The Flawed Economics of Thanos: Misunderstanding Natural Resources and Human Ingenuity
In the grand scheme of fictional antagonists, few are as formidable and ideologically captivating as Thanos, the Titan with a mission to balance the universe by eradicating half of its population with a snap of his fingers.
However, beneath the veneer of cosmic altruism lies a fundamental misunderstanding of economic principles. Thanos commits a grave error by overlooking the true nature of natural resources and underestimating the power of human ingenuity.
This op-ed is inspired by an episode of the EconBuff Podcast: The Economics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe- EconBuff Podcast #32 with Rex Pjesky
Central to Thanos’ flawed logic is his perception of natural resources as finite entities whose scarcity necessitates drastic measures to preserve them. He must have read Malthus. Malthus postulates firstly, that “food is necessary to the existence of man.” and secondly, that “the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state.”
While these still hold true today as in 1789, there are two major flaws:
- He ignores man’s capacity to gain efficiency through technology.
- He assumes a static and uninfluenced population increase.
Admittedly, Malthus would not likely have envisioned the future social movements that influenced the second point.
What Thanos fails to grasp is that the value of natural resources is not inherent; rather, it is derived from human ingenuity and innovation. The history of human civilization is replete with examples of how ingenuity has transformed seemingly abundant resources into valuable commodities.
Take, for instance, oil—a resource once considered a mere nuisance, now a cornerstone of modern industrial economies. It is not the scarcity of oil that drives its value, but rather the human capacity to extract, refine, and utilize it efficiently.
Moreover, Thanos overlooks the role of population growth in fostering innovation and increasing the value of resources. Contrary to his belief, more people do not deplete resources exponentially; rather, they stimulate innovation and create new avenues for resource utilization.
This was shown in a public 10-year-long wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich in 1981. They agreed to bet on a portfolio of $200 on each of five commodities: copper, chromium, nickel, tungsten, and tin. If at the end of the 10 years, the prices of these commodities rose, it indicated increasing scarcity, and Ehrlich would win because he advocated that an increased population would decrease available resources.
Simon won the bet. The prices of these commodities over the life of the wager decreased by almost 60% while the population increased by approximately
800 million people.
