Return of the Neo‐​Malthusians

This Earth Day we heard various commentators bemoan the growth in population, consumption, and carbon emissions driven by fossil fueled technologies. Once again we are told that this is unsustainable, that we are running out of resources, prices are inevitably headed up, and, worse, such consumption reduces both environmetal and human well‐​being. In this worldview, industrialization and economic development were fashioned in the Devil’s crucible, and that de‐​industrialization and de‐​development will be our saviour.


I have started a series of posts at Master Resources that compares the above Neo‐​Malthusian view of industrialization, economic growth, and technological change against empirical data on human well‐​being from the age of industrialization. The first post revisits the bet made in 1980 by Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich on the direction of commodity prices, and examines long term trends in the prices and affordability of various commodities. Specifically, for metals, I look at trends going back to 1800, while for food I examine trends from 1900 onward. Parts II and III will compare long term trends in population, consumption, economic development, and carbon emissions against trends in human well‐​being for the world (from 1750 onward) and the United States (from 1900 onward). Finally, Part IV will provide an explanation as to why empirical data is at odds with the Neo‐​Malthusian worldview.


Part I, which examines the Simon‐​Ehrlich Bet in the context of long term trends in the prices and affordability of various commodities, is here.