Episode 07: What economists get wrong about risk, technology and progress with Luke Kemp

00:00:00: The Industrial Revolution initially is horrible for everyone who's involved.

00:00:04: In the core of Britain, you have both a drop in human height and life expectancy.

00:00:10: And these horror stories about children dying on mass which often referred to as satanic mills with good reason.

00:00:19: It isn't until you start getting these big social movements Suffrages Unionists even amicus Who push things like the eight hour working day forty hour week, suddenly you start to get changed.

00:00:31: That's when you started seeing the lift off of all these different big indicators.

00:00:34: that tells a very different story to the typical hockey stick.

00:00:39: it is not one of hierarchy and technology equals progress.

00:00:42: quite the contrary.

00:00:43: technology.

00:00:44: most benefits have usually been eaten up by a spoiler lead across history.

00:00:47: instead You Start To Get Shared Prosperity When social movements that demand change, the fruits of technology widely shared.

00:00:58: and yes you do have some technological changes in a positive direction.

00:01:15: And what we made economists flawed understanding of risk be driving.

00:01:24: For the latest episode of Invisible Handcuffs, I was delighted to be joined by Luke Kemp.

00:01:29: Research affiliate at The Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and author of the best-selling critically acclaimed book Goliath's Curse—The History & Future Of Societal

00:01:39: Collapse.".

00:01:40: You might thinking this is a series about economics so why am i talking an expert on existential risk?

00:01:46: Well there are couple reasons but one that Luke actually trained or worked as climate economist.

00:01:52: Indeed, he was drawn to researching civilizational collapse when he saw that climate economic models were tending only at average trajectories and not so-called tail risks.

00:02:02: These are the worst case outcomes which may have a smaller probability but could be potentially catastrophic – we're not planning for them!

00:02:10: But then…to understand civilisational risk...he realised had defined what civilisations actually are And this is where I think his work actually becomes most relevant for understanding the ways in which economics is going wrong today and how we might be able to fix it.

00:02:26: Many of us, not just economists have this kind of optimum view of progress The idea that life was nasty, brutish and short until the civilising force of states and empires came in liberty to this.

00:02:38: But when Luke started to dig into these periods he found contradictory evidence.

00:02:43: Rather than being times of human flourishing health and well-being actually tends to fall overall While environmental degradation, resource depletion inflation violence and equality all tend to rise.

00:02:56: So these were not really several times in the sense that we might understand the word today but structured around what look terms dominance hierarchies.

00:03:05: Dominance of humans over nature Of men Over women Rich over poor Master overslave.

00:03:13: It may have been good for elites who got to hoard All the wealth & power Build their palaces And whatnot but not the broader population.

00:03:20: Indeed, when these empires fall most people tend to be better off.

00:03:25: hence Luke develops his preferred term Goliaths.

00:03:28: Well today Luke claims we're living in a global Goliah The period that effectively started with the Industrial Revolution.

00:03:34: and this is where we meet the link of economics.

00:03:36: because as I discussed was look much of economics takes this kind of hockey stick view, a human progress is effectively starting a few hundred years ago with industrialization which led to massive expansion in the global economy and wealth.

00:03:50: And so called progress.

00:03:51: but again that's not the whole story.

00:03:53: In my earlier discussion was economist Steve Keane.

00:03:56: we talked about how economists obsession with innovation as key driver growth overlooked all technology requires energy.

00:04:03: I'm part of the clue why economists ignored energy and nature stemmed from the idea that we can dominate nature, as well a view of history that was effectively written by elites who have benefited from innovation growth.

00:04:17: So what Luke is saying it's not only to such models ignore nature but they also ignore the social movements, so critical to ensuring that innovation benefits people more broadly.

00:04:27: And we also ignore externalities because each new innovation brings new problems.

00:04:32: I'm currently sitting in Europe where were at our fifth heatwave and experiencing crop failures directly tied to energy systems and fertilizers used for agricultural production which produce the greenhouse gases that are causing warming in first place.

00:04:47: And yet, today we still have economic models betting on innovation literally written into their production functions as core driver of growth with overall growth deemed necessary and necessarily good.

00:05:00: ignoring who benefits from this growth and risks it is stoking.

00:05:04: The least of those is AI – which has come to near-the end.

00:05:14: Blind history, blind nature and blind those externalities in feedbacks being most bullish about AI.

00:05:21: As Luke puts it effectively justifying the dreams of tech billionaires even if they outcomes if we ignore risks could be truly catastrophic.

00:05:30: If you want to have an economy that works for all We need an economics that can factor in risk That has a more nuanced understanding of progress One that defines progress as genuine well-being not just more wealth or elites and that appreciates, and supports the vital role of democratic movements.

00:05:47: This was a fascinating conversation.

00:05:49: I do hope you will give it listen And if want to learn more You can find links To The Show Notes Plus all our earlier episodes As well as my essay series at invisiblehandcuffs.com.

00:05:59: With That Please join me in welcoming Climate Economist turned existential risk expert Luke Kemp.

00:06:05: Hi Luke Welcome to Invisible Hand Cuffs.

00:06:08: Thankyou for joining us

00:06:10: Hello Kenny and thank you for having me.

00:06:11: We've been talking a little bit offline about how we have, I think kind of somewhat similar intro to this topic.

00:06:20: your book Goliath's Curse which will get into shortly is essentially about collapse, collapse of civilizations, collapse empires.

00:06:28: And i was also introduced in the topic of collapse when first came across Limits To Growth Which kinda sent on path that im on.

00:06:36: And also, I found out recently that you had a similar background to me and that you were an economist in your previous life.

00:06:44: For me the limits-to-goals was kind of my entry point into collapse.

00:06:47: Was there moment when you became collapsed aware?

00:06:56: The

00:06:56: closest thing i have to one epochal moments where catastrophe collapse would have been in two thousand nine.

00:07:05: at the Copenhagen climate summit.

00:07:08: I was reading a book by Mike Lawrence called Six Degrees and essentially goes through the impacts of climate change.

00:07:15: every single degree Celsius temperature rise all the way from one food to six, And once you start to get towards six degrees particularly five and six degrees The impact's become catastrophic In some ways almost apocalyptic.

00:07:30: And that was when I really started thinking about the worst case scenarios and thinking not just by collapse potentially even worse fates.

