« Is Hayek less important today? | Main | Guest Blogger: Bob Hormats »
Would immortals be libertarian?
Arnold Kling posed the question. Let's go further and say these people reprogram themselves to behave like true immortals, rather than sticking with their inherited and earlier evolved biological intuitions.
If we assume monotonicity (and why shouldn't we?), we can draw inferences from societies with short life expectancies. They are extremely superstitious, willing to entertain tyranny, and hardly libertarian. Try teaching Henry Hazlitt in the Congo. More generally, pending death makes us think of honor, patriotism, and in-group solidarity.
If longer lives move us away from such feelings, yes some immortals would be quite libertarian. That is one direction a tolerant and secular morality can take, but that is hardly the end of the story. Many more immortals would become non-theistic, rational constructivist, cosmopolitan Benthamite modern liberals, much like Matt Yglesias or Brad DeLong. I believe the elasticity of ideological adjustment is greater in this direction. Those views, and the libertarians, would grow in popularity at the expense of the middle, but I doubt if the libertarians would become a majority or even a plurality.
In other words, a society of immortals would become more like...uh...the blogosphere.
Most of all, I would expect more libertarian attitudes toward social issues. Immortals are going to want to try everything, and why not?
Another factor is the declining scarcity of time. I recall, as a kid, seeing a made-for-TV movie about immortals. None of them had plans or homes. They all lived under a bridge, with the bums, and behaved wantonly. They wanted to behave without social constraint, and that meant shedding their reputations and in essence going on the lam. They figured there was always more time to shape up, slip back into a reputation, and run a major corporation. But how did they vote?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 28, 2007 at 07:11 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
It is important that the "immortals" being discussed by Kling are not truly immortal. They can still die violent deaths from accidents, etc.
That situation alone suggests that these people would be anything but libertarian in certain respects. What kind of traffic laws would you favor? What kinds of safety rules? You would want these things to be very strict. A 20 mph speed limit on the interstate would be fine, as would very harsh penalties for offenses. Who cares if it takes a long time to get places, as long as the chance of an accident is low.
Since you can also die of homicide, you would be very cautious about dealing with potentially violent people. Someone acts threatening? Lock him up.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at May 28, 2007 8:26:46 AM
Tyler,
Did you hear about the BBC documentary that tries to link the game theory with free-market capitalism. It's been making quite a stir in the UK.
On wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series)
To watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8372545413887273321
Any comments?
Posted by: Alex Dias at May 28, 2007 8:41:48 AM
Your optimism is encouraging, but... a culture in which life span is long, but death is still inevitable is not the same thing as a culture in which life span is infinite unless something "gets" you. The latter could lead to all sorts of bizarre superstitions and would, as Bernard points out, probably have a hyper-obsession with safety.
Posted by: J at May 28, 2007 8:53:31 AM
Young people overdiscount the future. Older people overdiscount the present (or, perhaps more accurately, underdiscount the future).
A society of immortals (who could still die, but not of old age) would become incredibly risk-averse, and would probably implement totalitarian-level social and legal structures to mitigate risk.
This would include any number of behaviours that we would consider unconscionable (see, e.g., Larry Niven's _Protector_ for how this might work).
These societal pathologies are already evident in embryonic form, in Western countries where the elderly form an ever-increasing share of the population.
Posted by: David Hecht at May 28, 2007 9:27:51 AM
Actually, many youth seem to do extreme hyperbolic discounting, completely ignoring
the future in order to have a good time right now, no matter the consequences.
The very old empirically go the other way, although this may be a survivor effect,
they are the ones who did not hyperbolically discount when younger. But, in fact
one of the little-remarked upon empirical oddities out there is that savings rates
actually increase with age beyond a certain point, in sharp contrast with what one
would expect from the usual Friedman-Modigliani kind of argument.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at May 28, 2007 12:05:39 PM
I think life's arc forces us into an early pattern of seeking wealth, status, and position. One builds for a family and then for retirement. If one entered one's early adulthood without that over one's head, what fraction would immediately enter college? What fraction would go surfing? That change in time pressure would I think change the whole landscape.
