On Jul 20, 9:45*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

I mis-remembered. There were five (picked by Ehrlich). The wager was
$1,000 each. Whatever the differential in price after a decade would
go to the winner.

chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten

"Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800
million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by
September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of
Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped
significantly. Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980,
was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was
down to $3.88 a decade later."

Why does costing more make them harder to find?

It doesn't. Being harder to find makes them cost more. Price is a
convenient metric for scarcity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah,you got it mixedup *:-)

Population is the main problem I think.
Everything comes back to that.
Nature will soon organise a cull.

That's what Malthus thought. He was wrong. That's what Ehrlich thought. He,
too, was wrong. In fact, EVERYBODY who has EVER predicted that
over-population spells our doom has been wrong.

By the principle of inductive reasoning, I suggest that you, too, are wrong.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cull has already started in Ethiopia. It will spread.
Few people/governments seem willing to donate money to alleviate it.
(Least of al the USA.
Ergo, these people will die.