Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, made a famous wager that proved spectacularly wrong. In 1980, Ehrlich bet against human ingenuity, predicting that resource scarcity would drive up commodity prices. His opponent, economist Julian Simon, took the opposite view, believing that innovation and market forces would keep prices stable or falling.

Ehrlich selected five metals - copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten - betting $1,000 that their prices would rise over the next decade. Simon argued that human creativity would overcome any shortages. The bet was set for ten years, with the winner determined by whether the combined price of the metals increased or decreased.

When the wager concluded in 1990, Ehrlich had lost badly. All five metals had dropped in price, some by more than 50%. The Stanford biologist paid up, acknowledging that his predictions about resource depletion had been wrong. This outcome became a landmark moment in debates about population growth, resource scarcity, and the power of human innovation. The bet remains a cautionary tale about the dangers of underestimating technological progress and market adaptation.