A hippie world with low wealth but "safety nets" would appeal to me ... but I can see how it would go the other way ... a world without nets, simply because you have to keep people working.
Posted by: odograph at May 28, 2007 12:25:07 PM
I think you shouldn't assume monotonicity because of Gregory Bateson's Rule #11: There are no monotone "values" in biology. See MIND AND NATURE, p. 53
Posted by: Lee A. Arnold at May 28, 2007 1:11:48 PM
Fukuyama is wrong about a post-mortal society becoming stagnant. People become stagnant as they get older because of the aging process as well as the need to be risk averse (to avoid being economically destitute in old age). There is a reason why young people are less risk averse and, thus, more willing to take chances (back pack around the world, start that dot-com business idea). With rejuventation and post-mortality, people have less reason to be risk averse and will tend to live more like "young" people in taking chances and trying new things. Afterall, this is the whole purpose of life-extension anyways (for those of us who seek it).
There is a curious misconception on the part of Fukuyama and others about post-mortalism. They seem to think that it will simply stretch out the conventional life cycle, with people at age 150 behaving like 75 year olds today. What these people fail to realize is with the elimination of the aging process itself, you can live as a free-spirited "25 year old" into the indefinite future. On other words, you can junk the conventional life-cycle completely and live your own life as a free spirit. This is the whole reason why we "transhumanist" types want post-mortality in the first place. We really do want to break free of the conventional life cycle. Fukuyama and others fail to appreciate our intent here.
I also do not think a society will become less risk averse with regards to driving and what not. Present day "young" people think they are immortal and, yet, do all kinds of crazy things. Why would it be any different with post-mortal "young" people in the future?
The competition of economic resources is a real issue. However, this only applies to fixed, finite resources (such as real-estate on Earth). This argument does not apply to productive enterprise which, by definition, is positive sum and therefor infinite. The simple solution here is to replace the income tax with a fixed asset real estate tax (first residence exempt). This would work to reduce the accumulation of real-estate (a finite resource) in the hands of the post-mortal rich, allowing more supply for everyone else. It would also encourage the post-mortal wealthy to invest their money into productive enterprise, especially space development, rather than to play speculation games with fixed, finite assets. If the post-mortal wealthy invest their money into space industries, they open up the next frontier for the rest of humanity as well. Thus, everyone benefits.
Taxing productive endevours never made any sense to me anyways.
Posted by: Kurt9 at May 28, 2007 1:35:09 PM
I also do not think a society will become less risk averse with regards to driving and what not. Present day "young" people think they are immortal and, yet, do all kinds of crazy things. Why would it be any different with post-mortal "young" people in the future?
But there's a big difference. The young people who believe they are immortal think that bad things like car accidents will not happen to them. Your "post-mortals" will know better.
But here's a thought. Would we see an increase in what we now consider unhealthy behaviors? Would there be lots of smoking, overeating, etc.? It seems to me to depend on what happens to disease. Just because lung cancer would no longer be fatal, does that mean that smokers would not do any noticeable damage to their lungs, for example?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at May 28, 2007 2:16:12 PM
In other words, libertarians are out of touch with the funamental realities.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at May 28, 2007 4:57:39 PM
Post-mortals would know better and have a much greater understand of risk-reward trade-off. However, I still do not think that they will be as risk-averse as many people think they will be. Also, if they are not risk-averse enough to avoid unhealthy behaviors, why would they be risk-averse such as to demand unreasonable speed limits and the like?
In the long run, regenerative biomedicine will allow people to survive and recover from accidents and other situations (car crashes, etc.) that currently cripple or kill people today. This would also reduce risk-aversion.
Posted by: Kurt9 at May 28, 2007 7:49:02 PM
Guys,
It was my comments on futurepundit that prompted Arnold's comments. I disagree with Arnold and continue to stand by my point.