00:07:37: At the same time, also seeing how sclerotic and paralyzed geopolitics could be in many ways made me think maybe a lot more possible than we think before but already had some exposure to this.

00:07:52: so read them.

00:07:54: for ports i've done bachelor which did what is called Human ecology, which is kind of a mixture geography and anthropology more or less.

00:08:04: And as part that we do lot environmental studies including ones to growth in things like planetary boundaries the great acceleration etc.

00:08:12: but it was really in two thousand nine at all this crystallized into awareness are just how backs things could get.

00:08:18: actually interesting because I was also an at Copenhagen Really?

00:08:22: Still in my economist role.

00:08:24: And I mean, ultimately the negotiations were kind of a failure but i think was still very much on that average trajectory.

00:08:34: you know we just need two degrees and can do it.

00:08:37: so its interesting to hear your way ahead at me already!

00:08:43: I'd love get into more because thats actually one point about how economists perceive things differently.

00:08:50: But before we dive in, your book has been out for about a year now?

00:08:55: Roughly.

00:08:56: Yeah it's been out since July.

00:08:57: thirty first was the release date in the UK so getting very close to the anniversary.

00:09:03: Some people listening may have already read or watched some interviews with you but maybe those who haven't are just giving us a refresher can give us a brief synopsis of what are Goliaths and how they're cursed?

00:09:18: Goliah is in a simple way are my alternative term for civilization.

00:09:23: When you go to write a book and collapse, have to ask what is collapsing?

00:09:28: And most people say civilisation.

00:09:30: yet when I try to look at definitions of civilisation they're all really poor ambiguous and often pretty ideologically loaded.

00:09:38: things like advanced culture which i'm sure a lot of indigenous people wouldn't appreciate as definition not to mention it's just incredibly vague and nebulous.

00:09:48: Civilization has always been the term propaganda.

00:09:50: It comes from Latin root civillitas, which means people who live in cities.

00:09:53: but it also has these connotations of wisdom moderation virtue restraint.

00:09:58: When I looked empirically at what actually happens when people talk about the rise of civilization... ...it tends to be things like patriarchy warfare slavery and human sacrifice.

00:10:08: To me Goliath was a much more appropriate term for we see occurring here And its essentially collection of dominance hierarchies not just estate but also the distinction between slave or master, rich and poor man-woman.

00:10:23: All of those together make up one goliath And goliats.

00:10:26: in a very simple way you can think of as being A system in which small group extract resources from others using violence.

00:10:34: Hence Goliath is a biblical metaphor really makes sense As well.

00:10:37: it's referring to Being great intimidating stature who rules through violence But also surprisingly fragile.

00:10:46: The book has a course titled Goliath's Curse, the implication being that these goliaths are cursed in some kind of way.

00:10:53: And the curse is they contain the seeds with their own demise.

00:10:56: The lives over time grow on.

00:10:58: wealth and equality have really good empirical evidence.

00:11:00: as to case this means I can reach staggering levels of welfare inequality.

00:11:06: one study at twenty eight premodern states under an average seventy seven percent towards maximum theoretical level than Equality.

00:11:13: That maximum situation which Essentially, one person holds all the surplus wealth and everyone else has just enough to survive and reproduce on.

00:11:23: And once you start getting these high levels of welfare inequality it spills down forms a power.

00:11:28: Politics becomes more oligarchic.

00:11:30: The bureaucracy become more powerful... ...and You started see whole bunch knock-on effects.

00:11:35: We know that for instance corruption as a bidirectional relationship with well friend equality.. ..you start seeing what some people call Elite competition, what I call elite factionalism.

00:11:46: Essentially a large number of elites competing for small numbers with high status positions like thrones start to resort things like coups, rebellions etc.. On top of that as you have this burgeoning big elite class they inflate the price and assets or everyone else... Things like land for instance.

00:12:04: it's what we called popular immiseration.

00:12:07: What today?

00:12:08: We call a cost-of living crisis.

00:12:11: There's all these different knock-on effects, and I go for many of them.

00:12:13: These also include things like environmental degradation.

00:12:16: if you're trying to essentially locate everyone at home one the best ways are doing so is through material comforts extracted from your territory or extractive mothers through imperial overstretch.

00:12:26: but essentially welfare equality in a concentration of power has always knocked on effects that slowly hollow out this state until eventually it's torn asunder by collection of different hazards, things like warfare invaders climate change.

00:12:41: In the book I draw upon multiple large databases including one constructed myself The Mortality of States Index and that go through in detail about a couple dozen case studies.

00:12:52: but it's built on analysis hundreds.

00:12:54: And while the book is mainly about collapse It really many ways are radical re-envisioning human history A complete different take how states evolve What this is meant for human happiness and what it also means for our future.

00:13:08: And so potential collapses in the future,

00:13:10: okay?

00:13:11: Well thank you For that wonderful overview.

00:13:13: I was frantically taking notes Also because well there's I mean There are many so many lessons for today right ends.

00:13:19: one of the points and we can have discussed us a little bit offline Is the economics is particularly sort a historic in the kind of models and theories that it has, so things like elite accumulation or the fact you know inflation asset prices environmental degradation.

00:13:39: These are all pretty important factors.

00:13:43: they feel at least to me when I was learning economics somehow missed out or brushed over.

00:13:53: if you're just looking at these natural progressions of whether it's GDP, your life expectancy.

00:13:59: At least when we look at recent history... The opening question that I have for all our guests on this is what was wrong with economics and the way they are taught in practice today?

00:14:08: So maybe you can speak from your own experience but also what you've learned more recently.

00:14:12: There's

00:14:12: so many options to choose from!

00:14:14: We'll have to nail her down a couple…I will just focus on three.

00:14:19: The first one is power.

00:14:22: When you look at the very original economists, they're all political economists where it's Adam Smith Karl Marx David Hume All of these people that didn't just think about economics as being... ...the distribution allocation of goods and services like we think a bit today.

00:14:37: It was about how this interacts with power And to be frank You can understand economics unless you are thinking about power.

00:14:46: I couldn't teach climate economics without talking about the fact that fossil fuel industry has an incredible ability to influence veto and distort plant policy.

00:14:58: You can't really talk with a history of carbon pricing, without talking.

00:15:02: things like the merchants are doubt how the fossil fuel industries run misinformation disinformation campaigns essentially to successfully sold out in the science of climate change.

