
Review of “Stubborn Attachments” by Tyler Cowen - pepys
https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/book-review-stubborn-attachments-by.html
======
seizethecheese
So the core thesis of the book is that long term growth is a moral imperative.

The main critique in the review is that the book is not actionable, since it's
hard to know in advance what will lead to growth.

I'm not sure the critique makes sense. It's valuable to have a policy north
star from an ethical perspective. Although it's hard to know what will lead to
long run growth, at a minimum it's possibl to know what will destroy growth.

~~~
hoaw
If that is the conclusion I think it is correct. It has been shown time and
time again that countries become successful not by being productive as such,
but by not being unproductive. The most important factors for success are: 1\.
Staying out of wars, disputes and conflicts. 2. Economic and social equality.
3. Functional society and industries.

Essentially all countries who do badly fail at that. They are involved in
conflicts, they have hierarchical societies and their industries are
administrative, rather than technological.

So now you might ask, what about the US? It is certainly involved in wars,
have inequality and dysfunctional society. Right, but mainly for part of
society. The middle class and upper middle class have mostly been spared from
any effects of that, at least until recently. Which means that this part of
society is very successful.

------
danieltillett
Only two thing have mattered since 1810 - economic growth and birth rates.

------
mrob
I don't see why hypothetical people have any moral weight. Future people
aren't as important as present people, no matter how many of them you imagine,
because they aren't real. IMO the sole reason to care about the future of
humanity is that a great many real, non-hypothetical people want to have
children, and because those children will be born without their consent, we
have a duty to provide a livable world for them.

~~~
aetherson
So let's say that you have a magic button that will give every person on Earth
now living a 10% improvement in their material living conditions for the rest
of their lives -- and will completely destroy the world in 150 years.

That gives everyone now living a chance to have children who live full and
complete lives. Grand children and great grandchildren maybe not so much.

Is it uncomplicatedly the obvious right thing to do to press the button? If
not, I think you and Cowen are expressing similar or the same ideas in
different ways.

~~~
mrob
I'd press it only if it wouldn't kill anyone, which would require the unlikely
scenario of all humans agreeing to stop breeding. What I reject is the idea
that "be fruitful and multiply" is an inherent good. If future humans actually
do decide on voluntary extinction, that's their choice and they are doing
nothing wrong. If hypothetical future people have rights [edit: I do believe
hypothetical future people have rights in the sense of it being wrong to take
actions that are reasonably expected to set up a causal chain of event that
will kill people who don't yet exist, but I do not believe a future with 100B
humans is better than one with 10B humans with the same quality of life], why
don't we also ban gay marriage and votes for women etc. because it offends
past people?

~~~
aetherson
It most likely won't kill anyone who currently exists, which are the only
people you're claiming have rights.

My point is that once you start considering the counterfactual world of 150
years from now in terms of, "What harm will it do to the people alive then,"
there's very little daylight between your views and Cowen's.

I don't think that Cowen believes that there's an absolute moral importance to
have children, for example.

------
shafyy
The Library of Congress also decided to archive Tyler's blog, Marginal
Revolution [0].

Tyler has interesting views, and some of them are rather unconventional. E.g.,
he thinks that religion is good predictor of economic growth (citing Mormons
as an example). Although Mormonism might be a good predictor of economic
growth, I disagree that we should have more Mormons or religious groups. He
said it in a podcast with Erik Torenberg [1].

My startup has been awarded his grant called Emergent Ventures [2] and have
met and talked to him in that context. Super interesting person and has a
surprisingly great network in Silicon Valley, although he is based in the East
Coast. For example next week, he's interviewing Sam Altman [3].

0:
[https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/li...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/library-
congress-archive-marginal-revolution.html)

1: [https://www.breaker.audio/venture-
stories/e/40444931](https://www.breaker.audio/venture-stories/e/40444931)

2:
[https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/12/se...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/12/second-
cohort-emergent-ventures-winners.html)

3: [https://conversationswithtyler.com/event/sam-
altman/](https://conversationswithtyler.com/event/sam-altman/)

------
somberi
On a separate note, I like Cowen's podcast for his choice of guests, and his
interviewing style.

[https://medium.com/conversations-with-
tyler](https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler)