My argument was based on the fact that 50% of government spending (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php) is for age-related programs (SS and medicare). A society consisting of post-mortals would not need these programs and, thusly, they could go away. This reduces the size of government by 50% right off the bat. This is the reason why I believe that curing aging (www.sens.org) should be the first priority of libertarians.
Secondly, if you are post-mortal, you certainly feel significantly less dependent on government, in general. I believe the fear of old-age and especially the possibility of being distitute in old-age is a primary motivator for government programs on the part of people who would otherwise not feel the need for them. Remove the fear of old-age and you remove the perceived need of a government to look after you. I think post-mortals will have a far greater sense of independence and self-reliance than people do today. Think of curing aging as a form of individual empowerment. Empowered individuals will demand greater freemon and autonomy form an intrusive government. Being post-mortal will allow one to say, "I don't need anyone to ever look after myself. I can always go out and make my life on my own. I don't need an intrsusive government or religion to tell me how to live my life of what I can or cannot do, because I can always create my own life and my future." This sentiment alone guarantees that the size of government will be reduced in a society of post-mortals.
The moral argument for more government put forth by big-government advocates is the need to look after those who cannot take care of themselves. Elimination of the aging process will eliminate the single largest cause of people not being able to take care of themselves and, thusly, eliminate the single largest impetus for large government.
Posted by: Kurt9 at May 28, 2007 9:06:43 PM
You would want these things to be very strict. A 20 mph speed limit on the interstate would be fine, as would very harsh penalties for offenses.
Except there's good reason to expect that immortals, who have all the time in the world and should not run the risk of driving ast, would still find driving 20mph on the expressway as maddening as we do. Why? Because these immortals will still have same sorts of brains and the same human nature that we have now. Yes, people expecting a relatively short life do behave differently than those expecting a long life. But not all *that* differently. The amount of flexibility is quite limited.
Posted by: Slocum at May 28, 2007 10:15:45 PM
The driving example is silly. Driving is simply the only non-intentional source of substantial amounts of involuntary death among young people. If it was the only source of substantial amounts of involuntary death period *OF COURSE* it would be banned, and people who were generally extremely libertarian would lead the way to banning it, as the risk of being hit by a car would be one of the largest practical destroyers of liberty, which depends on life.
Of course, conveniently, driving is UTTERLY unsuited for a libertarian society anyway, as private roads, non-interventionist foreign policy, externalities from oil refining and oil burning, etc all strongly impact it's feasibility. Surely without subsidies more libertarian alternatives would arise naturally. One of these might, however, be the widespread use of small, cheap, ethanol burning (or biodiesel or advanced and exotic post-oil fuels) private aircraft. Plausibly, these might pose a much larger hazard to pedestrians (and people in their own homes) than cars do now. I would expect them to be banned in most places, possibly by extending property rights up and possibly by treating them as a projectile weapon which cannot be pointed at someone (even from one's own property) without inviting retaliation.
A more practically important question. How long would it take before immortals adjusted to the new situation and started acting like immortals? At what age (or based on what consideration) would they consider adulthood to begin?
Posted by: michael vassar at May 29, 2007 4:16:56 AM
My argument was based on the fact that 50% of government spending (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php) is for age-related programs (SS and medicare). A society consisting of post-mortals would not need these programs and, thusly, they could go away.
The good news is you can live forever (or at least until you're run over by a bus). The bad news is you never get to retire ;)
Seriously, I suspect people without a fixed lifespan would still be motivated to build up a large enough fortune to become independently wealthy and quit working.
This is the reason why I believe that curing aging (www.sens.org) should be the first priority of libertarians.
But a partial cure for aging (e.g. extending the human lifespan by a few decades, say) would tend to *increase* the demands on Social Security as people lived gradually longer after retirement (would the retirement age keep pace with the increasing lifespan?)
And who's to say that the cure for aging would not involve lots of ongoing medical attention? Suppose it did, and suppose this medical attention was expensive -- wouldn't this increase the demands on the government to provide all this service free of charge? I mean, who would accept poor people living the old lifespan and rich people living 150 or 200 years?
Posted by: Slocum at May 29, 2007 8:18:18 AM
Surely immortals would be anarchists, because there would be no fear of death to make them obey the state.
