Interesting theory with possible disturbing ramifications. We're in the midst of a huge demographic shift thanks to longer lives and fewer births. In other words, the population is aging, and the concept of retirement at 65 is being actively challenged for economic reasons. Add to that the billions being invested in age reversal and life extension science and we'll become a society where older people don't really make room for the dwindling number of young people. If you're correct, intergenerational conflict is unavoidable. (I write a substack on the topic of the economic importance of older people at https://www.longevitygains.com/)
I think brains in jars hooked up to simulations more reliably & more effectively solves this problem, it just obviously comes with ethics & agency concerns.
The two weaknesses I see in your method are instability and unsustainability.
It's unstable because the older individual doesn't care about the next generation as a whole, they care about themselves, and then their offspring. This means that they will vote for policies that benefit themselves the most which most likely consequentially benefit their in-group, which would likely be in a similar age-range. There would need to be some aggressive marketing for this concept to reverse this effect, but the group with the most power to execute that marketing would be their own group.
It would be unsustainable due to the logistics of continued growth, science will eventually end & physical demands will halt productivity progress, those pesky laws of thermodynamics will get in the way, especially near the end of scientific progress if we agree that accessible truth regarding how reality works has a finite amount.
Another way to solve for this is to trick the individual into thinking they're outcompeting their peers while simulating those interactions. Eden is a warehouse full of brains in jars connected to simulations where you are the only conscious agent. That's the only scenario where I can see 'losers' not experiencing being a 'loser' but still being able to generate a 'winner.'
It's either that or we hope that our subconscious is dumb enough and consistent enough to be predictably manipulated through some type of mental practice.
Thanks, Brandon. Good points. I agree that intergenerational competition is unlikely to be promoted through the political process, because as you rightly point out, people will favor policies that help their specific group over future generations more broadly. I think if it happens, it has to happen through economic growth and technological advancement. But yes, I also agree that such growth and advancement cannot last forever--we'll eventually bump up against the laws of physics. So maybe you're right that plugging ourselves into the matrix or something is our best hope.
Hey - where'd everybody go? I thought thiis party was just getting started.
Maybe I missed it but key to your thesis is the means to achieve it, productivity growth. The nice thing about productivity growth is that it allows us to out-compete our elders with not too much environmental impact. Our elders can still play but at some point they leave the workforce.
There's always the risk that we get so good at things that we put each other out of work, but we can just work less, make the same amount, spread the wealth, and save resources all at the same time. Idealistic - a bit, I know, but having more leisure time is also a win over the prior generation.
We also have a historic precedent - the post WWII era, where all these things come true. Still we are in the midst of an energy changeover - sort of like when we changed from coal to oil between the wars. That's making things bumpy right now.
Thanks for your thoughts here. Yes productivity growth is key, but it has to be stable over multiple generations, so that each generation can economically outcompete the previous one. Short-term productivity growth will not have positive effects, which is why short-term growth spurts in developing countries have not been miracles for them. The growth has to be stable and long-term. Or at least, that’s what the theory predicts.
Thanks Brian! This is a fantastic wealth of information—I really appreciate it. I fear you might be right that concept creep might be keeping us from realizing that we are actually outcompeting our elders, at least in some cases. It seems as though culture is playing a role here too—and not merely intergenerational economic growth. You mention the growing issues among men these days—and I’m familiar with Richard Reeves’ work. I wonder if part of the problem among men and boys is the rise of educational credentialism, and the increasing necessity of higher levels of education for economic success? That would help explain why we’re not seeing it among women and girls, who tend to do better in school. It seems education was not as necessary for a middle or upper class life in prior eras, so maybe men are failing to outcompete their fathers and grandfathers (and fathers and grandfathers are watching their sons and grandsons fail to outcompete them), which might be behind some of this malaise. Thanks again for reading and looking forward to your further thoughts as well!
Well, I genuinely worry that if we can’t keep outcompeting previous generations, we’re going to have some serious problems. I think the fact that this is already starting to happen for some groups, and it’s already starting to cause serious problems, is evidence for that. I think gratitude is helpful, especially on an individual level, but I’m not optimistic that we can create a worldwide movement for gratitude, beyond mere lip service, that makes a serious dent in the problem. But I’m open to other ideas. Not saying this is the only possible solution to our predicament. I’m hoping this sparks a larger conversation about how we’re going to unfuck ourselves as a species.
I always thought parents only want their children to do well for their own status signaling...
I could be in trauma though :D
Yea that’s certainly part of it. But I also think parents genuinely want their kids to have high status for pretty straightforward Darwinian reasons.
