« Bold claims about time asymmetry | Main | The new flight to the suburbs »
Assorted links
1. Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, edited by Ronald Hamowy, Amazon link here.
2. Cato forum on global warming; I have yet to read this. Here is my response to an earlier article by Manzi.
3. No way; not at all plausible. No way.
4. For sanity on all matters Georgian, check out Matt Yglesias at his new blog location.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 13, 2008 at 02:10 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
"No way; not at all plausible. No way."
No marks will be assigned for undefended answers.
Posted by: Chris Auld at Aug 13, 2008 2:30:06 PM
I find the CATO article to be excellent. It reminds one of the also-excellent economic analysis of the Copenhagen Consensus. In fact, the CATO article is kind to the doom-sayers, because it accepts the "scenarios" of the IPCC. Now, in 2008, we may not know enough about climate change to know which theories are most-correct, but we have the data (21st century temperature trends) to know that the IPCC model is wrong.
Posted by: Robert Ayers at Aug 13, 2008 2:33:34 PM
I don't understand the "No way" comment. The article seems fairly reasonable. What's up with that?
Posted by: liberty at Aug 13, 2008 3:55:30 PM
Chris Auld,
Read the comments section of the linked article for several well-formed rebuttals.
Tyler,
Thank you for the prompt and accurate exposition of an awful op-ed piece. The Economist ought to be ashamed at printing such obvious pseudo-science.
Posted by: anon at Aug 13, 2008 3:58:52 PM
Meanwhile, I am not sure that the Matt Yglesias post was reasonable at all.
Of course regime type affects foreign policy decisions. For example, if the regime type by its very nature excludes the possibility of free trade, and the regime requires resources which the country cannot produce, then the regime will be more likely to wage war. That is very simple and stems from the regime type.
To ignore that or assume that it is a coincidence that Russia is nationalizing, becoming more autocratic and more closed and at the same time more aggressive - that is to blind yourself to economic institutions and everything we've learned this past 100 years about the relationship of political to economic structure, and the choice between voluntary transactions and force.
Posted by: liberty at Aug 13, 2008 4:02:16 PM
I'm not sure why libertarianism is more salient than something more consistently and coherently consequentialist for smart libertarians. Is it desire to be part of a larger crowd than a more coherently consequentialist ideology can support? I would think it's participation in white guy upper middle brow culture, but consequentialism falls into that category too, so I don't think so, except for the "larger crowd" aspect again.
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Aug 13, 2008 4:35:04 PM
The religion/disease reduction idea can't survive the existence of pilgrimages to Mecca or Canterbury; the Crusades; the Mayflower; missionary work; etc. Religion is a very effective motivator of long-distance, disease-spreading travel.
Posted by: DK at Aug 13, 2008 6:08:37 PM
I read the comments, and I agree with Chris. The idea does not seem inherently implausible. The rebuttals seemed primarily focused on correlation vs. causation problems, but (1) the fact that causation has not yet been proven does not diminish the plausibility of causation where correlation exists, and (2) the article itself explicitly recognized that causation was not established:
"Of course, correlation is not causation. But religion is not the only cultural phenomenon that stops groups of people from mixing. Language has the same effect, and in another, as yet unpublished study Mr Fincher and Dr Thornhill found a similar relationship there too. Moreover, their search of the literature turned up work which suggests that xenophobia is linked psychologically with fear of disease (the dirty foreigner…). Perhaps, then, the underlying reason why there is so much hostility between ethnic groups is nothing to do with the groups themselves, but instead with the diseases they may bring."
The only substantive comment I saw that seemed to have merit was the claim that genetic diversity has been shown to increase resistance to diseases, hence sexual attraction between those of different races. However, not all societal interactions involve the exchange of genes. There is nothing inherently implausible about the notion that under certain circumstances, and at a certain margin, limiting potentially disease spreading interactions could outweigh the benefit provided by additional exchanges of disease resistant genes.
As for the rest of the comments, they seem to assume that there can only be one reason for religion, and because this explanation does not account for all the characteristics of religion, it cannot possibly be that explanation. To the contrary, the article suggests that this is one survival benefit that religious DIVERSITY may confer, thereby resulting in an increase in religious diversity. The fact that other factors may simultaneously influenced humans to engage in proselytizing or other activities that this factor does not explain, does not mean that this factor did not encourage religious diversity. Moreover, the article expressly denied that it was claiming this was religion's primary function. So the fact that religion may have other functions also does not impact the article's plausibility.
So again, like Chris, I am wondering why what is up with the no way, not at all plausible comment.
Posted by: Doug at Aug 13, 2008 6:22:37 PM
On the face of it, it is at least equally plausible that people who do not associate with each other develop different religions.
Posted by: Cyrus at Aug 13, 2008 6:30:27 PM
Also why, given all the qualifications in the article, should the Economist be ashamed for discussing a new theory relating to human development? The article does not make any grand claim that this theory is proven, but just puts out a possible counter explanation for thought and discussion, and describes some related research. What exactly is shameful about that?
In fact, if anything, you should be ashamed for saying that.
Posted by: Doug at Aug 13, 2008 6:33:11 PM
DK,
Imagine that the wind is blowing west faster than the current is flowing east. The mayflower can still travel west even when the current is pushing it east.
(anyway, if you think about it, the pilgrims on the mayflower weren't going to spread religion, they were going to get away from the other religions, which is actually consistent with the article's theory).
Posted by: Doug at Aug 13, 2008 6:39:50 PM
@Doug: It's not so much important why they were going, as that they were going. The pathogens do not care about their vectors' motivation for spreading them.
