Competing Cultures- the Limits of Population Limitation

As you may have gathered from earlier posts, I have been increasingly preoccupied with the idea of increasing world populations. The problem is clear to me, but the solutions, as always, are harder to grasp. One idea I had was of counties self policing to decrease their birth rates and keep populations in check. In a recent discussion of population growth rates, it was pointed out to me that world populations will naturally decrease as we reach our carrying capacity, and Italy was cited as an example. Italy does indeed have a very low birth rate, and as an Italian citizen I can assure you this is not due to mass starvation and lack of resources. Is Italy being somehow altruistic (I think not, but it's useful as a thought experiment). Either way, is self-policing by individual countries a sustainable way to keep populations in check.

Unfortunately, I think not. When delve a bit deeper into the matter, it is easy to see why Italy's decreasing population is in fact a grave problem. Although Italy's birth rate is in facts still positive, the percentage of births to Italian households as opposed to immigrants is exceedingly low. Unlike in the earlier part of the 20th century, when Italy was seen as an emigrating country, the last twenty years have been a time of mass immigration to Italy from western European countries such as Romania, Albania, Ukrain, Poland, etc., as well as a heavy influx of Africans and Asians as well.

So what happens if a country were to hypothetically decide to curb its population? It would likely be overrun in a similar way to what is happening in Italy, although due to different causes. Limiting populations as a result of intra-national policing is not a stable strategy, because it is vulnerable to exploitation from outside countries.

It is my view that history can be viewed as a series of transitions between levels of selection. Free floating DNA combined to create chromosomes, which eventually banded together to create genomes inside individual cells. The history of life then progressed along many parallel lineages to form multicellular bodies, many of which then aggregated to form communities of organisms. In some such communities, such as with social insects, policing mechanisms and the division of labor have been so extensive as to seemingly create a sort of 'super-organism'. Other societies, such as our own exhibit high degrees of functional specialization, yet we have not completed the sort of transition that would make, say the United States, into its own discrete level of selection. Or have we?

The history of such transition clearly tells us that that intra-group conflicts are almost always mediated by policing mechanisms put in place by the higher level of selection. Thus, as I see it we have two options. The first option would be to institute a global policing system that would limit birth rates for all countries, thereby keeping world populations in check. This would certainly be an effective mechanism, but it comes at a high price, namely many of the freedoms which we so cherish. It is exceedingly unlikely that there exists enough natural selective pressure as to naturally create such a policing mechanism (since to our knowledge there are not other planets with life and we are not in fact competing on a planetary level, so there is no selection), and so such a policing mechanism would be of our own devise. The second option is to continue on our current trajectory. Populations will grow, and most likely, unless we become adept at terraforming and colonize other planets (which would be really cool), populations will eventually crash as resources remain finite in the light of an increasing global human presence.

History tells us that policing mechanisms are a way to avoid disaster. We are at the crossroads- we have the option of deviating from history by policing ourselves in the absence of any selection, of creating a self-sustaining society without the tools of natural selection. But is that the kind of society we want? Sure, we might eventually have overpopulation and mass deaths, but is this worth compromising our current liberty and natural order? To foreshadow a future post by Chris, we may be crickets, but at least we're happy ones.

Justice Principle Meets Population Growth

Populations are increasing. As the world remains finite in size, new technology is steadily allowing us to fit more and more people on every mile of land. The invention of the Haber-Bosch process of creating ammonia to be used as fertilizers is what sustains a full third of the earth's population. The first thing China did after opening its borders to international trade in the early 1980s was to place an order for twelve enormous ammonia producing factories, which now greatly sustain China's growing population.

Nowadays, industrially prepared foods and genetically modified crops are the new technological driver catalyzing population growth. As we reach our ecological carrying capacity on this planet, time and time again technology has served to raise this capacity. But what happens when we're packed into cities as close together as corn is packed in the fields? What happens to quality of life as the population skyrockets? Some people believe that population growth will eventually limit itself because this is what regularly happens in nature. But in nature, this stabilization comes in the wake of massive death rates which characterize the initial population collapse. This is quite a bleak prospect- now that we have the capacity for thought and concerted population limiting, do we really want to rely on the merciless processes of nature to cut us down?

