels of economic growth on their growing population size.