Posted by: Cyrus at Aug 13, 2008 9:24:57 PM
Survival pressures other than infectious diseases (such as gains from trade, the genetic exchange discussed above, and avoidance of military conflict--the wind in my analogy) may have favored traits that led humans to proselytize, explore, and cooperate with other groups to some extent. At the same time, the survival pressures arising from infectious disease (the current in my analogy) may have favored traits that discourage interaction between groups, which may have given a survival advantage arising from a certain level of religious diversity that is higher than would exist in a world without infectious disease.
In the case of the pilgrims, the fact that they were seeking to get away from other religions is at least somewhat significant, in that it indicates that the survival pressures that favored the traits that gave rise to that behavior were the kind of pressures that DISFAVORED interaction, rather than those that FAVORED interaction. This is consistent with the theory that contagious disease influences religious behavior.
I recognize that this is all very speculative, and other explanations are also possible, and I do not necessarily even agree with this explanation, I'm just saying it is not inherently implausible.
Posted by: Doug at Aug 13, 2008 9:56:04 PM
I liked the Cato Forum article. Sorta makes it seem as though a hedge against global warming is like buying an extended warranty on a Hershey Bar. Self-insurance against small risks is a sound policy. Now you can enjoy all that creamy chocolaty goodness without the guilt!
Posted by: Jason Armstrong at Aug 13, 2008 11:27:38 PM
Regarding the Economist article, the details of their study may be stretching, but their root ideas are eminently reasonable; cf. the behavioural immune system. Certainly it doesn't scream "not at all plausible". What world are you living in, Tyler?
Posted by: Pareto at Aug 14, 2008 3:34:59 AM
Now, go look at the Yglesias link to see a biased chart.
See "The Rich Get Richer" entry on August 13.
"Share of Income" as if, it's a pie and the rich are taking more than their "share." A non-biassed label might be percentage. But, I don't blame people for not thinking of something that they are incapable of comprehending. Just pointing it out for the peanut gallery.
Btw, aren't we all richer? Isn't that what the inflation doubters keep saying?
Oh, and why is it that the liberal defense of social security (today) is always seems to be that it's still around and kicking and it has been popular? It's not going to be around for long and it isn't very popular now, that's why it's in play now.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 14, 2008 7:48:42 AM
People whose main policy arguments boil down to political popularity arguments scare me.
In a completely unrelated observation, if you go down Yglesias web page there's a picture of Hitler. If you cover up his ridiculuos 'stache he looks a bit like a young John Hurt. I think we today don't appreciate how attractive he might have been to the people. It really says something for one guy to single-handedly and forever make a particular facial hair style not cool. Now, don't read anything into this, I am NOT comparing John Hurt to Hitler in any way.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 14, 2008 8:05:43 AM
"genetic diversity has been shown to increase resistance to diseases, hence sexual attraction between those of different races."
Isn't this kind of group selection not considered very plausible these days.
Posted by: josh at Aug 14, 2008 8:12:48 AM
Note the Mayflower Pilgrims are remembered today primarily for the large, ceremonial feasts they shared with Indians, whose religion was far more alien and incomprehensible to them than the other protestant sects back home. The survival pressures were clearly against isolationist colonies and in favor of Plymouth and Jamestown, which survived only by interacting with Indians.
My main problem with the isolation theory, though, is that a much older and more common theory argues that religion evolved to support state power in early city states and empires from Egypt to Rome -- i.e. that religion was necessary precisely to encourage people to associate with and trust others outside of their immediate family/tribal groups. As usual then, every evolutionary psychology theory has an equal and opposite theory, with a different array of anecdotal evidence, and zero possibility of controlled experiments and rigorous testing.
Posted by: DK at Aug 14, 2008 8:37:27 AM
Re: Religion
Ok, so it's not technically impossible that this is how religion comes about. It is, however, enough of a stretch that I will refuse to take seriously anyone who accepts it and yet still insists that my belief in God is absurd.
Have a nice day, everyone.
Posted by: d.cous. at Aug 14, 2008 9:55:15 AM
"It is, however, enough of a stretch that I will refuse to take seriously anyone who accepts it and yet still insists that my belief in God is absurd."
Would you ever hedge your belief in God if they were to consider such a theory to be absurd? One is a hypothesis that is difficult to test and the other does not rely on observational evidence at all. Is this theory more absurd than God? Personally, I don't know.
Posted by: namaste at Aug 14, 2008 11:20:50 AM
"Ok, so it's not technically impossible that this is how religion comes about. It is, however, enough of a stretch..."
That's great, but read the article. The article never claims that this is how religion came about. It only claims that this is a factor that encouraged religious *diversity*.
Posted by: Doug at Aug 14, 2008 1:45:11 PM
re: CATO article
1. Let's assume AGW is real. (If AGW is not real or global warming is totally out of human control, then there is no argument.)
2. Let's assume you live on island that is going under the sea.
3. Your life is destroyed.
4. Now CATO argues that your life is the cost of overall growth and, therefore, no action should be taken to save it, because it would cost more in the long run to everyone else.
5. CATO is an American institution arguing about American actions to combat AGW.
6. America has created more CO2 emissions and consumes more energy per person than any other country.
7. Then doesn't the CATO argument imply America has no responsibility for prior American actions that sunk the island?
8. Seeing these actions by America, is or isn't the islander, whose life has been destroyed, justified in declaring war against America?
9. Of course, the islander is justified in declaring a war, but the islander will lose.
10. Therefore, at heart, isn't the CATO argument nothing more than we are bigger and stronger and we can do whatever we please?
11. To put it another way: Let's say CATO's home was on the island, would it's argument be the same?
Posted by: lxm at Aug 14, 2008 9:28:50 PM
Re: religion. Maybe. It seems much more likely that having bustling, dynamic cities is much more likely to generate lots of different diseases and lots of different religions at the same time.
Posted by: Kyle at Aug 16, 2008 4:00:44 AM