00:15:11: this is the real reality at home money empower exercise And if you ignore that, you're ignoring over half the picture to be frank.

00:15:20: I think this has been a cardinal sin of economics particularly since the nineties and seventies and eighties.

00:15:25: with rise in neoliberalism.

00:15:27: This is being corrected somewhat.

00:15:29: there's A growing number of institutional economists than others who are trying To bring power back into the picture but it still something That you don't really get much Of.

00:15:38: first year econ would have been macro micro or even most specializations.

00:15:44: That would be number one.

00:15:46: I think the other one, number two is simple assumptions which miss much of the world and this is what feminist economists ecological economists etc.

00:15:58: have all spoken about at great length that if for instance you're not talking about unpaid labor doesn't mean it doesn't exist And things like child rearing and cleaning actually make the world go around.

00:16:11: If you take this away, then suddenly the economy collapses quite

00:16:14: quickly.".

00:16:15: And yet those things aren't included in most calculations of GDP for instance.

00:16:20: Likewise everything depends upon the services and provisions provided by the Earth.

00:16:25: Everything is dependent on the Earth system.

00:16:27: Yet that usually isn't quantified.

00:16:30: It was a course it would vastly outstrip GDP multiple times over because not quantified is never accounted.

00:16:37: And these criticisms have been around for decades.

00:16:42: and yet economics has done a pretty poor job at actually trying to either address them or bring them into the fold in some way.

00:16:50: And apart from that, there's also just the fact that economics is based upon this really simple ideas of utility.

00:16:55: For instance it's very utilitarian framework.

00:16:58: last but not least I think economics has masqueraded as hard science when its not and it has really big problems in actually trying to revise an update itself.

00:17:10: You see when economists present their findings, they're ideas particularly comes with things like damages on climate change.

00:17:17: They present these as numbers from models which are largely objecting some cases almost infallible.

00:17:23: that's the way they presented And that is to be frank absolutely not a bullshit.

00:17:28: most of these models That I used...they can't even predict GDP From last month or next month.

00:17:36: And yet, we're supposed to think these are providing highly accurate high-resolution images of the economy in decades into the future when we don't even know what geopolitics of the energy system looks like and is then also having a high fidelity image of what climate damages will be done once they actually start to be able to even do forecasting effectively within one year.

00:17:57: I might take them more seriously just a little bit maybe two percent.

00:18:01: that still means Very little accuracy of the space for decades into future when it comes to climate change.

00:18:06: And yet these have been used provide really precise figures about how much damage climate change is going to be, don't you think?

00:18:14: That's the ludicrous and unfortunately no matter how many times this kind of criticism has put forward by economists like Steve Keen for instance most feel just being incredibly poor at actually trying to update itself.

00:18:29: as mentioned the ideas of ecological economics, feminist economics etc.

00:18:33: had been around for a very long period.

00:18:35: time and again The field has done a very bad job at actually trying to change itself.

00:18:41: And perhaps this is just power corrupting that when you have the ear of presidents and treasurers You Have less than need to try.

00:18:50: take the criticism so others seriously and Indeed admitting failure or meeting new models are not very effective with doing forecasting.

00:18:59: that may diminish your ability to influence policy.

00:19:02: But whatever the basis is, economics is the furthest thing you can have from a hard side's.

00:19:08: This isn't often why many economists do call the dismal sides which to be frank it is.

00:19:13: Dismal

00:19:13: except when it comes to forecasting climate change where then looks actually quite rosy compared to your work.

00:19:20: so I find this the irony.

00:19:24: Yeah, and so that power dynamic in economics is ultimately what we're trying to get too with this series.

00:19:31: So I think thanks for that you really hit the nail on the head In terms of our thinking about it as well The most influential science.

00:19:41: It's very hard then to admit these mistakes And also because its quite uniquely insulated away from other sciences, whether from the social sciences or form your size.

00:19:53: I don't know.

00:19:54: can you talk to kind of interactions that you might have with economists now?

00:19:58: That you're no longer in the field so-to speak.

00:20:02: as a brief background i had a bachelor interdisciplinary studies where essentially take units and every faculty across university majoring both political science and human ecology.

00:20:12: thereafter But my PhD was quite mixed.

00:20:15: And thereafter, I lectured in climate change economics and policy.

00:20:19: I ran a master's course on that back at the Australian National University as well as international climate-change economy policy... ...and then I worked an economist at Vivit Economics which is a boutique environmental consultant in London.

00:20:34: To be frank it was surprising how many economists are new outside of academia didn't know most of the major critiques of economics.

00:20:44: They didn't know the major critiques from ecological economics for instance.

00:20:48: With an academia it was usually quite well known and at least where I was, at The Crawford School at the ANU we have people like Bob Costanza who's one of big figures trying to move beyond GEP.

00:20:58: most than usually were kind of non-near classical economists.

00:21:02: they're usually aware of the shortcomings in had a very different approach but outside teaching when you go to consultancies People weren't really aware that just usually done the basic macro macros etc.

00:21:15: and specialize in econometrics or something else like.

00:21:18: And they want you to be aware of either the history of this field or its limitations which I found surprising.

00:21:25: one thing down here is that interestingly even when critique comes from within, it's rarely adopted in any kind of meaningful way.

00:21:34: Two great examples here, one is the economist Ramsey when he created The Ramsey Equation which was used for discounting.

00:21:41: He explicitly says that discounting is ethically indefensible and arises from a lack of imagination.

00:21:49: Despite that warning we still use that discount rate quite prominently even major works on climate economics And similarly, the calculation of gross domestic product GDP.

00:22:00: that was created by Kuznets as essentially a way to try and measure wartime mobilization ability.

00:22:06: How many guns tanks and ships you could build?

00:22:10: It's quite explicit.

00:22:11: this is not a measurement progress.

00:22:13: do not use us as measured in progress.

00:22:16: yet decades later everyone uses it has been there.

00:22:19: so progress.

00:22:20: So its really interesting.

00:22:21: I don't think even just insularity about his part.

00:22:25: There is a kind of unique ideology.

00:22:27: Once things are adopted, they become relatively immune to revision even from within economics and it's worth having the caveat here of hashtag.

00:22:38: not all economists... Of course there's very big church here but we're really talking about this standard new classical paradigm which is dominant in its taught at most universities.

00:22:47: Yeah maybe we can also come back later too.

