The Cleopatra analogy bothers me because it misses a key reason to discount future impacts, which is that they're less certain. If you absolutely know for sure Cleopatra eating that cookie will give someone cancer you're assuming away the uncertainty of the future, which is kind of like assuming away entropy.
it is an interesting analogy that does not account for uncertainty. the utility of the analogy is like weather forecasting, its generally good for the foreseeable future, but at some point uncertainty overtakes potentiality. To be sure, I think Cowan's point is to not discount future generations in economic decisions. Maybe a better way that I can think about it would be that don't make decisions that could render human life insufferable or even impossible; and moreover, to reduce uncertainty is to make slower sustainable growth while constantly forecasting the weather.
I'm not sure of the end point or plateau of these "forever growth" arguments. Surely there is a point where we "have" enough. I could argue that, in many respects, western society has already blown past that point. Obviously some things (health, education) can continue to be worked on, but given that economic growth currently relies heavily on consumer consumption it seems that buying new cars and getting your hair coloured every week (while kids starve in Africa, etc...) has little moral value. I take the example of Japan, where population is declining, the "economy" is stable, and citizens have a high quality of life without relying on "growth" (yes, I know Japanese society has problems, etc. etc.). Does Cowen see that there is a plateau (i.e. Utopia) or end point in his argument?
No, he doesn't, but I don't regard that as a critical omission; as the graph from _Our World in Data_ shows, parts of the world still lack much that we in the West take for granted; climate change is still a pressing problem; and there are some evils we labour under that we take for granted that the future might solve for us (just as, for example, people in 1900 did not foresee how many evils they took for granted that cheap reliable contraception would solve in the coming decades). Sustained economic growth can address all three. Once the first two are licked, I imagine Cowen would be content to discuss whether we have 'enough', but not before.
The Cleopatra analogy bothers me because it misses a key reason to discount future impacts, which is that they're less certain. If you absolutely know for sure Cleopatra eating that cookie will give someone cancer you're assuming away the uncertainty of the future, which is kind of like assuming away entropy.
it is an interesting analogy that does not account for uncertainty. the utility of the analogy is like weather forecasting, its generally good for the foreseeable future, but at some point uncertainty overtakes potentiality. To be sure, I think Cowan's point is to not discount future generations in economic decisions. Maybe a better way that I can think about it would be that don't make decisions that could render human life insufferable or even impossible; and moreover, to reduce uncertainty is to make slower sustainable growth while constantly forecasting the weather.
I'm not sure of the end point or plateau of these "forever growth" arguments. Surely there is a point where we "have" enough. I could argue that, in many respects, western society has already blown past that point. Obviously some things (health, education) can continue to be worked on, but given that economic growth currently relies heavily on consumer consumption it seems that buying new cars and getting your hair coloured every week (while kids starve in Africa, etc...) has little moral value. I take the example of Japan, where population is declining, the "economy" is stable, and citizens have a high quality of life without relying on "growth" (yes, I know Japanese society has problems, etc. etc.). Does Cowen see that there is a plateau (i.e. Utopia) or end point in his argument?
No, he doesn't, but I don't regard that as a critical omission; as the graph from _Our World in Data_ shows, parts of the world still lack much that we in the West take for granted; climate change is still a pressing problem; and there are some evils we labour under that we take for granted that the future might solve for us (just as, for example, people in 1900 did not foresee how many evils they took for granted that cheap reliable contraception would solve in the coming decades). Sustained economic growth can address all three. Once the first two are licked, I imagine Cowen would be content to discuss whether we have 'enough', but not before.