[下灿脶]Unit Seven.ppt

Part Summary [1~2] John Tierney outlines the bet and the differences between the two sides.Two intellectual schools debate whether the world is getting better or going to the dogs. Part Summary [3~4] the doomster and his proposition Erhrich predicted that before 1985 mankind will enter an age of scarcity in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be nearing depletion. Part Summary [5~6] the boomster and his point of view Simon believes that population growth constitutes not a crisis but a boon that will ultimately mean a cleaner environment and a healthier humanity. Part Summary [7~9] How the bet came into being. Part Summary [10-11] Erhrichs predictions and the reality Ehrlich was right about world population. Yet somehow the average person is healthier and wealthier. And things havent run out yet. Part Summary [12~20] Simons opposite propositions towards Erhrichs predictions Simon believed that human ingenuity could indefinitely expand the planets carrying capacity. Part Summary [21~23] Simon had never enjoyed Ehrlichs academic success, when it came to winning over popularity. Many scientists are uncomfortable with his sweeping optimism - there is no guarantee that past trends will continue - but the consensus has been shifting against Ehrlichs idea of population growth as the great evil. Part Summary [24~26] The bet ended in Simons success due to the decline in price Part Summary [27-28] New problems do exist, but there will be a way out. Text Summary What is the relationship between mankind and the earth? There was a fierce debate between Paul R. Ehrlich, an ecologist, and Julian L. Simon, an economist. Their debate in nature is between doomsters and boomsters over a view of the planets ultimate limits and a vision of humanitys destiny. Ehrlich believed that population growth would result in depletion of resources. However, Simon held the idea that the resources were not finite. With the population growth, more people would produce more