Posted by: Chris at May 29, 2007 10:09:56 AM
I think long-lived old people would folow the course their lives had come to make them expect. Bruce Sterling has a novel, "Holy Fire", about an old woman who is rejuvenated and promptly buys a Eurorail Pass and a backpack and sets off on the student circuit. I read that an immediately thought "Aha! One of MY contemporaries!" I was born in 1939.
On the other hand, the old people I knew when I was a child would have become more and more conservative with immortality. Why? Because their formative years included social unrest, World War I, the Roaring 20s and the crash, the Great Depression, and World War II. ANYTHING to keep the sort of chaos that had filled their entire lives from happening again!
Whereas mine have lived our entire lives in a rising boom and lots of interesting things happening, with which we were well equipped to deal, and are now collecting experiences before we go softly into that good night.
Etc.
Reading the various scenarios in the comments, I can easily do a cohort biobraphy of each and every sort of elder they describe.
Posted by: Pat Mathews at May 29, 2007 10:49:33 AM
Immortals would seek to control rents over time to protect their interests and social position from risk. They would deny younger people the opportunity to move up because they would not vacate positions of authority and power that people vacate now because of death. As the young chafe at the lack of opportunity, immortals would become increasingly tyrannical in order to put the young in their place. I do not forsee a good future if immortality or extreme age becomes a possibility.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 29, 2007 12:16:46 PM
I figured as a vampire, I'd have some insight to add.
I am strongly anti-libertarian. I want as little economic growth as possible. Why? More growth, sooner Singularity. When the Singularity hits, *everyone* will be immortal, and then where's my advantage?
Posted by: Person at May 29, 2007 1:31:33 PM
I tend to agree with the comments about risk aversion. I imagine a society of immortals would be very easily conquored.
Other than that: there has probably not been one single decade in the last century in which goverment spending, even as a fraction of GDP, has fallen.
Eliminating one lobby group simply leaves you with other groups, all of them demanding free money.
Thus has it always been, thus shall it ever be.
Posted by: anon at May 29, 2007 2:58:17 PM
I imagine that immortals would be for the most part unmotivateed - to innovate, excel, really anything. Perhaps early in life there might be some curiosity, but once settled into the permanent middle-age/older-age state, I have to think that an immortal would be sort of bored.
Posted by: fustercluck at May 29, 2007 11:14:23 PM
I think that immortals would tend to constrain themselves to certain 'activity spheres' in order to overcome the boredom they would have with life. The actions of young people(sometimes myself included) that have no conception of time would appear in these immortals. This is why the power of religion and governments in general, regardless of their actual benefits would be even stronger. I said 'in general' because immortals would not confine themselves to only one religion or government; over time, they would grow tired of the repetitive implications of any 'sphere', and move on to the next one, until they could find one 'sphere' that satisfies their permanent needs(though over even more time, i don't think there would be any).
What would that 'sphere' be? I think that for any sphere to be permanent, it would have to satisfy only the basic needs of individuals, while encouraging 'collective individuality'; that is, the value of belonging in a small group with similar identity, a group that distiguishes itself from others. People wouldn't want one large government, but rather many small governments that are more strictly aligned to their personal preferences.
Over time, one larger government may form to coordinate efforts or resolve conflicts between the small governments; perhaps a small government with preferences aligned towards management would evolve into a larger one. With our immortality being immune to physical violence, the power of the larger government would be limited to management. With our immortality being not immune to violence, the larger government would evolve into one that would eventually rule over small governments.
Posted by: dean at May 30, 2007 3:08:16 AM
fustercluck:
What's the evidence that this pattern of behavior reflects simple age, rather than age as a fraction of expected lifespan, or physical/mental changes as a result of age?
Posted by: albatross at May 30, 2007 11:39:18 AM
Don't forget about selection effects here. Assuming we have immortality in terms of an end to age-caused deaths, but still can die from accidents, at each age, we expect fewer and fewer people who tolerate much risk. Alice dies in a skiing accident at 198, Bob slips iceskating with his great^5 grandkids at 359, but Carol, who wears a bicycle helmet and bulletproof vest everywhere and surrounds herself with safety gear for her Pierson's Puppeteer style life, makes it much longer.
