Bryan Caplan quotes Herman Daly who was reviewing Julian Simon:
A further reason adduced by Simon for population growth is the “genius argument.” With 4,000 births there is a better chance of getting an Einstein or a Mozart than with only 40 births. Inept as this argument is in ignoring the unique combination of nature and nurture underlying genius, it should at least have occurred to Simon that the chances of getting another Hitler or Caligula likewise increase.
Bryan has a lot of interesting things to say in response to Daly but I think he missed an important point. The expected impact of an evil genius is often smaller than the expected impact of a wonderful genius. There are lots of would-be mass murderers and the bigger the population, the bigger the absolute number. But their ability to murder lots of people is limited by the fact that most people try to stop them. Yes, in some systems (Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union), a mass murderer is able to enlist lots of people to help him. But that is rare. Most of the time, people try to stop them, and in some systems it is especially difficult to kill lots of people over any long period of time.
But lots of people work to expand the scope of Mozart. Steve Jobs and Tom Hulce come to mind. I’ll say it another way. In top-down systems, there is the potential for great evil. In decentralized systems, the scope for great evil is limited while the scope for great good is enhanced.
Technology can reverse this argument. A single evil person can, if there really is such a thing as a siutcase nuke, do damage that was unimaginable a century ago.
UPDATE AND APOLOGY: Vidyohs points out that Bryan did make the point:
1. The existence of human civilization shows that on average, human beings’ capacity for creation exceeds their capacity for destruction. History’s Hitlers and Caligulas have taken big bites out of progress, but look around. The non-monsters have created far more than the monsters have destroyed. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to ponder this question.
I read this too quickly. Bryan is saying what I’m saying but he doesn’t mention the mechanism, merely that Daly is wrong empirically. I was thinking about the mechanism, the “why” of the empirical result.
Share
{ 17 comments }
The problem with your argument is that “evil” is very often defined ex post facto. Hitler was not considered evil in 1933 Germany, except by a minority. He was judged so afterwards, after the full consequences of his philosophy and actions became known.
Or, in short, an evil genius is pretty much by definition someone who seems like a “good genius” until it’s far too late to stop him cheaply. Those who are immediately recognized as evil, and whom many people try to stop, are not evil geniuses but evil idiots, whose malevolent intentions are written all over them so clearly even fools are not fooled.
Evil geniuses need not be mass murderers themselves. What about thinkers whose philosophies have resulted in mass murder? I’m thinking: Marx, Hegel, and to a lesser degree Nietzsche. In fact, consider the arguments of Arendt and Hayek. Despots like Stalin or Pol Pot, though evil, were hardly geniuses. It was ideas, the political and economic systems that were propagated by others, that gave these despots the legitimacy to wreak the havoc they did.
I think the “there’s a greater chance of getting a Hitler” is a good counterargument to the “there’s a greater chance of getting a Einstein”. There’s a lot of deadweight in the human population for which more babies will exacerbates the deadweight. It’s not about ‘quantity’ but ‘quality’ hence the westernmost parts of Europe changed the whole world a few centuries ago. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree so too is it about the good, productive, intelligent people having babies not the people who have living the same way for the past few millennia. To say “more babies equals more chance a few will grow up to be great” is as ‘insightful’ as “if I buy more lottery tickets I will increase my chances of becoming millionaire!”
There is an even more simple rebuttal. If Daly is correct, life should be getting worse as population increases. There should be more incidents of genocide and mass murder and chaos should increase. There is empirical data to test this. The data show Daly is, again, a fool.
It sounds as though you’re describing the continent of Africa.
Clearly it takes more than high birth rates to produce a population of effective geniuses. Philosophy, which is usually implicit, is far more important. I’d take a nation of the mediocre guided by a rational philosophy over a nation of geniuses guided by floating abstractions, any day.
“1. The existence of human civilization shows that on average, human beings’ capacity for creation exceeds their capacity for destruction. History’s Hitlers and Caligulas have taken big bites out of progress, but look around. The non-monsters have created far more than the monsters have destroyed. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to ponder this question.”
Russ, how did he miss it, looks like you agree with him.
You’re right. I took that to mean that the empirical evidence was against Daly but that he didn’t mention the mechanism. But my post implies he totally missed it which is unfair to Bryan…
The one problem I have with Caplan’s argument is that he doesn’t distinguish between geniuses that are beneficial in absolute numbers (the Einstein’s, the Mozarts), and other geniuses like genius physicians or even genius “good, supportive parents” that are beneficial in their proportion to the total population.
Caplan’s general point is that low fertility goals are pointless because they prevent us from getting more geniuses. Daly’s counterargument that I think does make sense is that geniuses are a product of both nature and nurture, and extremely high fertility may cut into the “nurture” facet and reduce the rate of genius production. Insofar as the Mozarts and Einsteins are concerned I think Caplan is absolutely right – it’s the absolute number that matters and Daly doesn’t make any sense. Insofar as the more common types of “geniuses” matter (good physicians, good teachers, good parents), I think Caplan is largely wrong. High fertility rates CAN stunt this sort of genius produciton (and, I might add, resource pressure from high fertility can increase the rate of evil villain production).
