Each new person who exists either helps or hurts everyone else. My best estimate is that new folks on average help, but I can’t be very sure. Assuming that new folks help on average, we can wonder: who helps more?
with the advent of computer and technology and its integration into other areas (medical, financial sectors) 'smart people' are more competitive for occupations that pay economic rents.
doctorswall street quants, tradersintellectual property lawyerupper level corporate managerowner of medium of information exchange or market
whereas in the past economic rent was more correlated with ownership
landlordoil well ownerfactory owner
and so 'smart people' had less of an advantage when it came to economic rent.
Just because something is hard to measure doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. We should try, while also trying to understand all the ways in which are measurement is imperfect so that we know exactly how much confidence to have.
If we estimate that, on average, each new person makes the world better, then I might choose to have more children. Or I might encourage others to have more, or support government policies which increase population growth. Of course, these aren't the only things to consider.
Each new person who exists either helps or hurts everyone else.
They do both, there's no way to measure either, and absolutely no way to compare the two.
My best estimate is that new folks on average help, but I can’t be very sure.
I'm glad you're not sure, because I can't imagine how on earth you arrived at the conclusion in the first place.
If this line of thought is true, what difference does that make to anything? If it isn't true, what difference does that make to anything? Explanations welcome, because I'm not one of the smart people.
It seems like smart people today are less likely to be doing something economically productive than they were in the past. It may be one of the problems with places like Africa is that the highest status jobs are essentially concerned with redistributing wealth created by others (often to one's self). The same thing may be happening in America. There are few positions in private enterprise as prestigious as working in a University, for a think tank, at a non-profit, etc, or for certain parts of the beaurocracy (State, DOJ (not including FBI), etc.). Meanwhile, CEOs are villified, and middle management is a source of ridicule. There are hardly any "captains of industry" that are held in high regard. Steve Jobs may be an exception, but I think this may be because computers are associated with "science" which held in high regard. Perhaps some of these former positions contribute to growth, but as I believe Robin has pointed out before, most growth comes from marginal improvements in the process, not from R and D or "science". So perhaps, the smart people are capable of becoming more parasitic than the dumb people.
Interesting analysis - but it seems likely that there's some threshhold beyond which the planet cannot support additional people, not even with advancing technology (whether that number is 1 billion or 10 or 100 billion is another question entirely).
Malthus was right for basically all of history prior to his work being published. Then the Industrial Revolution hit, and productivity actually began to grow faster than people could breed.
Again, Paul Krugman does a better job explaining than I do. He has charts!
What exactly is meant by "overall world productivity"? It is never defined. I would bet that advances in science and technology and their implementation in actual products, techniques and tools changes the "overall world productivity" much more substantially than simply more people doing mostly what has been done before or what they are told to do.
I also very much question whether the average or below are likely to be gainfully employed much less more likely than the bright. It has been variously estimated that as much as 50% of the population in developed countries is either directly paid by government, receives more handouts than it pays in or otherwise a net drain on the society by consuming much more than they produce. So mere increase in numbers is not an unmitigated good except perhaps that the hyper-productive relatively rare individuals are more numerous in a larger sample set.
Is there any actual data or is this just pure wool gathering?
> I’m not so convinced about this line of thought. How does domestic violence compare to warfare? Guns and bombs do a lot of harm, and they were made by smart people.
They do a lot of harm, but you're still better off with modern warfare; consider the fatality rates of the Yanomano or the !Kung. Even modern society is better if you compare murder rates in medieval London, say, with contemporary. If we can identify modern with smart, and primitive with stupid, the choice is clear. The brains giveth more than they take.
In the point about the poor contributing more to charity...is it right here to consider only the fraction of income? If the rich give a larger absolute quantity to charity, then aren't they helping more? I'm not quite sure how the logic goes here, so correct me please, but it seems like charitable donation would be positively correlated with productivity (measured as income). C = logY?
If you think there's anything at all to Malthus' position, it's possible that nearly everyone is a net negative - perhaps we'd all be better off if there were fewer of us.
with the advent of computer and technology and its integration into other areas (medical, financial sectors) 'smart people' are more competitive for occupations that pay economic rents.
doctorswall street quants, tradersintellectual property lawyerupper level corporate managerowner of medium of information exchange or market
whereas in the past economic rent was more correlated with ownership
landlordoil well ownerfactory owner
and so 'smart people' had less of an advantage when it came to economic rent.
does your answer depend on this?