00:22:52: I'd be interested to parts of your book, especially when you're talking about your critiques for growth and GDP or so on.

00:23:00: But maybe...to pick up progress as something else that I'm following a kind-of line research in this work And this derives from systems thinking, which I went down a complete rabbit hole on when I discovered limits of growth in Dinella Meadows and how mental models are at the basis our understanding of systems or understanding of economy.

00:23:23: What i find interesting about your book is that it also I wouldn't say attacks, certain mental models.

00:23:30: But there are key mental models that i would think a lot of economists and maybe others kind of the Steve Pinkers of the world have a particular mental model off of the economy and of progress in particular And that might also lead them to kind of disregard other critiques That come in...I don't know what you think about or if You can speak more to how your book debunks certain myths around progress if I put it that way.

00:24:00: I think the mental model that most economists have of progress, indeed many people in general is essentially a hockey stick.

00:24:08: That things were terrible?

00:24:09: Yeah They're really terrible.

00:24:10: they got slightly better with the adoption of empires civilization If you work Goliath as i would say... ...they get better As Golioth become more powerful.

00:24:17: then You had this huge skyrocketing With the industrial revolution and This Is what you see on most graphs from our world data.

00:24:25: And It's partially true right when you look at things like literacy, maternal mortality, infant mortality.

00:24:31: These things have all improved dramatically over the last century or two.

00:24:36: but there's lots of caveats here and before we get to the caveats it is worth noting that this hockey stick has also related a deeper world view which essentially hierarchy in technology.

00:24:47: good these are key ingredients make human life better.

00:24:52: improvement for humans can be measured largely material stability.

00:25:00: Part of that, I think is a measurement problem and this always classic critique of economists they're searching for like the drunk looking in light even though no one lost their keys elsewhere.

00:25:11: They are just focusing on measurable and easily measureable.

00:25:16: This to me was actually what reasons i wrote the book realized.

00:25:19: when people think about future when they think about existential risk or collapse They always have a vision of the past in their head.

00:25:26: I had assumptions about The grand history if humanity and even human nature, And i want to make sure that for hours doing That it was done the most rigorous empirical basis possible.

00:25:36: once you actually look empirically into macro-history This idea of the hockey stick really starts to falter In the book.

00:25:46: For instance I Look at three measurements we could Have of human progress.

00:25:51: Of course terms very tricky but most of us agree Better health in general, a higher standard of living and being happier are all good things.

00:25:59: And none of those really follow the hockey stick model.

00:26:02: that well necessarily.

00:26:04: for instance if you're looking at human health it's really hard to find a good quantifier for that across human history but The best one we have is Human Heights which Is A Good Overall Biophysical Indicator Of How Well You're Fed Whether you're getting access to good exercise, whether have been exposed disease or feminine.

00:26:22: in general your overall health.

00:26:24: And we find that when you have the intensification of agriculture as people give up hunting and gathering and pick-up the plow they lose a couple inches in height.

00:26:35: it's pretty catastrophic for human condition.

00:26:37: as far as we can tell.

00:26:38: They start get more dental caries well more holes on their teeth Their bones become weaker bone lesions, and you even start to get deformities.

00:26:46: For instance women often have these deformities in the decent ankles essentially from rocking back-and forth needing dough.

00:26:53: All of that happens with our culture And then interestingly after agriculture for the next five thousand years or so You more or less see a stagnation In human height.

00:27:03: there's some variations.

00:27:04: Interestingly often after claps he will get taller.

00:27:07: we can go into that later But it's more than staying over pretty narrow bandwidth.

00:27:12: It isn't until after the industrial revolution, you start to get a take off.

00:27:16: Similar story with standard living.

00:27:18: it's really hard to quantify this.

00:27:19: to hunter-gatherers of course but when you start look at pre modern states You can start looking how much grain average person earned in year.

00:27:28: and funny thing is It doesn't actually change that much between an Egyptian peasant eight thousand years ago And English peasant A couple hundred years ago.

00:27:37: They have pretty similar level income overall which is just astounding.

00:27:42: that human height, human health and your standard living don't change out much despite the adoption of things like shipping.

00:27:50: The sale mirrors the iron plow all these different windmills water mills All these different big technological innovations And yet they don't seem to dramatically improve the humid condition.

00:28:01: This does change once you get the industrial revolution But interestingly it's not with the Industrial Revolution.

00:28:09: The industrial revolution initially is horrible for everyone who's involved.

00:28:13: In the core of Britain, you have both a drop in human height You had to drop and life expectancy And you have these horror stories Of children dying on mass at this factories which often referred to as satanic mills with good reason.

00:28:30: It isn't until you start getting big social movements.

00:28:34: Suffrages Unionists even amicus push things like eight-hour working day, the forty hour week.

00:28:42: Suddenly you start to get changed.

00:28:43: that's when you started seeing a lift off of all these different big indicators.

00:28:47: That tells very difference story.

00:28:50: for typical hockey stick It is not one hierarchy and technology equals progress.

00:28:55: Quite to contrary Technology.

00:28:57: most benefits have usually been eaten up by small lead across history And thats why we don't see this flow onto things like human height.

00:29:04: Instead You start getting shared prosperity when you have essentially both social movements that demand change, the fruits of technology widely shared.

00:29:14: And yes, we do have some technological changes in a positive direction but thats very different story.

00:29:21: and last but not least I'll touch briefly on happiness which i think is the most alarming or surprising result so far which simply put hunter-gatherers appear to be happier than their industrial counterparts.

00:29:35: Happiness is really hard to measure, there's multiple ways of doing so.

00:29:38: And we can't go back in time and ask a citizen of Rome or the Han dynasty whether they're happy.

00:29:43: if not how much?

00:29:45: But what we do look at modern nomadic egalitarian hunter-gappers who lead similarish lifestyles for people due their prolific.

00:29:54: We find from studies comparing for instance the Hadzaa with Spain as well as US that are actually quite happy.

00:30:03: This actually matches the ethnography we have.

00:30:04: The accounts from ethnographers and anthropologists, hunter-gatherers that they seem to be pretty happy!

00:30:11: They spend a lot of time singing and dancing socializing... A lot.

00:30:15: this does make sense when you look at studies where having happiness it tend comes with conclusion.

00:30:20: things like your social contacts Your basic health.

