"Check whether the marginal human is, over his entire lifetime, self-supporting in present value terms. A small fraction of people – such as violent criminals, long-term welfare recipients, the chronically sick, and politicians – probably don’t pass this test."
Define the test precisely.
Since the US has a deficit, the mean human has a negative fiscal impact, and due to long-tailed distribution of income the median is even more negative. Therefore median human is a burden to others by increasing their tax liability. One needs to be way above minimum wage to be self-supporting in the sense of receiving less or equal spending from the government than you pay in taxes.
This is an insightful perspective that gave me pause and introspection. I can see in my earlier self when I was an advocate for population controls (eg teenage crazy time), and those around me who presently advocate for it (degrowth and related) a suspicion of the value of one more human. I wonder how much of the opposition to immigration, poverty reform and various other topics can be boiled down to a difference as whether you see people as valuable in and of themselves. Or just see certain kinds of humans as valuable.
Caplan will never read this comment (which I respect -- I wouldn't either), but the real meat of the discussion is: who assigns what expected utility return for which people groups, and for what reasons. Competing ends of the spectrum might assume white folk are more likely to be evil or black folk are less likely to be intelligent, and therefore would like to see fewer of these born. Caplan appears to assume both types of expectation are incorrect, but in doing so misses the part of the concept-space where the real debate is happening.
Human expected contribution to civilizational advancement are highly dependent on institutions and resources. Absent these, additional birth push a population at the Malthusian limit, which does not necessarily lead to improved prospects for mankind.
To anyone who thinks there are too many people I say : "Do the right thing and set an example for all of us by stepping off a cliff."
The Resourceful Earth is still an Excellent book and a great companion to The Ultimate Resource.
Oh yeah!? When I was married, I quoted Hayek.
"Check whether the marginal human is, over his entire lifetime, self-supporting in present value terms. A small fraction of people – such as violent criminals, long-term welfare recipients, the chronically sick, and politicians – probably don’t pass this test."
Define the test precisely.
Since the US has a deficit, the mean human has a negative fiscal impact, and due to long-tailed distribution of income the median is even more negative. Therefore median human is a burden to others by increasing their tax liability. One needs to be way above minimum wage to be self-supporting in the sense of receiving less or equal spending from the government than you pay in taxes.
This is an insightful perspective that gave me pause and introspection. I can see in my earlier self when I was an advocate for population controls (eg teenage crazy time), and those around me who presently advocate for it (degrowth and related) a suspicion of the value of one more human. I wonder how much of the opposition to immigration, poverty reform and various other topics can be boiled down to a difference as whether you see people as valuable in and of themselves. Or just see certain kinds of humans as valuable.
Bryan
Ontology (what exists) out of modern fashion.
Epistemology (how to think) the focus of modernity.
But, ontology precedes epistemology. How?
If humans are chemical robots (Descartes), everything predetermined by physics and chemistry.
No free will.
If humans smarter animals (Darwin), everything determined by passions and instincts.
No free will.
If humans are image of God (Moses), everything determined by personal choice.
Yes free will.
Seems obvious to connect to opinion that we need fewer humans if we’re just robots or animals.
Another take is need more humans to reflect the godly qualities from our inheritance of godly potential.
Ontology can’t be ignored without consequences.
Thanks
Clay
Caplan will never read this comment (which I respect -- I wouldn't either), but the real meat of the discussion is: who assigns what expected utility return for which people groups, and for what reasons. Competing ends of the spectrum might assume white folk are more likely to be evil or black folk are less likely to be intelligent, and therefore would like to see fewer of these born. Caplan appears to assume both types of expectation are incorrect, but in doing so misses the part of the concept-space where the real debate is happening.
Human expected contribution to civilizational advancement are highly dependent on institutions and resources. Absent these, additional birth push a population at the Malthusian limit, which does not necessarily lead to improved prospects for mankind.