One issue I see with this argument is that it assumes everyone is working in productive jobs. That is to say, no one is collecting benefits, no one is engaging in crime, no one is involved in parasitic governmental activities, etc. If the added people of Brawn type work less or engage in crime at a higher rate that will have negative effects, likewise if the Brains freed up from Brawn type labor go into non-productive "work".
Overall, many of these comparative advantage arguments break down a bit when the possibility of non-consensual exchange come into play. If everyone works and nobody steals, great. If that is not the case, then the equilibrium can wind up all over the place.
Bingo. It also implies that brains can't strip as efficiently as brawns nor wash dishes and I have my doubts on that. It also implies efficiency even matters and it doesn't. Most jobs are make work jobs because we don't like paying people thousands of dollars an hour nor defining full time work as two hours a week.
Bryan stretching too hard on this one, not got the first time. I think he's popular narrative brainstorming to try and see what sticks, I don't fault that.
I think the GMU argument is since we can conceive of a world in which they wouldn't be able to vote, and all possible worlds exist according to many philosophical models, then we can just imagine we live in such a world. Or maybe it's something even dumber than that.
There's a bit of hidden motte and bailey here. Do Brawns bring up "murders, rapes and burgleries"? In absolute numbers, yes, definitely - more people means more crime. In relative numbers, usually yes, at least somehow. Is it worth it? That's a fair conversation to have, and a legitimate choice to make - or at the very least, a metric to watch and optimize.
What's the fallacy then? Comparing this natural tradeoff with the shitshow of accepting refugees from culturally incompatible countries, with very different law systems and equilibria, paying them welfare, not requiring them to work, not throwing them out even in the worst circumstance... yeah, there is nothing reasonable and sane here.
So we end up with two very different paradigms, and people shouting past each other: you have a very regulated (probably over regulated) legal immigration system, which is Good and should be expanded, and a completely or mostly unregulated system which is ... not the same, and should not appear in the same conversations except as a "let's not do this" example.
This is an explanation given for why AI isn't going to make things worse. Everyone still has something to offer in a society where AI does all the brains work
"If the Brains allow the Brawns to join their society, the average genetic quality of the Brains’ society plummet"
That is an extremely limited and dare I say flawed measure of 'genetic quality'. Physical strength is itself a measure of genetic quality just as IQ is, simply on a different dimension. The benefit to society comes from having high genetic quality across a diverse mix of dimensions. From this point of view, admitting immigrants that are not so clever, but healthy and strong, will benefit society. Admitting immigrants who are both dumb and weak (genetically weak across all dimensions) would be a net loss
It's a fine argument for what it is, but it neglects the fact that brains can automate and work around the need for brawn. If anything, this argument devalues the innovation that this drives.
I am as pro (legal) immigration as the next guy, but I am skeptical of this argument.
1) No society has 100% brains. I agree that if they did, they could gain fresh comparative advantage. But if they are already at 50 or 75% brawn, I don’t see that it holds to bring in more brawn.
2) The increased supply of brawns increases competition and can make them worse off, even if brains (or society in total) do benefit.
3) None of this applies if public assistance programs encourage parasitism, or if people are allowed to sleep and defecate in the streets (welcome to California).
But if accepting 3 Brauns into the Brains society is good…accepting 3 more Brains into Brains society would be even better (+15 programs and +30 bushels using your linear assumptions).
So society should always be geared towards trying to identify outgroup Brains for acceptance into the ingroup.
You would really only want to accept Brauns if there were literally no Brains available for you to pick…and in that instance, not picking anyone seems like the better choice than picking up a Braun.
> Now what happens if the geniuses come into contact with a society where everyone is of average intelligence at best? Let’s call them the Brawns. If the Brains allow the Brawns to join their society, the average genetic quality of the Brains’ society plummets. But everyone is better off as a result! Now the Brains can specialize in jobs that require high intelligence, and the Brawns can take over the menial labor. Total production goes up.
A side point I don't see mentioned almost ever, which can change the outcome in practice.
Yes, comparative advantage means Brawns can increase total productivity, sometimes dramatically so. But if the (usually western) society has strong barriers to cheap labor, as a matter of principle? Minimum wage, for example. Or even worse, something that might be called "effective minimum wage", made up of gentrification, regulation, zoning, building codes and the forever present rent-seeking?
You bring immigrants that can work, and that are willing to work - but at the same time, make it illegal for them to work at their level of efficiency. What happens then? Yeap, you end up subsidizing them.
A nice example: people are usually more effective in large cities. But large cities require transport infrastructure, and that means you need a transport pass or subscription to actually work there (and not pay a kidney in rent). That's a nice visible example of a fixed cost that adds to the effective wage floor - and which almost always ends up subsidized by the government. This is one of the best case scenarios because at least it allows (and encourages) people to work - literal minimum wage makes it outright illegal.
One issue I see with this argument is that it assumes everyone is working in productive jobs. That is to say, no one is collecting benefits, no one is engaging in crime, no one is involved in parasitic governmental activities, etc. If the added people of Brawn type work less or engage in crime at a higher rate that will have negative effects, likewise if the Brains freed up from Brawn type labor go into non-productive "work".
