4 ms·

Think of Malthus. He described how human populations could overshoot the food supply because the growth rate in humans was exponential but the growth rate for f

Think of Malthus. He described how human populations could overshoot the food supply because the growth rate in humans was exponential but the growth rate for food production was linear. Famines then follow a predictable cycle. My hypothesis is that in the economy the growth rate in humans does not relate directly to economic growth. There could exist a religion that promotes large families for example; that's why I said mother nature would ultimately take care of business if things got out of hand. Sometimes we need more humans but there is a lag time before they appear. Sometimes we need less humans but they stick around absorbing dwindling resources and leaving their children with higher prices later. Both of these outcomes sabotage future growth prospects. How this relates to economics is that central bankers use interest rates changes in an attempt to produce stable growing economies. As I understand it the mechanism is a kind of lever, by modifying the trajectory of money supply you can slightly influence the larger flow. Central banks then spend their time compiling statistics to anticipate the future. If one can do that with money then you can do it with humans too by finely tuning the probability of them being able to give birth. Then as long as you can anticipate the amount of workers required you can provide that many at the correct time. Demographic hiccups become a thing of the past. I leave a lot unsaid here. Evidently controlling one part of the economy causes you to require as you say 'very exacting control' over other parts. As you can see there is nothing controversial here. I want to point out that the actions of governments tend to support a belief (that they believe) in something of this sort and that changing human production rates is some kind of corollary to changing interest rates. After all the humans use the money. They're the ones incorporating information into prices with their decisions. This whole topic has the feeling of an 'Ugh field' about it. I understand if I'm downvoted into oblivion but it's an important idea. If I'm totally wrong then great, tell me how.

eru 10y ago
Lemin Wu has some interesting papers about Malthusian traps: http://behl.berkeley.edu/files/2015/02/WP2015-01_Wu.pdf http://behl.berkeley.edu/files/2015/02/WP2015-01_Wu.pdf Who is that `we' that needs more or fewer humans? Ie economists usually take the supply of humans as an exogenous variable, and try to figure out what they do to maximize their welfare. (And very often also: what they could be doing better.) Taking humans as an endogenous variables is possible. (I've seen one analysis where they started talking about slaves as capital vs free workers. The reveal was that the author actually wanted to talk about the economics of robots (and other automation) as capital vs free workers---but without triggering people's preconceived notion of what automation can and cannot do to macroeconomics.)
- internaut 10y ago
  Thanks. I'll have to have a Say-Malthus day soon. I've always been fascinated by Malthus. Without Malthus I don't think you have a Darwin. I know he gets typed as the doomsayer but there has always been something very elemental about his idea. I think it was the first time I encountered a simple concept that explained deeper patterns and so it stuck with me. > Who is that `we' that needs more or fewer humans? I'm trying with some difficulty to avoid value judgments e.g. we should or should not interfere in human reproduction patterns so that's a reasonable question. I think that 'We' is the information network. I don't mean the Internet or the price system. It's a broader idea that probably fits into ecology, something like the Noosphere. The premise is that there exists a lot of different states the network could be in. It could be in an optimal state or in a sub-optimal one. I'd guess that it's governed by something like Cybernetics but I'm confident we won't know most of the rules and certainly not the emergent consequences of the rules. To be less handwavy - the 'We' can be the union of the Economy and Ecology sets. It would take humans as being endogenous variables. I'm sure other people have thought of all this before, but it seems difficult to avoid metaphors that could suggest latent policy prescriptions e.g. Spaceship Earth (limited resources) or World System (global government).
  - eru 10y ago
    Yes, Malthus was indeed an inspiration that got Darwin thinking. About your ethical problems: you could just go purely formal, and try to present your thoughts without any value judgement. Any prescription would be purely conditional like: - if you want to maximize this variable, you should do that. Lemin Wu has some great thoughts and simulations that round out Malthus. He's also interested in why ancient authors, especially Chinese, decry commerce and any economic activity that's not food producing: > For example, during the Warring Period of China (476-221BC), restraint on luxury was the theme of a series of political and economic reforms. In the face of constant nomadic harassment, King Wu-Ling of Zhao (340-295 BC) commanded his subordinates to take off their wide sleeves and long robes and switch to nomadic uniform—pants, belts and boots— in order to fight as cavalry. Half a century before King Wu-Ling, Shang Yang’s reform swept another kingdom, Qin. The reformer punished commerce, rewarded cultivation, forbade migration and restricted entertainment. In a word, he cut down luxury and directed as many resources as possible to subsistence. The subjects were deprived, but the Qin kingdom defeated all of the six rival kingdoms and united China for the first time in history. A contemporary philosopher commented, “Qin is different from all the other kingdoms. The people are poor and the government is cruel. Whoever hopes for a better life can do nothing but fight hard. This makes the Qin army the strongest of all." (from http://wulemin.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/6/2/14620598/jmp1110.pdf http://wulemin.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/6/2/14620598/jmp1110.p... available via http://wulemin.weebly.com/ http://wulemin.weebly.com/)