Interesting theory with possible disturbing ramifications. We're in the midst of a huge demographic shift thanks to longer lives and fewer births. In other words, the population is aging, and the concept of retirement at 65 is being actively challenged for economic reasons. Add to that the billions being invested in age reversal and life extension science and we'll become a society where older people don't really make room for the dwindling number of young people. If you're correct, intergenerational conflict is unavoidable. (I write a substack on the topic of the economic importance of older people at https://www.longevitygains.com/)
I think brains in jars hooked up to simulations more reliably & more effectively solves this problem, it just obviously comes with ethics & agency concerns.
The two weaknesses I see in your method are instability and unsustainability.
It's unstable because the older individual doesn't care about the next generation as a whole, they care about themselves, and then their offspring. This means that they will vote for policies that benefit themselves the most which most likely consequentially benefit their in-group, which would likely be in a similar age-range. There would need to be some aggressive marketing for this concept to reverse this effect, but the group with the most power to execute that marketing would be their own group.
It would be unsustainable due to the logistics of continued growth, science will eventually end & physical demands will halt productivity progress, those pesky laws of thermodynamics will get in the way, especially near the end of scientific progress if we agree that accessible truth regarding how reality works has a finite amount.
Another way to solve for this is to trick the individual into thinking they're outcompeting their peers while simulating those interactions. Eden is a warehouse full of brains in jars connected to simulations where you are the only conscious agent. That's the only scenario where I can see 'losers' not experiencing being a 'loser' but still being able to generate a 'winner.'
It's either that or we hope that our subconscious is dumb enough and consistent enough to be predictably manipulated through some type of mental practice.
Thanks, Brandon. Good points. I agree that intergenerational competition is unlikely to be promoted through the political process, because as you rightly point out, people will favor policies that help their specific group over future generations more broadly. I think if it happens, it has to happen through economic growth and technological advancement. But yes, I also agree that such growth and advancement cannot last forever--we'll eventually bump up against the laws of physics. So maybe you're right that plugging ourselves into the matrix or something is our best hope.
Hey - where'd everybody go? I thought thiis party was just getting started.
Maybe I missed it but key to your thesis is the means to achieve it, productivity growth. The nice thing about productivity growth is that it allows us to out-compete our elders with not too much environmental impact. Our elders can still play but at some point they leave the workforce.
There's always the risk that we get so good at things that we put each other out of work, but we can just work less, make the same amount, spread the wealth, and save resources all at the same time. Idealistic - a bit, I know, but having more leisure time is also a win over the prior generation.
We also have a historic precedent - the post WWII era, where all these things come true. Still we are in the midst of an energy changeover - sort of like when we changed from coal to oil between the wars. That's making things bumpy right now.
Thanks for your thoughts here. Yes productivity growth is key, but it has to be stable over multiple generations, so that each generation can economically outcompete the previous one. Short-term productivity growth will not have positive effects, which is why short-term growth spurts in developing countries have not been miracles for them. The growth has to be stable and long-term. Or at least, that’s what the theory predicts.
To me, "death of despair" reads as despair being killed, ie one is now free of despair having killed it. Maybe "death from despair"?
You are wrong about your first assertion as it is one of the the biggest academic fields. Sociology and anthropology.
Thanks Brian! This is a fantastic wealth of information—I really appreciate it. I fear you might be right that concept creep might be keeping us from realizing that we are actually outcompeting our elders, at least in some cases. It seems as though culture is playing a role here too—and not merely intergenerational economic growth. You mention the growing issues among men these days—and I’m familiar with Richard Reeves’ work. I wonder if part of the problem among men and boys is the rise of educational credentialism, and the increasing necessity of higher levels of education for economic success? That would help explain why we’re not seeing it among women and girls, who tend to do better in school. It seems education was not as necessary for a middle or upper class life in prior eras, so maybe men are failing to outcompete their fathers and grandfathers (and fathers and grandfathers are watching their sons and grandsons fail to outcompete them), which might be behind some of this malaise. Thanks again for reading and looking forward to your further thoughts as well!
Well, I genuinely worry that if we can’t keep outcompeting previous generations, we’re going to have some serious problems. I think the fact that this is already starting to happen for some groups, and it’s already starting to cause serious problems, is evidence for that. I think gratitude is helpful, especially on an individual level, but I’m not optimistic that we can create a worldwide movement for gratitude, beyond mere lip service, that makes a serious dent in the problem. But I’m open to other ideas. Not saying this is the only possible solution to our predicament. I’m hoping this sparks a larger conversation about how we’re going to unfuck ourselves as a species.