Overall, many of these comparative advantage arguments break down a bit when the possibility of non-consensual exchange come into play. If everyone works and nobody steals, great. If that is not the case, then the equilibrium can wind up all over the place.
Bingo. It also implies that brains can't strip as efficiently as brawns nor wash dishes and I have my doubts on that. It also implies efficiency even matters and it doesn't. Most jobs are make work jobs because we don't like paying people thousands of dollars an hour nor defining full time work as two hours a week.
Bryan stretching too hard on this one, not got the first time. I think he's popular narrative brainstorming to try and see what sticks, I don't fault that.
But every country already has too many dumb people already.
and they're allowed to vote.
I think the GMU argument is since we can conceive of a world in which they wouldn't be able to vote, and all possible worlds exist according to many philosophical models, then we can just imagine we live in such a world. Or maybe it's something even dumber than that.
"But everyone is better off as a result!" Yeah, except the Brains have to put up with more murders, rapes, and burglaries now.
There's a bit of hidden motte and bailey here. Do Brawns bring up "murders, rapes and burgleries"? In absolute numbers, yes, definitely - more people means more crime. In relative numbers, usually yes, at least somehow. Is it worth it? That's a fair conversation to have, and a legitimate choice to make - or at the very least, a metric to watch and optimize.
What's the fallacy then? Comparing this natural tradeoff with the shitshow of accepting refugees from culturally incompatible countries, with very different law systems and equilibria, paying them welfare, not requiring them to work, not throwing them out even in the worst circumstance... yeah, there is nothing reasonable and sane here.
So we end up with two very different paradigms, and people shouting past each other: you have a very regulated (probably over regulated) legal immigration system, which is Good and should be expanded, and a completely or mostly unregulated system which is ... not the same, and should not appear in the same conversations except as a "let's not do this" example.
BTW see David Bessis on why twins reared apart do not exist.
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidbessis/p/twins-reared-apart-do-not-exist?r=1ja6uj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
This is an explanation given for why AI isn't going to make things worse. Everyone still has something to offer in a society where AI does all the brains work
"If the Brains allow the Brawns to join their society, the average genetic quality of the Brains’ society plummet"
That is an extremely limited and dare I say flawed measure of 'genetic quality'. Physical strength is itself a measure of genetic quality just as IQ is, simply on a different dimension. The benefit to society comes from having high genetic quality across a diverse mix of dimensions. From this point of view, admitting immigrants that are not so clever, but healthy and strong, will benefit society. Admitting immigrants who are both dumb and weak (genetically weak across all dimensions) would be a net loss
It's a fine argument for what it is, but it neglects the fact that brains can automate and work around the need for brawn. If anything, this argument devalues the innovation that this drives.
Eugenics is good. In fact, it is true. People with an IQ below a certain value do not deserve to be born.
I am as pro (legal) immigration as the next guy, but I am skeptical of this argument.
1) No society has 100% brains. I agree that if they did, they could gain fresh comparative advantage. But if they are already at 50 or 75% brawn, I don’t see that it holds to bring in more brawn.
2) The increased supply of brawns increases competition and can make them worse off, even if brains (or society in total) do benefit.
3) None of this applies if public assistance programs encourage parasitism, or if people are allowed to sleep and defecate in the streets (welcome to California).
But if accepting 3 Brauns into the Brains society is good…accepting 3 more Brains into Brains society would be even better (+15 programs and +30 bushels using your linear assumptions).
So society should always be geared towards trying to identify outgroup Brains for acceptance into the ingroup.
You would really only want to accept Brauns if there were literally no Brains available for you to pick…and in that instance, not picking anyone seems like the better choice than picking up a Braun.
> Now what happens if the geniuses come into contact with a society where everyone is of average intelligence at best? Let’s call them the Brawns. If the Brains allow the Brawns to join their society, the average genetic quality of the Brains’ society plummets. But everyone is better off as a result! Now the Brains can specialize in jobs that require high intelligence, and the Brawns can take over the menial labor. Total production goes up.
A side point I don't see mentioned almost ever, which can change the outcome in practice.
Yes, comparative advantage means Brawns can increase total productivity, sometimes dramatically so. But if the (usually western) society has strong barriers to cheap labor, as a matter of principle? Minimum wage, for example. Or even worse, something that might be called "effective minimum wage", made up of gentrification, regulation, zoning, building codes and the forever present rent-seeking?
You bring immigrants that can work, and that are willing to work - but at the same time, make it illegal for them to work at their level of efficiency. What happens then? Yeap, you end up subsidizing them.
A nice example: people are usually more effective in large cities. But large cities require transport infrastructure, and that means you need a transport pass or subscription to actually work there (and not pay a kidney in rent). That's a nice visible example of a fixed cost that adds to the effective wage floor - and which almost always ends up subsidized by the government. This is one of the best case scenarios because at least it allows (and encourages) people to work - literal minimum wage makes it outright illegal.
At least, this applies until the Brawns start voting, and replace the Brains' old government of Pigovian taxation with price controls.
(This applies to my current society too, I think people should be able to pass a test on math, history and economics before being allowed to vote).
But surely there must be an optimal balance between brains and brawn; too much brawn would be a liability.