Either way, most “low fertility” policies aren’t about coercive population control – they’re about giving men and especially women in the third world education and control over their own reproductive health and choices. Regardless of the impact on genius production, I can’t see how that’s a bad thing.
Oh Duplicitous Kuehn,
This sounds so intelligent and complex, I bask in your glow:
“The one problem I have with Caplan’s argument is that he doesn’t distinguish between geniuses that are beneficial in absolute numbers (the Einstein’s, the Mozarts), and other geniuses like genius physicians or even genius “good, supportive parents” that are beneficial in their proportion to the total population.”
but wait, no I don’t because until I can understand how the great DK can measure the “genius beneficial” of Mozart and Einstein in absolute numbers; and how lesser(?) genius of supportive parents can be proportionally determined in the total population, it remains just more hi-flung gobble-de-gook that attempts to address a total irrelevancy.
Good job, DK.
wtf is up with you dude?
You can copy and share a Mozart CD. You can print and redistribute General Relativity. It’s the absolute number of these geniuses that matter.
You can’t photocopy a genius physician or a genius elementary school teacher. These geniuses matter in proportion to the total population.
Is that really so objectionable? I should just start commenting under a new handle. If you don’t realize it’s me you’d probably think more critically about what I say.
Caplan doesn’t need to distinguish between your supposed different types of geniuses because it has nothing to do with his point. And there really aren’t different types of geniuses in the way we’re talking about them here–just different value added among them relative to the market’s desire for their goods/services…
Further, your examples about Mozart and Einstein are highly suspect and are in need of clarification because, though it is true as you claim, that one “can’t photocopy a genius physician or a genius elementary school teacher,” you can’t photocopy Mozart or Einstein either–(even if they were alive, of course). But you are referring to Mozart/Einstien’s work, which can be photocopied. You can also photocopy the work of a genius elementary school teacher or physician so I think your example isn’t clear. Or better, you could film the genius teacher teaching or the doctor doctoring and make all the DVDs you want. You’re mixing a person’s output with the actual person. Not good.
Exactly – I’m refering to their work. If our population doubles and our number of good physicians doubles we are exactly in the same place we were before the doubling because everyone gets the benefit of the same number of physicians. The contributions of Mozart and Einstein are non-rivalrous, so if the population of Mozarts and Einsteins doubles our benefit from them doubles – we get two earth shattering theories, two concertos.
I’m not mixing up the person’s output with the actual person – I’m saying that (1.) the output is important as well as the person, and (2.) the output is dependent on the existence of the person.
I’m sure there are exceptions – you could distribute DVD’s of the teacher. The point is there is a spectrum of efficient non-rivalry. And to the extent that these contributions become rivalrous, Caplan’s argument starts to break down. This does have to do with some of the points he raises on the blog, but less to do with the points made about Caplan’s post on this blog.
I agree with both Russ (and Bryan) that most people will try to thwart a known evil person’s attempts at destruction of either lives or property. Giving rise to this asymmetry between creation and destruction.
What concerns me the most are the people who don’t realize their actions are “evil” (to stay consistent with the above terminology). They’re either claiming their actions to be good or their actions are percieved as trying to do good, so people enlist to help, but the unintended consequences of these “good” actions lead to evil outcomes. Like the defenders of minimum wage laws. I realize the authors/readers here already beat that drum, but it serves as a good example. People wanting to do right by the poor, for all the right reasons, but their chosen mechanism ends up destroying the very jobs those poor people need.
“Exactly – I’m refering to their work.”
Then your point about not being able to photocopy a teacher/physician’s work doesn’t make sense because you can photocopy it.
“If our population doubles and our number of good physicians doubles we are exactly in the same place we were before the doubling because everyone gets the benefit of the same number of physicians.”
Not really. You’re assuming that physicians don’t learn from past physicians and that there are no productive increases in medicine otherwise. A physician today is capable of treating more patients, and treating them more effectively, than say, a physician of the previous generation.
“The contributions of Mozart and Einstein are non-rivalrous…”
Not true. Mozart is not the only person who wrote (or writes) music. He had rivals with whom his music competed. And Einstein’s work contradicted the work of some of his rivals.
“so if the population of Mozarts and Einsteins doubles our benefit from them doubles – we get two earth shattering theories, two concertos.”
Not really. You can’t listen to two concertos by two different artists at the same time. Well, maybe you could… but if we assume you cannot, there is no doubling of value to any one person. And it’s entirely possible that another with talent equal to Mozart will not yield the same value to the market that he did/does. How much Mozart is too much anyway? And again, Einstein’s work contradicted some of his predecessors, and it’s also possible that “another Einstein” will contradict the original Einstein. No doubling of value there either.