Rawls' justice principle makes sense in a finite society, or even in one which expands slowly. To redistribute a portion of the wealth and provide safety nets can be rationalized if it is raising the standard of living of portions of society. But resources are limited. Imagine attending classes at Brown if there were twice as many students, or even getting a meal in the dining hall. To simply increase the amount of people is in most cases to fundamentally devalue those resources which we hold so dear. When the world population increases, relatively few people are born into such lives of luxury. Statistically, most births occur on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

So what happens if the 'least well off in society' category becomes increasingly populated? Can we still justify such wealth distribution? Is it really in our interest to detract from our current quality of life to make room for more people? Remember: there is a big difference between wanting to limit future population growth and from withholding resources from those alive today. Rawls' justice principle certainly has its merits, but is it fair to implement it in the light of our growing society? Or can limiting population growth provide a vehicle for continuing to uphold this noble ideal?

Social Justice and the American Dream

The American Dream means something different for everyone, but most people's conception of the Dream involves having opportunities. Economic freedom, freedom of speech, the freedom to life, liberty and happiness, call it what you will, liberty in all senses of the word are exceedingly important to the concept of the American Dream.

So what about Social Justice? Do liberal social democracies, with their steeply progressive taxation, health and education standards and social services in some way stymie the true American desire? Certainly free market democracy, in its attempt to use market mechanisms to produce social goods without democratic control, fits well with our conception of freedom and the American Dream; but it's also important to ask exactly whose freedoms are at risk of being restricted by embracing a system of social justice?

Redistributive taxation may come at the expense of the rich, but the social services and social safety nets it allows for are exceedingly important for those stuck in the lower economic rungs of society. Is it really such a bad thing to restrict some of these freedoms of the disgustingly rich in order to provide the bare systems of support needed by the poor?

The real question is: does the American Dream have limits? Should it? There must be a balance between the opportunities of a free market economy and the guarantees provided by liberal social democracies. Isn't it worth mildly restricting the American Dream of few in order to greatly facilitate that of many?

Shellfishness in politics, and reflections on the role of science

Paragraphs like these make me scratch my head:

Democratic leaders this week pledged to move a comprehensive immigration bill through Congress this year, which would include a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. As a political issue, immigration has potential benefits and risks for Democratic candidates. But the focus by party leaders makes clear they see the it as an overall winner (sic).

Less clear is whether Congress will pass any legislation. Republicans may be hesitant to cooperate if immigration proposals are viewed as a pre-election tactic. Without Republican support, the measure cannot pass the Senate.

That's from today's Wall Street Journal.

What happened to cooperation? Even if the immigration legislation stands to help Democrats in November, why wouldn't the Republicans support it if they believe it is quality legislation? Furthermore, why is the "focus by [Democratic] party leaders" on immigration (probably rightly) assumed to convey the selfish interests of power-grabbing politicians? Why can't it just be a good idea that will help people? Whatever happened to being a servant of the state?

Politics has always been (and will continue to be) a dirty game. But is there any way we can rig incentives such that the interests of politicians better align with the interests of their constituents? How can we make politics more productive toward the end of prosperity?

This is a question into which evolutionary psychology might be able to provide some insight. It is a situation in which the normative claim -- politicians should work with their constituents' interests in mind prior to their own -- is fairly obvious, but also one in which the empirical claims -- i.e. politicians generally serve themselves more than others because xxxx, and doing xxxx will effectively move the system toward the normative standard -- are emphatically not obvious. Science can't answer normative questions, but it can answer empirical ones, and, when looking for the means to achieve normative standards, it is just as important to have the empirical answers as it is to have the normative answers.

The more we learn about our evolved (social) psychologies, the better chance we have at "nudging" ourselves and our societies in the right direction.