An interesting question has to do with demographics. If immortals don't reproduce, but die off at a very slow rate, current demographic trends keep going, and most people eventually become immortal if they live to (say) 60, then there's going to be a point at which the population shifts over to majority immortal. And after that, we'll see more risk aversity, as attrition takes out the higher-risk people year after year after year.
Posted by: albatross at May 30, 2007 11:44:51 AM
It is interesting how different various people's assumptions are regarding what is meant by "immortality". There are several notable possibilities.
1) Immortality is achieved as part of the singularity. Don't bother going there, life will not be as we know it. All of the following assume a pre-singularity senario.
2) The first question has to be "at what cost?" Suppose we figure out a way to do brain transplants between adults. That is, that immortality can be achieved at the cost of killing another human being every forty years. Such immortals would probably favor a corporate police state, as they can hide their existence easier that way.
Suppose the cost was $100k/yr, and that this cost was not expected to go down. Again, resentment from the other classes become the dominant problem. You want some sort of corporate police state.
Suppose the cost was $10k/yr. Now you have a huge demand to socialize the costs. The welfare state expands to cover the costs. Freeloading becomes much, much more common.
Suppose the cost was $1m/person. That is, within the reach of the middle class if they REALLY push for it. Now you have a serious intergenerational problem as well as a class problem. Society becomes very interested in the longish-term (20-40yr) effects of policy on wealth. (That is, probably significantly more libertarian, as well as becoming harsher with the remaining criminals--no more "life" sentences, no more multi-million dollar government-paid appeals process for death sentences.)
3) The type of immortality makes a substantial difference as well. If by immortality, you mean "immune to 'normal' wear and tear", then concern is going to focus severely on contraints against more than "normal" wear and tear--not a whole lot of skyjumpers.
If it additionally means periodic uploading into storage for later retrieval, the cost of the retrieval makes a great difference. $1m? $10k? $1k? $100? Hey, if I can buy immortality insurance for $100, I'll skyjump next weekend!
Our immortals WON'T die from lung cancer or liver poisioning, but will nicotine & alcohol affect them in the normal way at all? Will other intoxicants be demanded? Absynthe?
4) Finally, there will likely be deep, deep differences in the way that immortals perceive the world. For starters, I hypothesized as a teenager that we subjectively measure time as a ratio of our conscious existence. I can sit for an hour now with nothing to do and not even notice. When I was ten? Please. So the twenty mph speed limit is not out of the bounds of likelihood, depending on other factors.
As our experiences broaden, we become more difficult to impress. I really, really find amusement parks to be pointless, except for my kids. And the side shows? Again, please. Boredom is likely to be a serious issue for someone more than a couple of thousand years old.
Speaking of boredom, the immortal are probably going to want to set aside even more "nature preserves" of one sort or another. Land prices will skyrocket quite aside from population increases (which will likely slow.) The immortal are likely to become more and more politically active, as they realize just how much is at personal risk.
With death no longer making room at the top, boredom (of a sort) will likely dominate. Note also that tolerance for inneffectual leadership will plummet.
Childbearing will likely get put way, way off unless the cost of immortality is low. Why have kids now if they will literally send you to your grave by preventing you from accumulating the funds to achieve immortality? That's entirely aside from the resource problem if people don't, and social pressures. People are likely to literally make their first $10m, then retire to raise children, then find something else to do.
Speaking of children, the whole eugenics issue takes some strange turns. Do you want you children, who will be your eventual competitors, to be able to outcompete you? There are multiple equalibria here, with historical examples, depending on how individualistic the immortals are/become.
5) I don't think that suicide will be out of the question. Curing physical illness does not imply curing mental illness. People might just get bored. Whole bunch of self-determinacy issue arise there.
Posted by: Nathan Zook at May 30, 2007 12:12:32 PM
