Evidence receipt / prediction
Published · transcript-backedTyler Cowen: prediction
16 Oct 2018 Conversations with Tyler Rob Wiblin interviews Tyler on *Stubborn Attachments*
“I think that one of the main, if not quite existential risks — but it’s a risk to ongoing growth — is environmental issues.”
Source trail
Everything needed to verify it.
- Speaker
- Tyler Cowen
- Attribution
- Verified speaker
- Claim type
- prediction
- Recorded
- 16 Oct 2018
- Publisher
- Conversations with Tyler
Transcript context
…Okay, that’s answering some of my questions. Because in the book, you write, “Policies that prioritize growth at breakneck speed are frequently stable. The average civilization endured only 400 years, and this number appears to be declining. Our path in the future requires a tightrope act, balancing progress and stability along the way. And we should believe that the end of the world is a terrible event, even if that collapse comes in the very distant future. Similarly, the continual persistence of civilization 300 years from now is much better than having no further civilization at that time.” But then so much of the book is dedicated to economic policy and how would we increase growth rather than focusing on this other word, sustainability — what are the biggest threats to sustainability in the future? And you’re just saying it’s been done elsewhere, so you wanted to focus on the growth. Richard Posner was one of the first books on this. When Posner’s book came out, I immediately started doing a lot of editing on mine. You and many other people in the effective altruism movement have written on existential risk, and I endorse most of that. But just at the margin, it seemed to me growth was underestimated. I think that one of the main, if not quite existential risks — but it’s a risk to ongoing growth — is environmental issues. And I think there’s plenty we could do for the environment. … There’s just environmental issues and I think there’s plenty that we can do for the environment that also boosts growth. So cutting done on air pollution has made people healthier, more productive, easier to live in cities. As China cuts down on air pollution, say, in Beijing, it will make Chinese society more productive. It would be more of a problem for the argument if you thought growth and stability were always at loggerheads. But there are large numbers of societies that collapse because they don’t grow enough. They can’t fend off, say, drought or weather problems or problems in their agriculture in world history, or they’re conquered by someone else. Do you think that still applies today?…
Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.