Reply to Norian's "Evolution of the Rawlsian Ideal"

A week ago, Norian posted on the biologically evolutionary roots of the the cultural idea of social justice. Specifically, he discussed Rawls's conception of social justice, including the difference principle, which states that the most just society is that in which inequalities benefit the least well-off individuals. His write-up works well for even the condition of material adequacy held up (if discreetly) by libertarian thinkers like Rand and Hayek. Norian asks, "Why would anyone but the poorest in society advocate the welfare state?" At the end, he poses, "Is the most just system that which is most evolutionarily advantageous to its members?"

To answer Norian's closing question, we first have to define "evolutionarily advantageous." One definition is: "Facilitates an individual to produce more high-quality offspring than his/her peers."

Thinking about selection on the level of the individual, Norian's question appears a bit silly. By "its members," I assume he is referring to all citizens of a society. By definition, an evolutionarily advantageous society is one that loads the die in favor of some individuals over others. An "evolutionarily advantageous" society of 100 people cannot be advantageous for all 100. Therefore, it seems at first that no society, no matter how just, would be evolutionarily advantageous to all its members.

But Norian is a smart guy. As he hints in the last paragraph, he's probably looking to higher levels of selection (i.e. the group) when making his inquiry. Indeed, concepts of justice (such as Rawls's) emphasize society as a functional unit. Merely asking the question, "What makes a society just?" suggests that our minds have evolved in the context of selective pressures not just on the individual, but on the group as a unit. If this were the case, then our conception of a just society would be genetically tailored by a history of successful, tight-knit societies that out-competed others in reproductive terms. Consequently, a society functioning on that conception of justice would furnish that society with reproductive advantages over other societies. In this way, "the most just system" could be the "most evolutionarily advantageous."

In support of a group-selectionist argument, Norian writes (with the tip of his tongue in his cheek, I'm sure):

I know what you're thinking. No, if you're one of those people who hears the word 'group-selection' and laughs, you understand nothing about evolutionary biology. They're called different levels of selection, and yes, society exhibits heritability, variation and selection. The science that comes out in the next ten years is going to blow your mind.

Ok, so I don't laugh when I hear the word "group-selection," but in my mind I make the sound that you make when someone tells you a rather shocking bit of news while you're drinking a tall glass of chocolate milk. That's what I think most group-selection arguments are: delicious chocolate milk tragically gone down the trachea instead of the esophagus. It's a good idea, and Norian is right in saying that it can happen. The more vital question is, "Did it happen?"

I doubt that the differential success of ancient hunter-gatherer groups (as units) has much to do with our conception of justice. A lot of the results that one would expect from group selection can be wrought from selection on the individual in a group environment. Since humans are such social creatures, it makes sense that the enhanced (or diminished) reproductive fitness of an enterprising individual will naturally extend to humans of the same group through practices such as imitation. If a young genius invents the wheel, her whole society may benefit. That is not to say, though, that she invents the wheel "for the good of society" in any remote way.

Humans are cooperators. Good cooperators -- people who have entrusted their reproductive success in part to the actions of others -- have prevailed in the struggle for survival. Humans' adaptability is the reason why they have overrun the world.

My theory is that, by looking to improve the lot of its least well-off members, the most just society would be potentially evolutionarily advantageous at some hybrid level between individual and group. By lifting up the poor, a just society produces a group of more useful cooperators. In turn, individuals of all echelons stand to benefit over other individuals by cooperating more effectively than their peers. Through imitation and trade, these benefits come to all individuals, and the playing field starts to level out again. A just society is "evolutionarily advantageous" because it facilitates productive inequalities. These inequalities translate into reproductive benefits for certain individuals over others. The group is instrumental rather than an end unto itself.

Daydreaming prompt: Response

A month ago, I proposed a simple daydreaming prompt. It boils down to this: You can save yourself and nine fellow humans and set up a colony on Mars. The questions are:
1. Who will you bring with you?
2. What will you bring with you?
3. What institutions will you institute in the new colony?
Here are my answers, for the time being:

1. Who will you bring? (This is basically trying to beat natural selection against humanity by thinking a thousand steps ahead.)