eru 10y ago

Lemin Wu has some interesting papers about Malthusian traps: http://behl.berkeley.edu/files/2015/02/WP2015-01_Wu.pdf http://behl.berkeley.edu/files/2015/02/WP2015-01_Wu.pdf Who is that `we' that needs more or fewer humans? Ie economists usually take the supply of humans as an exogenous variable, and try to figure out what they do to maximize their welfare. (And very often also: what they could be doing better.) Taking humans as an endogenous variables is possible. (I've seen one analysis where they started talking about slaves as capital vs free workers. The reveal was that the author actually wanted to talk about the economics of robots (and other automation) as capital vs free workers---but without triggering people's preconceived notion of what automation can and cannot do to macroeconomics.)

internaut 10y ago
Thanks. I'll have to have a Say-Malthus day soon. I've always been fascinated by Malthus. Without Malthus I don't think you have a Darwin. I know he gets typed as the doomsayer but there has always been something very elemental about his idea. I think it was the first time I encountered a simple concept that explained deeper patterns and so it stuck with me. > Who is that `we' that needs more or fewer humans? I'm trying with some difficulty to avoid value judgments e.g. we should or should not interfere in human reproduction patterns so that's a reasonable question. I think that 'We' is the information network. I don't mean the Internet or the price system. It's a broader idea that probably fits into ecology, something like the Noosphere. The premise is that there exists a lot of different states the network could be in. It could be in an optimal state or in a sub-optimal one. I'd guess that it's governed by something like Cybernetics but I'm confident we won't know most of the rules and certainly not the emergent consequences of the rules. To be less handwavy - the 'We' can be the union of the Economy and Ecology sets. It would take humans as being endogenous variables. I'm sure other people have thought of all this before, but it seems difficult to avoid metaphors that could suggest latent policy prescriptions e.g. Spaceship Earth (limited resources) or World System (global government).
- eru 10y ago
  Yes, Malthus was indeed an inspiration that got Darwin thinking. About your ethical problems: you could just go purely formal, and try to present your thoughts without any value judgement. Any prescription would be purely conditional like: - if you want to maximize this variable, you should do that. Lemin Wu has some great thoughts and simulations that round out Malthus. He's also interested in why ancient authors, especially Chinese, decry commerce and any economic activity that's not food producing: > For example, during the Warring Period of China (476-221BC), restraint on luxury was the theme of a series of political and economic reforms. In the face of constant nomadic harassment, King Wu-Ling of Zhao (340-295 BC) commanded his subordinates to take off their wide sleeves and long robes and switch to nomadic uniform—pants, belts and boots— in order to fight as cavalry. Half a century before King Wu-Ling, Shang Yang’s reform swept another kingdom, Qin. The reformer punished commerce, rewarded cultivation, forbade migration and restricted entertainment. In a word, he cut down luxury and directed as many resources as possible to subsistence. The subjects were deprived, but the Qin kingdom defeated all of the six rival kingdoms and united China for the first time in history. A contemporary philosopher commented, “Qin is different from all the other kingdoms. The people are poor and the government is cruel. Whoever hopes for a better life can do nothing but fight hard. This makes the Qin army the strongest of all." (from http://wulemin.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/6/2/14620598/jmp1110.pdf http://wulemin.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/6/2/14620598/jmp1110.p... available via http://wulemin.weebly.com/ http://wulemin.weebly.com/)