Sunday, October 6, 2013

They seemed to hold fast to a simple moral principle

From The ‘What If Failure?’ Taboo by Robin Hanson.
So I was surprised to see the discussion focus overwhelmingly on if this increased inequality was acceptable. Didn’t Tyler understand that losers might be unhappy, and push the political system toward redistribution and instability?

Tyler quite reasonably said yes this change might not be good overall, and yes there might well be more redistribution, but it wouldn’t change the overall inequality much. He pointed out that most losers might be pretty happy with new ways to enjoy more free time, that our last peak of instability was in the 60′s when inequality was at a minimum, that since we have mostly accepted increased inequality for forty years it is reasonable to expect that to continue for another twenty, and that over history inequality has had only a weak correlation with redistribution and instability.

None of which seemed to dent the pundit/wonk mood. They seemed to hold fast to a simple moral principle: when a future change is framed as a problem which we might hope our political system to solve, then the only acceptable reason to talk about the consequences of failing to solve that problem is to scare folks into trying harder to solve it. If you instead assume that politics will fail to solve the problem, and analyze the consequences of that in more detail, not to scare people but to work out how to live in that scenario, you are seen as expressing disloyalty to the system and hostility toward those who will suffer from that failure.

I think we see something similar with other trends framed as negatives, like global warming, bigger orgs, or increased regulation. Once such a trend is framed as an official bad thing which public policy might conceivably reduce, it becomes (mildly) taboo to seem to just accept the change and analyze how to deal with its consequences.
Hanson is right, there is a marked spirit of hubris. If there is even the prospect of being able to influence, even if negligibly, we seem to convince ourselves that it is then both feasible and incumbent on us to "solve" whatever the problem might be. We have solved most the easy problems. What is left is mostly beyond the knowledge frontier. We can attempt but we should not have any confidence that what we plan will be successful. That is not to say that it is impossible and that we ought not to try, only that there is much less prospectively under our control than we pretend.

No comments:

Post a Comment