First, I will bring my girlfriend (duh). I will fill in the remaining 8 slots based on these criteria:

4 males, 4 females. This 1:1 ratio will accomplish many things:

• Maximize the number of genes inherited by future generations. Heterozygosity (i.e. mutt-character) tends to correlate positively with the health and resilience of organisms, ideal for these do-or-die settlements.
• Minimize the risk of failure. For instance, if I decided to fill the ship with women, and I turned out to be sterile, we'd be in quite the bind.
• More even sex ratios in future generations. Sex ratios tend to be 1:1, but some individuals may have more of a tendency to produce one sex than another. An even number of males and females in the parent generation would be most likely to produce even ratios in future generations.

Maximum genetic heterozygosity (for aforementioned reasons). This could be measured directly through genetic analysis or be looking at phenotypic features such as:

• Body type (Height, BMI, etc.)
  
• Ethnic history
• Hair/eye color
• etc.

Minimum risk of illness. I would choose against individuals with histories of past illness or with family histories of past heritable illness. I would go for people with good eyesight and hearing, too.

Same language (English or Spanish, given what I speak). Hopefully, this would maximize cultural cohesion and cooperation.

Same religion. Also to increase cooperation, especially among men. Religiosity tends to act as a stabilizing force in small communities. (If this weren't the case, I doubt religion ever would have caught on.)

Problem-solving skills/creativity, probably measured by IQ and/or artistic skill. This will be important given the number of problems will face on Mars. (Oh boy, my palms are sweating just thinking about it!)

2. What will you bring?
Of course, I will bring copious amounts of water. I will also bring gas-tight buckets and giant straws for the collection and condensation of polar water.
Food is a must, at least for a while. Potentially, seeds could become a renewable resource in Mars's more-or-less fertile soil. (At least asparagus?) I could maybe bring some earthworms to enrich the soil with nitrogen.
Maybe I'd toss in a Playstation 2 and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, too.

3. What institutions would lead to the prosperity of the colony?
I would start with non-coercive anarchy. However, there would be two enforced requirements:

1. Respect the rights of others, in accordance with a basic Bill of Rights.
2. Pray.

A formal intervention of some sorts would need to be enacted to address individuals not complying with these requirements.

The first is important, simply because we do not want to kill each other or get in petty fights. I don't think my comrades or I would disrespect each other, though, at least not at first, because our survival would hinge on our cooperation.

The second is important to prevent existential crises. If one really got down to thinking about it, one might be tempted to abandon this whole humanity thing for good. I am, however, a believer in human life's intrinsic good. I believe that suicide is wrong in most circumstances, probably including the circumstances in which a Martian colonist might find herself. By pointing to a higher power, directionlessness, powerlessness, and overall disillusion might be prevented. (For a case study in how Christmas saved a fictitious Martian colony, watch this.)

Other than that, anarchy would probably fit the bill for the first few decades. The Bill of Rights will also suffice for that time and onward into the future (hopefully).


What's your answer? What did I forget? What shouldn't I have included?

Evolution of the Rawlsian Ideal

Why should the best social system be that which is most advantageous to the least well off? Why would anyone but the poorest in society advocate the welfare state? Why have social safety nets?

For the least well off in society these are no-brainers. But what about for the rich- why would someone in the upper financial echelons of society advocate a welfare state? Do humans have an deeply ingrained cultural sense of empathy and compassion driving them to be altruistic, or are there direct benefits to be gained as well?

One could claim that the rich are afraid they could someday become poor, that the safety nets are a form of insurance. This seems rather unlikely. What about the opposite argument that the rich are completely selfless and support the welfare state even though they have absolutely nothing to gain. This hypothesis leaves just as much to be desired.

One could argue that the poor are just as essential as the rich to society. Without the poor, everyone in society essentially shifts down a notch- imagine society without any of the lowest paying jobs- no factory workers, no mall-cops, no CVS employees, not to mention janitors, trashmen and the other invisible jobs which make society function. It's to everyone's advantage to make society "function", and by and large this means supporting those at the low end of the financial spectrum.