Just because something is hard to measure doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. We should try, while also trying to understand all the ways in which are measurement is imperfect so that we know exactly how much confidence to have.
If we estimate that, on average, each new person makes the world better, then I might choose to have more children. Or I might encourage others to have more, or support government policies which increase population growth. Of course, these aren't the only things to consider.
I just added to the post.
Each new person who exists either helps or hurts everyone else.
They do both, there's no way to measure either, and absolutely no way to compare the two.
My best estimate is that new folks on average help, but I can’t be very sure.
I'm glad you're not sure, because I can't imagine how on earth you arrived at the conclusion in the first place.
If this line of thought is true, what difference does that make to anything? If it isn't true, what difference does that make to anything? Explanations welcome, because I'm not one of the smart people.
The following is all speculation obviously:
It seems like smart people today are less likely to be doing something economically productive than they were in the past. It may be one of the problems with places like Africa is that the highest status jobs are essentially concerned with redistributing wealth created by others (often to one's self). The same thing may be happening in America. There are few positions in private enterprise as prestigious as working in a University, for a think tank, at a non-profit, etc, or for certain parts of the beaurocracy (State, DOJ (not including FBI), etc.). Meanwhile, CEOs are villified, and middle management is a source of ridicule. There are hardly any "captains of industry" that are held in high regard. Steve Jobs may be an exception, but I think this may be because computers are associated with "science" which held in high regard. Perhaps some of these former positions contribute to growth, but as I believe Robin has pointed out before, most growth comes from marginal improvements in the process, not from R and D or "science". So perhaps, the smart people are capable of becoming more parasitic than the dumb people.
Interesting analysis - but it seems likely that there's some threshhold beyond which the planet cannot support additional people, not even with advancing technology (whether that number is 1 billion or 10 or 100 billion is another question entirely).
"But change also arises from mistakes in following routines, and the dumb may make more mistakes."
It's not who makes more mistakes, but who recognizes when a mistake is made.
Malthus was right for basically all of history prior to his work being published. Then the Industrial Revolution hit, and productivity actually began to grow faster than people could breed.
Again, Paul Krugman does a better job explaining than I do. He has charts!
What exactly is meant by "overall world productivity"? It is never defined. I would bet that advances in science and technology and their implementation in actual products, techniques and tools changes the "overall world productivity" much more substantially than simply more people doing mostly what has been done before or what they are told to do.
I also very much question whether the average or below are likely to be gainfully employed much less more likely than the bright. It has been variously estimated that as much as 50% of the population in developed countries is either directly paid by government, receives more handouts than it pays in or otherwise a net drain on the society by consuming much more than they produce. So mere increase in numbers is not an unmitigated good except perhaps that the hyper-productive relatively rare individuals are more numerous in a larger sample set.
Is there any actual data or is this just pure wool gathering?
Where's the evidence that charitable giving actually helps others? Especially in comparison to saving or investing the money?
I don't think I'd conflate helping in the direct charitable sense with helping in the indirect grow-the-economy sense.
> I’m not so convinced about this line of thought. How does domestic violence compare to warfare? Guns and bombs do a lot of harm, and they were made by smart people.
They do a lot of harm, but you're still better off with modern warfare; consider the fatality rates of the Yanomano or the !Kung. Even modern society is better if you compare murder rates in medieval London, say, with contemporary. If we can identify modern with smart, and primitive with stupid, the choice is clear. The brains giveth more than they take.
In the point about the poor contributing more to charity...is it right here to consider only the fraction of income? If the rich give a larger absolute quantity to charity, then aren't they helping more? I'm not quite sure how the logic goes here, so correct me please, but it seems like charitable donation would be positively correlated with productivity (measured as income). C = logY?
If you think there's anything at all to Malthus' position, it's possible that nearly everyone is a net negative - perhaps we'd all be better off if there were fewer of us.
I think savings benefits present folks as well as future - when you get a loan for a car or house, where do you think the money comes from?
The net benefit to others today is probably mainly via spending. Savings benefits future folk more.