00:30:23: so if getting good amount exercise sleep or very diet all these thing makes quite big difference.

00:30:32: these real things to hunt together is nomadic egalitarian ones, at least have an abundance.

00:30:37: It's a kind of interesting story where despite this apparent hockey stick when you look at it overall most people may actually be sadder and shorter than the people during the Paleolithic.

00:30:49: When we were talking about the hockey sticks there.

00:30:51: so one thing I guess if i was an economist But it was technology.

00:30:57: It was things like the Green Revolution, that's one of the big critiques against also The Limits to Growth where you've overlooked the fact we can now feed so many people.

00:31:05: So how does that sort-of fit in with what were saying here?

00:31:11: And maybe but interestingly thing is social movements are never there.

00:31:15: They're not there in economic models at least Not the model I worked on.

00:31:21: How did this fit into this hockey stick

00:31:24: too?

00:31:24: Again innovation actually can be a good thing.

00:31:26: Inventions, it's great that the world has access to vaccines and high-speed rail.

00:31:33: these are things we shouldn't take back.

00:31:35: but when you look at many of the things that are touted as being huge advances through humanity its often depends upon how you measure because there are externalities for many of those things.

00:31:45: if you count up the externality is social media.

00:31:48: I don't think it will benefit human society.

00:31:51: Maybe the internet even hasn't been to be frank.

00:31:53: It's hard to tell, but we don't usually count up these externalities.

00:31:56: We're measuring things in a highly biased way and that makes it difficult To know whether or not technologies actually have been a good thing overall And I think this goes for the green revolution tool as well.

00:32:07: Yes, it lifted huge number of people out poverty and allowed For A much larger population on earth as Well.

00:32:15: There's a question, of course with how sustainable is that in the long term.

00:32:17: But there are also just interesting questions about what other knock-on effects on externalities?

00:32:21: I think it could still very well end up being a net positive but... ...the important thing as the externalities often not calculated into these things.

00:32:30: So until you start to have more holistic picture include externalities and till we started having a more accurate realistic picture or what happens across history.. ..I think its really hard sell this idea of hockey stick A realistic picture that happens to you in progress long term.

00:32:47: And again, this is like a partial qualification of technology and innovation can be good part about story is correct but only under certain conditions which as you mentioned are usually ignored by economists.

00:33:01: I get a caveat of hashtag not all economists.

00:33:03: there are some down Archimedes being great example where they have tried to think much more about the role of power in determining things like shared prosperity, his book Power and Progress being a fantastic example alongside James Robinson.

00:33:18: Yes, agree.

00:33:20: Yeah absolutely this is not a critique of all economists but unfortunately the vast majority are in that neoclassical framework which I guess brings me to... The reason why?

00:33:30: yeah i just thought about the green revolution there because it's often something that gets thrown and maybe also for people who don't know what we're talking about here This is the synthesizing of fertilizers using the Hager-Bosch principle To create this vast increase in yields.

00:33:46: But It was kind of short term Boost right because it's come with a lot of externalities as you say which brings us to, You know the planet two boundaries.

00:33:55: Right?

00:33:55: Which we mentioned in your work.

00:33:57: and um We're now over past sort seven from nine planetary Boundaries And many of those and biodiversity In what's happening in our oceans and on land are linked actually to agriculture.

00:34:08: So we're starting to see the feedbacks sort of hockey stick, growth and increase in nutrition.

00:34:14: Now it's coming back to bites in terms of degrading our planet.

00:34:18: so link that.

00:34:19: maybe then this topic off risk right?

00:34:22: So not seeing where these externalities might take us because I think as well something Just back in the seventies, we really hadn't passed many of these boundaries.

00:34:33: We were still at that up-of-the-hockey stick but haven't started to see the ecological feedbacks on a global level where it might be taking us.

00:34:41: and now you're there!

00:34:43: And yet...we are still in this situation when our narrative is growing out of this.

00:34:48: So coming back to risk and uncertainty because your work around existential risks You use an example from Russian Roulette kind of explain the way that you think about risk and uncertainty versus I guess, The Way That Economists And Maybe Others That Are Looking At That Hockey Stick are Not Thinking About It.

00:35:10: And maybe to also help our listeners To Understand Yeah!

00:35:14: The Shortcomings Of Economics... ...And The Way It Is Influenced So Much Of Our Decision Making Right?

00:35:20: By Not Having That Perception Of Risk & Uncertainty That I Think Your Work Brings In And Others Bring In.

00:35:25: One Good Example of trying to think through this is Steven Pinker and the Better Angels Of Our Nature.

00:35:32: Pinker in his book has the idea that essentially we've been on this grand arc towards over time humans, for the civilizing process.

00:35:41: some things like The Enlightenment have become more peaceful and less prone violence both at interpersonal level but also at a mass scale with things like warfare.

00:35:51: And he marshals large amount of empirical data and cystics Often very poorly, to be frank.

00:35:57: Now there's a great paper called Pinker's List by Brian Ferguson which essentially tears apart the data he uses for trying to estimate violence during the Ices and Ages During The Paleolithic And He's right about some things that is wrong with other Things.

00:36:11: So For instance, he thinks That during the Paleolithic We probably had A lethal Violence Rate of fifteen percent.

00:36:18: In Other Words To Every One Hundred People Born Fifteen Would Die At The Hands Of Another Human Being.

00:36:24: When you actually look at the very best archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence it's probably closer to two percent frankly even lower than that.

00:36:33: And here is right.

00:36:34: once used to go to states and empires You do interestingly see this decline in violence over long term.

00:36:41: It really clear cut if your a citizen living five thousand years ago or four thousand year old in a Mesopotamian empire higher likelihood of being stabbed or clapped to death than you are today living in, frankly most countries but particularly large-scale industrialized countries.

00:37:00: There's a really important big caveat here there was no weapon on earth that could kill over half the population four thousand years ago.

00:37:11: Today we have them.

00:37:12: We had nuclear weapons and The best models we have right now of estimating what could happen if you had a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia, and the ensuing effects of nuclear winter.

00:37:24: And how that impacts crop yields is.

00:37:26: this can kill primarily through starvation five billion people.

00:37:31: That's well over half the globe population.

00:37:34: an all it takes Is one bad day?

00:37:37: Suddenly the statistics on violence look very different today.

00:37:42: Suddenly we're not living through the most peaceful epoch, it's quite to the contrary.

