{"id":92449,"date":"2025-02-16T01:00:39","date_gmt":"2025-02-16T06:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=92449"},"modified":"2025-02-15T10:01:42","modified_gmt":"2025-02-15T15:01:42","slug":"qotd-why-were-stagnating","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2025\/02\/16\/qotd-why-were-stagnating\/","title":{"rendered":"QotD: Why we’re stagnating"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>I won’t attempt to recap here the many arguments that have been made recently about whether and how our society is stagnating. You could read this book<\/a> or this book<\/a> or this book<\/a>. Or you could look at how economic productivity has stalled since 1971<\/a>. Or you could puzzle over what else happened in 1971<\/a>. Or you could read Patrick Collison’s list<\/a> of how fast things used to happen, or ponder how practically every new movie these days is a sequel<\/a>, or stare in shock at declines in scientific productivity<\/a>. This new book by Byrne Hobart and Tobias Huber starts with a survey of the most damning indicators of stagnation, moves on to suggest some underlying causes, and then suggests an unexpected way out. <\/p>\n

Their explanation for our doldrums is simple: we’re more risk averse, and we don’t care as much about the future. Risk aversion means stagnation, because any attempt to make things better involves risk: it could also make things worse, or it could fail and turn out to be a waste of time and money. Trying to invent a crazy new technology is risky, going into consulting or finance is safe. Investing in unproven startups or speculative bets is risky, investing in index funds is safe. Trying to overturn the scientific consensus is risky, keeping your head down and publishing papers that don’t say anything is safe. Producing challenging new art is risky, spewing an endless stream of Marvel superhero capeshit<\/a> is safe. Even if, in every case, the safe option is the “rational” choice for an individual actor in maximin<\/a> expected value terms, the sum total of these individually rational choices is a catastrophe for society.<\/p>\n

So far this is a lame, almost tautological, explanation. Even if it’s all true, we still haven’t explained why<\/em> people are so much more fearful of failure than they used to be. In fact, we would naively assume the opposite \u2014 society is much richer now, social safety nets much more robust, and in the industrialized world even the very poor needn’t fear starvation. In a very real sense, it’s never been safer to take risks. Failing as a startup founder or academic means you experience slightly lower lifetime earnings,1<\/sup> while, in the great speculative excursions of the past, failure (and sometimes even success) meant death, scurvy, amputations, destitution, children sold into slavery or raised in poorhouses \u2014 basically unbounded personal catastrophe. And yet we do it less and less. Why?<\/p>\n

Well, for starters, we aren’t the same people. Biologically, that is. We’re old<\/em>, and old people tend to be more risk-averse in every way. Old people have more to lose. Old people also have less testosterone in their bloodstream. The population structure of our society has shifted drastically older because we aren’t having any children<\/a>. This not only increases the relative number (and hence relative power) of older people, it also has direct effects on risk-aversion and future-orientation. People with fewer children have all their eggs in fewer baskets. They counsel those kids to go into safe professions and train them from birth to be organization kids. People with no children at all are disconnected from the far future<\/a>, reinforcing the natural tendency of the elderly to favor consumption in the here and now over investment in a future they may never get to enjoy.<\/p>\n

Old age isn’t the only thing that reduces testosterone levels. So does just living in the 21st century<\/a>. The declines are broad-based, severe, and mysterious. Very plausibly they are downstream<\/a> of microplastics<\/a> and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals<\/a>. The same chemicals may have feminizing effects beyond declines in serum testosterone. They could also be affecting the birth rate<\/a>, one of many ways that these explanations all swirl around and flow into one another. Or maybe we don’t even need to invoke old age and microplastics to explain the decline in average testosterone of decisionmakers in our society. Many more of those decisionmakers are women, and women are vastly more risk-averse<\/a> on average.2<\/sup><\/p>\n

John Psmith, “REVIEW: Boom<\/em>, by Byrne Hobart and Tobias Huber”, Mr. and Mrs. Psmith’s Bookshelf<\/em><\/a>, 2024-11-11.<\/p>\n

\n