October 08, 2005
Response on Population-BECKER
I agree that population density is an important variable. I did not single density out because population level and density are necessarily strongly correlated in an overall sense. But to be sure, cities have been more productive than rural areas in part because they are more densely populated. In a human capital specialization model, density reduces the cost of coordinating different specialists.
Obviously, fossil fuels have been used up during the past 100 years as population and industrialization have grown rapidly in the world. But new sources of old fuels and new fuels continued to be discovered, so that known reserves of fossil fuels are far greater now than 60 years ago. So given this history, why is it prudent to assume that such progress will not continue in the future? On the contrary, for the reasons I gave, I believe the prudent assumption is that progress will continue, although the precise directions of the progress cannot be foresee at present. But the numerous possibilities include harnessing solar power, hydrogen fuel cells, greater use of nuclear power, more efficient wind power, and so on. A larger population gives greater incentives to innovate along these and other lines, which is one of the main points of my disucssion.
I certainly do not believe that poor countries have been held back from progress because of low IQ’s. This belief is not based on political correctness but evidence. Prior to 1980, an IQ interpretation applied to the poverty of India and China-now 37 % of world’s population-would have been totally wrong about their prospects from introducing more sensible economic policies. The same is true of Africa, and other countries that continue poor: bad policies are by far the overwhelming determinant of their poverty. I do not believe that any country-wide differences in ability- still not documented--are important explanations of country differences in poverty.
I know Smith's chapters on specialization very well and I do not believe the reader who claims I misquoted Smith can back up that claim. Can you?
India did begin its progress in the late 1980's because economic reforms began at that time. But India's economy really began to take off after the more significant reforms introduced in the early 1990's by Dr. Singh, the former Finance Minister, and the present Prime Minister.
I did not explicitly mention the Solow growth model, although it is an important achievement. But implicitly I am criticizing the population assumption in that model because it does not distinguish mortality from fertility, and especially because it assumes constant returns to population. Solow growth theory does not recognize the increasing returns to population that more modern growth analysis considers to be important.
Of course, I do believe that medical research and education are important in understanding growth and increased life expectancy. I have worked on both these questions for a long time. However, I am not convinced that 90-100 years is an upper limit to human populations. All the genetic and other evidence of the past 20 years suggests, although it does not prove, that within several decades a significant number of persons may be living reasonably healthy lives when they are past 100 years old.
Posted by becker at 06:50 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/997
Comments
Actually, doesn't it make more sense that the perpetuation of bad policies, gross lack of foresight and planning, inability to put aside sexual promiscuity or base violent desires, and inability to understand and develop scientific or mechanical innovations, are all due to a low average IQ rather than the cause of low IQ?
In fact, it's becoming painfully obvious to more and more of us who have been raised under the theory of a racially egalitarian utopia that some races have significant disparities in IQ.
Sure, bad policies can hamstring a nation such as China, for some period of time, but sub-saharan Africa has produced no major advances in technology, EVER, as far as I'm concerned.
The best and only thing one could do to bring Africa out of poverty would be to embark on an extended plan to evolve the average IQ, through economic incentives or legal prohibitions.
Posted by anon at October 9, 2005 01:06 PM | direct link
If as a gay (it was really interesting discussion in July) I can have oppinion in the subject of advantages or disadventages of population growth I would like you to compare the number of (70) Nobel Prize Laureates connected with University of Chicago and the number of (5) Polish Nobel Prize Laureates. Think about the contribution of society from University of Chicago (28 000) to the world's science and the contribution of the whole polish nation (40 billion).
I have a severe discussion on that subject few weeeks ago. Why did Poles contribute so little to the world's science, discoveries, inventions, sport and the art of cookery? Large population counts little sometimes (but not always of course).
Unfortunately I was not able to take part in your presentation in Warsaw School of Economics few years ago.
Posted by Pawel at October 9, 2005 04:31 PM | direct link
To Pawel -
I have not followed earlier iterations of this discussion, so excuse me if you were speaking "tongue in cheek," but there are some key reasons why your stylized facts neither contradict the basic argument nor represent "failure" on the part of the Polish people. ///////////////////
There may well be increasing returns in the production of technology from groups of people, but one has to consider the selection of that group. The type of group members will greatly influence their chance of making a key innovation or positively affecting others' production of ideas.
/////////////////////////
On one hand, you have the University of Chicago where graduate students and young faculty are selected based on their scholarly potential and more senior faculty are often even brought in having already completed nobel-quality work. This is to take nothing away from the scholarly production at the University, but it is not hard to imagine this selection model producing a strong representation of the U of Chicago in Nobel Prizes.
/////////////////////////
On the other hand, you consider an entire country, with its full population distribution. In selecting a comparable group, one must leave aside a great number of people who do not get the opportunity or support to consider such academic pursuits.
////////////////////////
In the specific case of Poland, it would also be useful to think about the impact of certain events: the devastation of the intelligentsia during WW2 would be at the top of my list. There is also no point to discussing the many Polish contributions, but the work of Copernicus and Madame Curie would certainly rank highly.
Posted by Rick at October 10, 2005 08:50 PM | direct link
Highly crafty and intriguing article. Seems to grab attention at once.
Posted by Steven at October 11, 2005 08:12 AM | direct link
Posted by - at October 11, 2005 04:03 PM | direct link
http://videos.pass.as/index.html
Posted by -= at October 11, 2005 04:04 PM | direct link
Posted by Anonymous at October 11, 2005 04:05 PM | direct link
Yes you can say this but are you definitely sure about that. I think you have to take certain changes that how this will help to others. I am not offending your comment; just I want to give my personal suggestion.
Posted by Frenklin at October 15, 2005 12:59 PM | direct link
I think that analysis should include some scrutiny of the cretins at the Nobel Committee...
It is a breath of fresh air to read the above about how the world constantly finds more reserves of fossil fuel. Why is this axiom of the past 150 years so little appreciated?
Posted by Larry at October 15, 2005 06:19 PM | direct link