00:37:47: And this is what Pekka and many others really miss... ...is that only focusing upon the observed and not on risk that has yet be realised?

00:37:58: This was very important if say for instance you have a neighbour who is like pretty peaceful except one time they've gone out and killed thirty three people You wouldn't be like, yeah he's a really peaceful cool guy.

00:38:11: Like that one event really skews the distribution but also your perception of their character.

00:38:16: and likewise here again all it takes is one particular vent room to nuclear war or something like large scale collapse of food system due to impacts on climate change multiple other things To change entire narrative very quickly.

00:38:31: And you can't just ignore that from calculations.

00:38:34: You cannot ignore tail risk these need-to-be thing as well.

00:38:38: And unfortunately, and strangely Pinker is aware of these things in his book but he just chooses to brush them aside.

00:38:45: I guess because they're inconvenient for this argument.

00:38:48: But pinkers just don't pick up on too much Because here's the most well-known emblematic voice Of this perspective that there are lots people who do This as Well.

00:38:57: It's very prevalent In The Narrative.

00:39:00: Everything Is Getting Better Is To Ignore All The Risks Sort of Democles That Are Hanging Over Our Heads

00:39:08: and you don't kind of hold back in the book about just that many, many risks from nuclear or to also automated AI weapons.

00:39:19: But even with those aside we have slow-moving but exponentially increasing risk of climate and ecological collapse which is on the horizon right now.

00:39:29: I mean the risk of the amok collapsing as there... ...but it's not in models actually looked up.

00:39:36: Because you were talking about GDP, I looked up the forecast from a couple of banks and Goldman Sachs on The World Bank.

00:39:41: And they're all forecasting in global economy to double by twenty fifty.

00:39:46: You know, as you say that just completely overlooks.

00:39:53: On the technology point, I think what was really important in the book and... And I guess kind of empowering it a way is that you talk about kind of the myth of progress.

00:40:03: The fact that progress only came with this collective struggle.

00:40:08: so particularly when we're thinking about risks now whether its nuclear or whether it's AI?

00:40:13: Yeah can you talk a little bit about that?

00:40:15: something also sort gets brushed over in this kind of technology which good for everyone narrative.

00:40:20: As mentioned, you don't tend to see technology being good for everyone until you actually have everyone taken to the streets and demanding that fruits of technology be shared widely.

00:40:29: I mentioned that despite technological change You don't really see this factor into things like human height Me in wages etc.

00:40:38: And this appears to be by-and large because elites are eating up most the benefits and Interesting.

00:40:44: there's actually some case studies with say for instance in i think it was The Mexican basin that's in Mexico after the conquest of Spanish, you had price controls on workers and as soon as those were relaxed worker wages basically shut up.

00:40:59: So a lot this ends being essentially how much the elites would take with surplus?

00:41:03: And it just pretty clear cut.

00:41:04: but if you look towards the future and do have AI automating large parts of the economy And you don't have large-scale social movements or really deep democratic systems that are demanding the benefits of the capital be widely shared, then your probably going to end up in just very dark autocracies.

00:41:25: There's a finding across much history when states aligned upon revenue from their citizens they're more likely to be democratic because it has to negotiate with its citizens those who were External sources of revenue, they tend to be far more autocratic.

00:41:44: What you're doing with AI is your more or less shifting that balance much more towards capital away from labor and essentially toward external sources of revenues if you will.

00:41:54: We see this throughout history really clearly.

00:41:56: even when it comes to modern History we often talk about the rise of representative democracies And This Is in large part because You had large numbers Of people who are better educated.

00:42:07: They realized the economy was dependent upon their workforce.

00:42:10: And additionally, they're often armed.

00:42:13: that changed the balance of power between elites and commoners.

00:42:17: And elites essentially had to provide a whole bunch of concessions.

00:42:20: most of things we take for granted in social democracies.

00:42:23: there were one because about our balancing AI would essentially change that entirely.

00:42:31: it will shift power much more back towards capital and towards elite elites.

00:42:36: The Great Traverse Deep Courses, these are machines of collective intelligence.

00:42:40: They're built upon all our dirt.

00:42:42: they have been trained on years of research compiled mainly at universities.

00:42:48: yes from the big breakthroughs recently had been in corporations but much to the foundational research prior that was out universities.

00:42:53: These should be owned by everyone not just buy a small number of venture capitalists.

00:42:59: And this is the dark thing going forward, unfortunately.

00:43:01: If we do have a view of technology de facto equaling progress it's gonna lead to I think very dystopian future.

00:43:10: Yeah yeah i agree you mentioned capitalism.

00:43:18: I did.

00:43:19: I was wondering, reading your book... Well because one thing that i'm finding in our research into economics is and I don't know if you recall this from learning economics yourselves but we don't really talk about capitalism.

00:43:30: it's just kind of there on the background.

00:43:32: It's assumed to be a model for progress right?

00:43:35: We also talked about struggle And since the nineteen seventies That struggle has been under pressure From neoliberal policies that have undermined labour other potential social movements, you know the impact of IMF policies in the global south and how they often literally demand weakening labour protections.

00:43:58: Weakening Social Protections that might actually provide a struggle against these forces we're talking about.

00:44:03: So I was wondering given your book has been so widely read congratulations And it's not surprising because It is an absolute achievement.

00:44:13: But You are quite critical of capitalism quite directly as well, you know being a model and I should say for definition.

00:44:21: For those that don't know my definition would be it's about owning the means of production right?

00:44:26: And in particular having property rights.

00:44:28: so not that democratic ownership which will be deep beyond representative democracy actually the workers and communities owning their means of producing having us see things like technologies.

00:44:40: So i was just wondering Have you had feedback on that aspect from your book?

00:44:45: What do people see, because you've had interviews and spoken with many different audiences.

00:44:50: There hasn't been too much feedback.

00:44:51: Interestingly the main pushback I have has essentially been from Marxist saying no-no!

00:44:56: The problem is not good life...the problem is capitalism.

00:44:59: And yeah interestingly i try to take a nuanced perspective in this book pointing out you had big environmental impacts and you had arms races well before the advent of what we typically call capitalism.

00:45:13: There's multiple different definitions of capitalism, You can take this tick box affair where you talk about things like The presence of wage-based labor, private ownership capital markets that are supportive of our private ownership of capital etc... More or less visible in very early pre-modern societies.