A sociobiologist might evoke a form of societal selection, saying individuals work for the good of society as well as looking out for themselves. I know what you're thinking. No, if you're one of those people who hears the word 'group-selection' and laughs, you understand nothing about evolutionary biology. They're called different levels of selection, and yes, society exhibits heritability, variation and selection. The science that comes out in the next ten years is going to blow your mind.

A sociologist might say that the concept of reputation is at stake. Individuals who are openly altruistic will benefit from getting good reputations, and those who are seemingly selfish (like the miserly fool who rejects the welfare state or the rich man who doesn't give to charity) will suffer from the bad reputations they accrue.

What about the student of animal behavior? She might invoke the Handicap Principle, going as far as to say that philanthropists are showing off, essentially proving that they can get along just fine in society even after giving away large sums of money. This is why peacocks have such elaborate tails and why certain types of gazelles stot, or jump, when chased by a predator instead of directly running away- they are in both cases proving that they are superior to other conspecifics, whether the goal is mate attraction or to make the predator give up and pursue someone weaker. Is this type of human altruism just a showy handicap?

Regardless of which hypothesis you're partial to (and there are many more yet unnamed), it is very unlikely that affluent people would pursue social safety nets were it not somehow to their benefit. Even if this is purely a cultural construct, our brains were created through evolution and there are constraints on what we are likely to think and which ideas we are likely to find appealing. The excuse of human exceptionalism through culture falters, falls and tumbles down the hill. Are social safety nets just? Are they a good idea? The fact that we're even thinking about them means they might be advantageous (the view of an evolutionary psychologist, maybe? ;)

One last idea: is the most just system that which is most evolutionarily advantageous to its members? Remember your levels of selection and the question grows infinitely more interesting.

Neolithic (R)evolution: By Choice Or By Need?

In a political science course at Brown University this spring, philosopher Jason Brennan presented the neolithic revolution as an opportunity to engage in trade. As part of a hypothesis about the Neanderthal extinction, Brennan introduced the idea of Homo sapiens coming to dominance through the establishment of trade and the advent of agriculture. Few would contest the fact that the neolithic revolution led to a transition from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to more stable sedentary societies, and that this transition was the gateway for market economics, technology, and cultural advancement.

Yet the way professor Brennan posed the question was to ask how exactly our hominid ancestors were able to make this transition, and what factors allowed them to finally make this obviously beneficial transition. But was the neolithic revolution truly based on a novel idea which led to such momentous change, or is it more accurate to say that necessity was the mother of this invention.

The move to agriculture happened all over the globe within a very limited timescale. It is exceedingly unlikely that someone suddenly realized that planting crops would be a good idea, and that the neolithic revolution is simply the spread of this idea. People tended to crops long before they began planting them. The first forms of irrigation were simple modifications of the landscape in order to divert water to patches of desirable plants. People knew about irrigation and the raising of crops long before the agricultural revolution began.

So why wait? Why did the neolithic revolution happen all of a sudden across the globe. I think it was a matter of necessity. As our ancestors proliferated and expanded across the globe, a phenomenon called the Pleistocene Extinctions occured- this was the mass extinction of megafauna which occured in the period leading up to around 10,000 years ago. Although there is controversy, these extinctions were most likely due to overhunting by humans. From moose to mammoths to giant beavers, much of the world's large mammal population was decimated, leaving few large animals to hunt and gather.

Agriculture is really not that much of a good thing. Taking care of crops restricts you to eating only very few types of plants, as opposed to the hundreds of types available to hunter-gatherers. This makes crops easily subject to disease, not to mention the risk of soil demineralization. Any animals that were raised were in close proximity to humans, and many of the world's worst disease have arisen precisely when the disease spreads from animals to humans (think avian flue, swine flue, and bubonic plague for starters). Additionally, by adopting a sedentary lifestyle our ancestors lived in close proximity to their feces, also increasing the risk of disease exposure.

So in the end, was the neolithic revolution a wonderous idea which finally enabled hunter-gathering Homo sapiens to embrace its destiny of trade, economics, and structured society, or was it simply a choice of the lesser of two evils, making the best of a lousy situation when animal food supplies were running short? It is important to consider the past when examining the present, but it is equally important to fully understand the past which we seek to consider.