By Bryan Caplan, here. An extremely swift convergence on Godwin's Law too. This is an especially bad paragraph (which came after arguing that eugenics doesn't have to be misanthropic... because Bryan argues that at least we can trade with all those sub-humans, so of course there's nothing wrong with separating the human wheat from the human chaff as long as they can trade). The offending paragraph on Malthusianism, though:
"Malthusianism, in contrast, is intrinsically misanthropic. By
hook or by crook, population has to go down. Sure, they'd prefer
voluntary sub-replacement fertility. But if that's not in the cards,
the next steps are government pressure to discourage fertility, then
caps on family size, followed by forced sterilization, mandatory
abortion, and finally mass murder."
No Bryan. Mass murder does not follow from Malthusianism. But if you do worry about the things Malthus worried about, you are practically the opposite of a misanthrope because your whole concern revolves around the prospect of human suffering and starvation as a result of resource constraints. Granted, human starvation is precisely a prospect that Bryan recently embraced as the only ethical outcome of a dilemma where some humans are more naturally equipped than others.
He goes on:
"My claim is not that, "Malthusianism is false
because Hitler believed it." Hitler presumably believed that the sky is
blue. My claim, rather, is that Malthusianism is a more dangerous doctrine than eugenics.
If the whiff of eugenics leads you to say, "We should be very careful
here, because these ideas can easily lead to terrible things," the whiff
of Malthusianism should inspire even greater trepidation."
Why??? Bryan claims he's not just doing Nazi guilt-by-association, but when you scrutinize the post all he offers is Nazi guilt-by-association!!! Malthusianism, in a given period, is either right or its wrong. This is not a morality play. Until the industrial revolution, Malthus was essentially right. The industrial revolution changed that in many parts of the world, and then Malthus was wrong. We're going through a period of exponential population growth right now which would suggest that Malthus will rear his ugly head again soon... but not necessarily. We're going through a period of exponential economic growth too, such that so far we have been able to provide for all our needs. But there are two potential problems:
1. The explosive economic growth may not continue... unlikely in my opinion unless there's some exogenous institutional disturbance.
2. Unintended consequences cause more problems - say, with climate change - than we can solve in time. This I consider much more likely.
But the point is Malthusianism is either a relevant fact of human society at a point in time or its not. If it is a fact at a particular point in time we shouldn't shy away from it the way Bryan suggests. If it's not a fact at a particular point in time, then we shouldn't worry about it.
But if it is a risk, I don't see what in Bryan's brain reaches automatically for mass murder as the solution. I would have thought the solution would be innovation, migration, and careful public and private planning.
I don't know what's up with Bryan Caplan - he's had some very questionable stuff on the blog lately.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
'I don't know what's up with Bryan Caplan - he's had some very questionable stuff on the blog lately.'
ReplyDelete?? When has this not been the case. Everyone at Econlog has lost it as far as I'm concerned.
Ya - Henderson had that bad post on Edwards the other day too.
DeleteI dunno - obviously I'm not always right on the same page with them, but they're usually pretty thoughtful. A bunch of weird ones lately though - "weirder than usual", how about that :)
Especially these two from Bryan.
Well, you know where I stand on this stuff...
ReplyDeleteI know that Caplan is famously "not an Austrian", but I've been meaning to do a follow-up post on the uncanny parallels between a lot of neo-Malthusian and Austrian thought. I think that Jon Catalan has made the point that Mises was a type of Malthusian, but it goes deeper than that... There are especially interesting connections with regards to fractional reserve banking and debt.
Will have to wait until I find some time amidst assignments and exam prep , though.
I agree that Capan's post on Malthus is way off base.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I followed your other link, and I think you've badly misrepresented (or misunderstood) Caplan's other post. Your claim is that he "embraced [starvation] as the only ethical outcome of a dilemma where some humans are more naturally equipped than others." No, he didn't, and not by a long shot.
He set up a thought experiment and asked whether particular actions can be justified by their outcomes. When he asks if it's justified to force someone to work against their will to prevent another person from starving, people might reasonably give different answers and debate how they reached their conclusions. My answers to his four questions, in order, are 1. yes, 2. yes, 3. no, 4. no. You might have different answers. But when someone asks "Is it justified to do A to prevent B?" you don't get anywhere by ignoring the question and instead saying "He wants B to happen."
Your statement might have been justified if he answered "no" to all the questions himself. But he flat out says "I'm not claiming that the 'hard libertarian' intuition is certainly true. But in a thought experiment with ten people, the hard libertarian intuition is at least somewhat plausible." How do you go from "somewhat plausible in a carefully constructed thought experiment" to "openly embraced as the only just solution?" That doesn't seem like a leap to you?
I enjoy your blog, Daniel, but it seems like you sometimes go out of your way to find the least charitable interpretation possible for people with whom you disagree.
This is a good point. Perhaps I should have just left it at that in the prior link Caplan thinks that it is more ethical, when nobody will individually contribute to help the weaker member of society, to let that member of society starve to death than to collectively solve the problem through a tax-funded welfare program.
DeleteThat's damning enough, I think - and that is not inaccurate. It still demonstrates a shocking nonchalance about the prospect of starvation, something that people who worry about Malthusian pressures almost by definition don't share.
Ironically, though, Malthus himself probably would have agreed with Bryan on the island scenario - but for practical reasons, not libertarian reasons.
re: "you don't get anywhere by ignoring the question and instead saying "He wants B to happen.""
Now is my turn to chastise you on characterization of blog posts - I never said he wants it to happen.
Chastism fully accepted - that was sloppy phrasing on my part. My apologies.
DeleteI still don't think we are seeing that post eye to eye though. It's not clear to me that he positively "thinks that it is more ethical, when nobody will individually contribute to help the weaker member of society, to let that member of society starve to death than to collectively solve the problem through a tax-funded welfare program." His strongest statement to that effect was to say that the intuition that would justify that conclusion is "somewhat plausible." He even stated that he was unwilling to claim it was true.
Nonetheless, he's also hesitant to positively say that preventing the hypothetical mans starvation by the means listed would be justified. That's a fair criticism - and I share it.
It has long been an intellectual sport to criticise 'Malthusianism' as this free floating doctrine not to be confused with anything Malthus actually wrote ...
ReplyDeleteEven if you divorce it from Malthus himself and just associate it with people who are worried about population pressures, it still seems to me the criticism is unfair.
Delete"But the point is Malthusianism is either a relevant fact of human society at a point in time or its not."
ReplyDeleteI thought the implicit premise was that there is little empirical support for Malthusianism ... and that if there is little support for neither Malthusianism nor eugenics, the latter would be the less dangerous idea on its own.