00:45:33: So even the late Bronze Age, for instance you had essentially multinational corporations who have private capital and were essentially using wage based labor to more or less increase the amount of capital they had.

00:45:46: but when are really looking at capitals?

00:45:47: And what do we think about today?

00:45:48: entire economic system of private ownership that is looking for petrol growth.

00:45:54: That Is something which is well quite modern right.

00:45:57: it's more or people ordered back to the long sixteenth century, something more to industrial revolution.

00:46:03: But it's something that is usually over.

00:46:04: in the last few centuries and interestingly even when you look at economies which aren't particularly capitalists like the Soviet Union The Soviet union still produced the world's largest nuclear arsenal so the unions still reeked enormous amounts of environmental destruction.

00:46:18: So I do think capitalism was really important here particular its ability to supercharge material processing and the construction of things like advanced weaponry in technology through that positive feedback loop, get capital so you can get more capital.

00:46:34: That's really powerful.

00:46:37: but I don't think it is necessary to root for something much closer than what identifies Goliath or Dominans Iraqis.

00:46:45: So its a bit more of an nuanced picture.

00:46:47: But i do still have people who hate this book purely because they see as being left wing and anti-capitalist tirade which when you're getting both flak from the left and right, so be it.

00:46:59: It probably means that your not doing a bad job but its also worth noting is sometimes accused of being me projecting my values onto global history.

00:47:08: I find this really funny just because i didn't hold most these values until actually researching them in real change my perspective as well.

00:47:17: Two things we should briefly touch upon which were mentioned earlier technological innovation, and can it get us out of all the different big risks we face?

00:47:29: Can we use things like stratospheric aerosol injection, solar geoengineering to solve climate change.

00:47:36: Can we have a technological fixes to AI or to nuclear weapons

00:47:39: etc.?

00:47:39: And in many ways the criticism that's to grow if they name one level by economists was don't worry technology motivation will save the day and not adequately factored into your model.

00:47:51: It's really interesting because when you look at it, ends up being essentially an insoluble debate.

00:47:57: Because you can't really prove or disprove that innovation can take us all the way to the stars and can solve every problem.

00:48:05: Sure there is a chance of maybe but it is really very large-scale gamble with the future of humanity.

00:48:13: And when your view about weights, the economists who actually looked like this speculative starry eyed They're

00:48:21: the ones who aren't being

00:48:22: very realistic.

00:48:25: Weirdly, it's people that usually fall more into a realm of degrowth or often labelled as un-pragmatic

00:48:31: etc.,

00:48:32: they are actually really quite grounded in realistic and not willing to throw the dice with technology.

00:48:41: but this is also something which we can never fully determine.

00:48:46: I think it's important to bear in mind that our very best ways of forecasting the future, what are called super forecasters.

00:48:51: That method has very little accuracy beyond a year and... ...I think there were ways and certain things you can better understand than the longer durée And in book for instance i try look at water or bus trends across history and what can this tell us about the future?

00:49:04: So for instance Across almost every goli for every polity in human history You've had this cycle of wealth inequality increasing over time.

00:49:13: unless she have really big corrective measures that will and is happening again.

00:49:17: So there are ways in things you can kind of predict the future on roughly, but making really discrete predictions?

00:49:23: Really difficult!

00:49:24: And hence saying something like innovation is always going to occur and essentially solve all problems... It's a very big bet and one I personally would not take.

00:49:35: Yeah thankyou for reminding me about it because i did want Added to that on the innovation side, so there are some like maybe very short term things we could do.

00:49:45: let you see geoengineering.

00:49:48: Could put the planes up probably tomorrow right and you might get a quick fix here.

00:49:53: it wouldn't be anything to change this structure of our economies in how I'm making these know all other problems with what's gotten.

00:49:57: the pipeline is one element but others other elements, and I think this is where i also found economic models to be really just wrong in there.

00:50:06: In the way that they're constructed.

00:50:08: if you think about the climate economic models like for example from William Nordhouse or The Discounting Right which makes it look like instead of acting early To prevent their risks You can wait until we are rich enough And then sort quickly.

00:50:22: come-in.

00:50:22: A lot of technologies aren't ready that quickly.

00:50:27: About the discussion now about small nuclear reactors, which are always seem to me just on the horizon but they're not quite there yet.

00:50:35: and then maybe in five years or ten years?

00:50:37: We know it only takes if we need them when they aren't here – public pushback… Or some geopolitical tensions... We won't be able make the emissions reductions these technologies promise.

00:50:50: so for me as well I think its embedded with things I spoke about like the production function where you can just sort of in an instance, change the inputs and suddenly get a different output.

00:51:02: That's not how it works.

00:51:04: our economies are structurally tethered to reality And It takes a long time often to get these technologies at scale that they would need them.

00:51:12: So those bets getting increasingly risky as so many problems are coming at us.

00:51:18: So it feels to me like this argument is somehow getting weaker and weaker, And yet I feel that with AI has just created a new way To make the same arguments as basically were being made back when the limits to growth was published.

00:51:30: Yeah It's an interesting thing where so many economic models end up being essentially tautologies.

00:51:36: You're determining the result by the assumptions you plug in At many integrated assessment models IAMs or exactly like And Steve Keen would have discussed this as well.

00:51:47: If you look at the original DICE model by William Nordhaus, You can basically collapse.

00:51:52: the entire economy By turning up.

00:51:54: the damage functions high is possible and yet it immediately rebounds because labor factor productivity Is so high that people just apparently in the wake of collapse are immediately rebuilding the economy The next day.

00:52:07: There's not really much to do about that Just the assumption.

00:52:11: It was a very bad one.

00:52:13: There's a really clear example of this as well in my field of existential risk.

00:52:17: The study is the very worst case catastrophes that could lead to global cyber collapse or human extinction, there was an economics wonder kid who he, so Leopold Aschenbrunner and he was sponsored by a famous economist called Tyler Cohen whose renowned for the modern revolution his popular blog He now figured out what's called progress studies which are essentially how do you increase GDP?

00:52:41: because of course, that is can be used as a symptom for progress.

00:52:44: As cousinates put it on this road.

00:52:47: in short Leopold put together the model where he assumed that past certain point income people start to care more about existential risk.

00:52:57: they're going to go into streets and campaigned about nuclear weapons etc.

