Keynes, equilibrium, and the definition of life

In the previous post, Norian compares the formation and collective welfare of human societies to the formation of a multicellular organism through the cooperation of individual cells. He describes the division of labor of cells in a multicellular organism as "more akin to the Platonic division of labor [...] a static system with no changing jobs."

While he's right to say that the division of labor is static, it is worth noting that the biological system we call an "organism" is by no means a "stationary state." The cells in your body are constantly dying and making way for fresh replacement cells. Every 24 hours, upwards of 50 billion of your cells kick the bucket. If your cells were to stop being born and stop dying, you would just die. (Norian notes that cells that refuse to die are called cancer.) As Ms. Bona, my 11th-grade biology teacher used to say, "Equilibrium = Death," meaning that a static biological system is a dead one.

If we compare biological growth to the growth of human societies, we come up with some interesting questions. For instance: Does "Equilibrium = Death" apply to human societies? Is Mill's conjectured "stationary state" desirable, or even possible? And to what extent are the "absolute needs" of humans analogous to the needs of individual cells?

In "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren," Keynes divides human needs into two classes: the "absolute" needs that we feel "whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be"; and "relative" needs, which are satisfied "only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows." Keynes writes that, by 2030, humans' absolute needs will be satisfied and the Age of Leisure will ensue.

But what are these "absolute" needs? I'm pretty sure that the most "absolute" need of any human -- or individual cell, for that matter -- is to live: that is to say, to not die. I cannot say with certainty that Keynes did not take this possibility into account when he wrote his essay. He might believe that "technical inventions" and rapid economic growth will lead to the ultimate achievement of immortality for all.

If Keynes were to have recognized living as an absolute need, though, it would come into tension with part one of his four-part prescription for rapid economic growth: population control. The only resolution to this tension would be to abolish human reproduction.

My guess is that a sterile, immortal society would not necessarily be the one most conducive to the practice of "the art of life." Societies, like our bodies, are of a dynamic, generational character. There is no living thing that has ever rightly been ascribed the title of "living" that has lacked biological potential or "desire" to make copies of itself. If the human species were to satisfy its "absolute needs" by forgoing death and reproduction, what would it be? Would it be alive? It is possible that it could be something much better (and more fun) than "alive." Humans might become ultra-happy, ultra-prosperous superorganisms with burgeoning bank accounts and abounding ambition. The one thing they would NOT be able to do, though, is what Keynes says they would be able to do, which is, ironically, to "cultivate into a fuller perfection... the art of life."

I think Ms. Bona is right, even when it comes to human societies: "Equilibrium = Death." Or at least a death of sorts. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the best way to practice "the art of life" is to reproduce and die, engaging vigorously in activities of purpose for as long as you can. Maybe it's myopic of me to exalt the institution of life and "the struggle for subsistence." Maybe sterile immortality is the way to go. I think, however, that life -- painful, pleasurable, birthing, dying -- is not only the only type of life we've got, but the only type of life we want. Anything else, and we'd be rocks.

(David Brooks is far more eloquent than I. Recommended.)