D. Schf retweetledi
Paul Ehrlich lost even within the environmental movement and few noticed.
His original claim was stark: humans are mouths to feed, polluters, and ultimately trespassers in the ecosystem. If population grows too large, correction must come through die-off. Human ingenuity plays little role; at best, it is trivial. Humans are not creators, but burdens. From that premise, it follows naturally that some degree of population control ( including coercion) could be justified.
The response from thinkers like Julian Simon was fundamentally different. Humans are not merely consumers; they are creators. Given the right institutions, they can solve environmental problems through innovation. The real question is not population, but the institutional framework within which people operate.
From there, disagreement persists. One can argue, as I do, that markets are powerful forces for conservation and restoration. Others maintain that strong government intervention is necessary (regulations, management of commons, Pigouvian taxes) to correct misalignments between private and collective interests. A carbon tax, for instance, is justified on the grounds that pricing pollution induces behavioral change and innovation (aligning private interest with collective interest).
But here is the key point: both sides reject Ehrlich’s premise.
Whether one favors markets or regulation, both perspectives rest on the idea that humans are capable of creating solutions. Both assume that environmental outcomes depend on incentives and institutions, not on reducing the number of “mouths.” In that sense, both implicitly accept that humans are not parasites, but the ultimate resource.
This was not always the case. The environmental movements of the 1940s through the 1970s were far more receptive to Ehrlich’s view. At the time, his premise was dominant. Today, it is not merely contested: it is largely abandoned, even by those who might never cite Simon.
That is Julian Simon’s real victory: not that everyone agrees with his policy conclusions (Simon was a free market enthusiast like I am), but that his core insight -- that human beings are fundamentally creators -- has quietly become the shared starting point of the debate.
Julian Simon not only won the bet that made him famous. He won the war of ideas and destroyed the most anti-Human idea ever (in both direct statements and indirect consequences through its application). Ehrlich died well after his ideas died.
English