00:53:00: etc.

00:53:01: And so hence low and behold The question does growth result in higher or lower extent risks?

00:53:06: It ends up being lower Because you have this cousinate effect.

00:53:09: Where increases initially?

00:53:12: people go to the streets, how else do you end up with that result?

00:53:15: That's your assumption.

00:53:16: You're plugging into a model and you can figure out all of differential equations in mathematics or we've done is literally write a qualitative statement off.

00:53:23: if this was true This will happen!

00:53:25: Yeah...you could have made this type paper into one sentence but If you hide it behind a Model you Can make It seem Far more persuasive far More objective And you can actually get published at a very high level.

00:53:37: journal is that as soon as you formalize things in mathematics, it automatically makes them more reputable and more likely to be published.

00:53:48: And this something which I think Bill Nordhaus has shown dramatically well influenced the development of an entire field.

00:53:55: he influenced the numbers we use even today around climate damages through the use of models with absolutely zero credibility and absolutely zero ability to talk about and predicts the damage of climate change.

00:54:08: they are to be frank just formalized bullshit.

00:54:09: it made up some assumptions and plugged them into a mathematical framework.

00:54:14: As an economist, that's actually the biggest thing I took from my background was once i understood how to look under the hood of some models ,I became really skeptical.

00:54:22: at most these there are better ones out but in general most just aren't very good.

00:54:27: yeah this is unfortunately what happens often when we talk about things like innovation The long-term future, as you mentioned the idea that GPs go to get double.

00:54:39: but despite all of the threats we face is they're often just based upon very poor models.

00:54:44: That are used because a convention and not because of logical evidence.

00:54:48: And this exactly same kind thinking which also posits don't worry technological innovation Is going be good thing overall?

00:54:56: The other problem here is your often ignoring that technology innovation creates new problems or new threats.

00:55:02: So even if you do think that the way forward is taking the gamble, You have to also bear in mind That... ...you're takin' the gamble of creating other new problems and threats.

00:55:13: All the things we really study on the field at X-Risk Whether it be nuclear weapons, engineer pandemics Artificial intelligence These are all things being created by technology.

00:55:24: And when we look into future Things like quantum computing Mirror life these are new threats that I once again being created by a very small number of people inventing the very dangerous products.

00:55:38: And this is, i think the key.

00:55:39: one second you have to think about power.

00:55:42: if your just focusing on technology here?

00:55:44: You're getting less than half picture.

00:55:46: it's gonna bias towards outcomes and actions which frankly could endanger in our world.

00:55:52: yeah unconscious time but i would Wanted to ask if you have time for one or two more questions.

00:55:57: I usually asked as well, thank you!

00:56:00: Usually asks us guests what specifically are working on now and then maybe it's a final question too?

00:56:08: If there is any feedback from people that are listening indeed in our project but i will let them take those questions as they wish.

00:56:18: Let start with What am I doing Now?

00:56:20: I'm Working On A Second Book which is called mass surveillance, the history and future of being watched.

00:56:27: And this in many ways similar in scope an approach ambition as the first book.

00:56:32: but rather than looking at a collapse look at mass surveillance.

00:56:36: I was largely spurred to take on this topic by researching The First Book where i end up talking about different trajectories going forward.

00:56:44: one course is self-termination that there's global side of collapse.

00:56:48: another is emancipation.

00:56:50: And a third one, and I think the most likely particularly in this short term is what are called Silicon Goliath.

00:56:57: A system in which you essentially have almost total control and surveillance under the all-specific control of very small number intelligence agencies and corporations?

00:57:08: We're already heading there pretty quickly... ...and i'm actually fast tracking his book because exactly that reason!

00:57:13: That's something which particular because of AI it moving forward much more rapidly than expected.

00:57:19: It's worth noting that the national security agency, The NSA already has two billion times more data than the stars he ever had access to.

00:57:27: Their bottleneck was always a fact.

00:57:29: they couldn't have enough analysts to pass through and understand or analyze all of the data.

00:57:34: now They probably do with AI systems And things only gonna get worse unfortunately from here.

00:57:41: So I do think this is actually one of biggest problems we face.

00:57:43: if mass surveillance becomes powerful enough to target Key people who are going to lead any kind of resistance or protest movements, for instance.

00:57:53: Suddenly that becomes a way present preventing men's patient and preventing mass movement.

00:57:57: so preventing progress essentially Yeah.

00:58:00: And alongside then also starting an organization Which working on the name but it could be something like Center For A Human Future which is Essentially Going To Be Putting Forward A Blueprint For How You Democratize Society.

00:58:13: how do you have?

00:58:15: citizens assemblies and juries applied for our society, not just one policy decision.

00:58:19: But how you essentially in many ways do Athens like I should have been at scale?

00:58:24: Athens is really intriguing so far as it does had this very intense version of democracy where you select people at random.

00:58:32: the Boulay has accordioners have these large assemblies here Knessia but Athens there's also limited its limited to fifteen percent population mainly just land holding males and despite that It still ends up being pretty Exceptional, it's one of the few times in history where median wage actually gets higher even for slaves and.

00:58:52: Of medium standard living.

00:58:53: I should say end on top about you actually start to see wealth inequality stagnating reversing.

00:58:59: imagine if he could have that alongside a cultural flourishing but at scale across the entire world not only without be better World.

00:59:07: But i think you would also see most problems we had with nuclear weapons.

00:59:11: development of AI etc.

00:59:12: would change quite radically and dramatically.

00:59:16: So this organization should be essentially looking at how to do that scale, but then also in particular trying to apply it too when push for this to be done.

00:59:23: on AI I think AI going forward is gonna be one of the wedge issues.

00:59:27: people hate AI.

00:59:28: they trust big tech less than Congress which is really hard to do.

00:59:33: That's impressive right there And i think thats an opportunity In terms of lessons I'm not sure if we're really happy big ones at this stage.

00:59:45: Yeah.

00:59:54: Thank

01:00:11: you, we will definitely take that on board!

01:00:14: Thank you for your time Luke and all the work you're doing.

01:00:17: this was really fascinating.

01:00:19: so yeah

01:00:20: thank

01:00:32: you so much.

01:00:39: on our website at thevisiblehandcuffs.com, where you can also find the show notes to this episode and more about The Project.

01:00:45: with that Thank You for listening And I hope see you next time.