“I’m not mixing up the person’s output with the actual person –”
Yes you did. You said we CAN make photocopies of the theory of relativity. You said you CAN’T photocopy a teacher. That is as apples and oranges as it gets. The two can’t be compared.
“I’m saying that (1.) the output is important as well as the person, and (2.) the output is dependent on the existence of the person.”
OK, but staying on point, I was challenging your earlier point that Caplan should have distinguished between the types and existence of “geniuses” you described based on your photocopy assertion. You cannot compare being able to photocopy Einstein’s relativity theory and not being able to photocopy a human.
“I’m sure there are exceptions – you could distribute DVD’s of the teacher.”
You have just admitted that the example you gave to illustrate some point you think you have is an exception. Please provide an example that is not an exception.
“The point is there is a spectrum of efficient non-rivalry.”
I don’t know what this means. Mozart had rivals. As did Einstein. As do teachers. So I am unable to address this statement or the rest of your statements.
RE: “Then your point about not being able to photocopy a teacher/physician’s work doesn’t make sense because you can photocopy it.”
I said it’s a spectrum, for one thing. And it might or might not work with a teacher. But what the hell good is a DVD of a doctor doctoring when you need open heart surgery?
RE: “You’re assuming that physicians don’t learn from past physicians and that there are no productive increases in medicine otherwise.”
Huh? I’m not assuming that at all. Where do you get this stuff Matt? I’m saying if there were an instantaneous increase. I know that’s a simplification from the real world. That doesn’t change my point at all. If it does I’d appreciate you explaining how.
RE: “Not true. Mozart is not the only person who wrote (or writes) music. He had rivals with whom his music competed.”
Please look up the meaning of the word “non-rivalrous” in economics. It means that two people can use the product at the same time without preventing the other person from using it. Music is non-rivalrous. A desk chair is rivalrous. National defense is non-rivalrous. A car is rivalrous.
RE: “You cannot compare being able to photocopy Einstein’s relativity theory and not being able to photocopy a human.”
OK… then let’s rephrase it to say you can’t photocopy the theory, but you can’t photocopy an open heart surgery. Happy? Your counterpoints are getting very strange, matt.
RE: “I don’t know what this means. So I am unable to address this statement or the rest of your statements”
I defined rivalrous above – I didn’t think I had to initially. I like Caplan’s argument, don’t get me wrong. Nuance is just always good too – and as Don likes to point out here, there are lots of different kinds of geniuses we meet every day. The fact that Caplan focuses only on a specific type of genius – a Mozart or an Einstein – is detrimental to his broader point.
“I said it’s a spectrum, for one thing. And it might or might not work with a teacher. But what the hell good is a DVD of a doctor doctoring when you need open heart surgery?”
What the hell good is Mozart if you don’t like his music? You still have not explained well your assertion that Caplan should have distinguished between “geniuses”. That is the point you made that I was challenging originally.
“Huh? I’m not assuming that at all. Where do you get this stuff Matt? I’m saying if there were an instantaneous increase. I know that’s a simplification from the real world. That doesn’t change my point at all. If it does I’d appreciate you explaining how.”
If there was an instantaneous increase (a doubling of the population in your example) you would have identical Mozarts. Two Mozarts writing the exact same music, so your hypothetical might need some polishing. This hardly proves your point that two Mozarts can have the double the value on a population that you just doubled. And again, how much Mozart is too much? Can you listen to two concertos at the same time and get the same value? No, you have not doubled value by doubling the number of Mozarts regardless of your population size.
“Please look up the meaning of the word “non-rivalrous” in economics. It means that two people can use the product at the same time without preventing the other person from using it. Music is non-rivalrous. A desk chair is rivalrous. National defense is non-rivalrous. A car is rivalrous.”
I am not sure why this is relevant to your earlier point about the value added by certain geniuses. It sounds like you are saying that Mozart and Einstein created public goods or something, which just isn’t true. For example, it is true that two people can listen to the same music at the same time if they’re in the same place, but if not, we’d both have to have a CD/or whatever to be able to listen to the same music. So music is rivalrous…
“OK… then let’s rephrase it to say you can’t photocopy the theory, but you can’t photocopy an open heart surgery. Happy? Your counterpoints are getting very strange, matt.”
So you admit that your example of comparing types of geniuses was a bad one. OK then.
“The fact that Caplan focuses only on a specific type of genius – a Mozart or an Einstein – is detrimental to his broader point.”
I’m glad you restated this earlier point so that we don’t get off topic. But you cannot make this point without illustrating the difference between a genius “Mozart” and a genius “physician,” or without illustrating to what different types of geniuses you are referring.
There are different amounts of value added from different geniuses, but not differences that are “detrimental” to Caplan’s broader point.