What *Should* We Be Worried About?

Writing for The New Yorker, cognitive scientist Gary Marcus alerted me to the existence of 155 responses to our title question at edge.org—what should we be worried about?

Each December for the past fifteen years, the literary agent John Brockman has pulled out his Rolodex and asked a legion of top scientists and writers to ponder a single question: What scientific concept would improve everybody’s cognitive tool kit? (Or: What have you changed your mind about?)

This year, Brockman’s panelists (myself included) agreed to take on the subject of what we should fear. There’s the fiscal cliff, the continued European economic crisis, the perpetual tensions in the Middle East.

But what about the things that may happen in twenty, fifty, or a hundred years? The premise, as the science historian George Dyson put it, is that “people tend to worry too much about things that it doesn’t do any good to worry about, and not to worry enough about things we should be worrying about.” A hundred fifty contributors wrote essays for the project. The result is a recently published collection, “What *Should* We Be Worried About?” available without charge at John Brockman’s edge.org.

Such a list of essays is like honey to the bee for me because the 155 invited respondents are allegedly among the smartest, most conscious people on the planet, and their responses taken altogether, constitute a comprehensive catalogue of the Human Cluelessness I've described and explained on this blog. However, there is so much material to analyze that I can not possibly review it all without duplicating many of the posts I've published over the last three years. So I will mostly stick with Gary Marcus' summary today and post about some of those responses in the future. Still, Gary's summary does yield some insight into the kind of foolishness we can expect to see.

Before I move on, I should also point out that I was not invited to respond to John Brockman's question. We should bear in mind that the respondents are also among the most successful human beings on this planet, which is why Mr. Brockman asked them to respond, whereas I am in almost all respects an abysmal failure as a human being. On the other hand, given what humans are, I think of being a successful human as a dubious distinction

In Gary Marcus' account, let's start here—

We might also worry about demographic shifts. Some are manifest, like the graying of the population (mentioned in Rodney Brooks’s essay) and the decline in the global birth rate (highlighted by Matt Ridley, Laurence Smith, and Kevin Kelly). Others are less obvious.

The evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban, for example, argues that the rising gender imbalance in China (due to the combination of early-in-pregnancy sex-determination, abortion, the one-child policy, and a preference for boys) is a growing problem that we should all be concerned about. As Kurzban puts it, by some estimates, by 2020 “there will be 30 million more men than women on the mating market in China, leaving perhaps up to 15% of young men without mates.” He also notes that “cross-national research shows a consistent relationship between imbalanced sex ratios and rates of violent crime. The higher the fraction of unmarried men in a population, the greater the frequency of theft, fraud, rape, and murder.” This in turn tends to lead to a lower G.D.P., and, potentially, considerable social unrest that could ripple around the world. (The same of course could happen in any country in which prospective parents systematically impose a preference for boys.)

In fact, Kevin Kelly's essay is called The Underpopulation Bomb, and contains the following text—

While the global population of humans will continue to rise for at least another 40 years, demographic trends in full force today make it clear that a much bigger existential threat lies in global underpopulation.

That worry seems preposterous at first. We've all seen the official graph of expected human population growth. A steady rising curve swells past us now at 6 billion and peaks out about 2050. The tally at the expected peak continues to be downgraded by experts; currently UN demographers predict 9.2 billion at the top. The peak may off by a billion or so, but in broad sweep the chart is correct.

But curiously, the charts never show what happens on the other side of the peak.

This astonishing quote leaves me almost speechless. Needless to say, after 2050, I don't think underpopulation is going to be one of the main things we will be worried about

I should note again that like the others, Kevin Kelly, who is the editor of Wired, has been a very successful human being. As such, he believes without question that the Human Enterprise in which he has played such a distinguished role will go on and on without limit, forever.

Marcus reviews some techno-optimist fantasies that we needn't worry about at all, but then there is this glimmer of hope amidst this giant pile of Human Delusion.

Another theme throughout the collection is what Stanford psychologist Brian Knutson called metaworry — the question of whether we are psychologically and politically constituted to worry about what we most need to worry about.

Yes! And it's not even a question! Humans were not designed by Nature to worry about the things they need to worry about, which is primarily themselves. For example, they need to worry about why they are so delusional as to think that they can grow human populations and material confort without limit on a finite planet. (It is the greater material comfort which leads to Kelly's Underpopulation Bomb.)

In my own essay, I suggested that there is good reason to think that we are not inclined that way, both because of an inherent cognitive bias that makes us focus on immediate concerns (like getting our dishwasher fixed) to the diminishment of our attention to long-term issues (like getting enough exercise to maintain our cardiovascular fitness) and because of a chronic bias toward optimism known as [the] just-world fallacy (the comforting but unrealistic idea that moral actions will invariably lead to just rewards)...

A chronic bias toward optimism. The "just-world" fallacy (which is popular with political "progressives").

These are real insights, and since I want to end on a positive note today, I will stop my review right here.

Comments

[Steve]

I came across that list last week and as I was reading it, I thought about what a field day you would have with this list. I was totally amazed at what this supposedly learned group of individuals were concerned about. It felt like a parallel universe. Granted there were a couple that were concerned about depleting resources and maybe one I think mention the climate change, but for the most part it seems these folks were plucked from some neighborhood of ivory towers and whatever myopic fear they had, they wrote about. Very odd.

[John D]

Underpopulation a problem? Seems like the planet did just fine for eons when there were less than a billion of us.

[Oliver]

John Brockman's Rolodex is as good a place as any to prime and detonate the Underpopulation Bomb.

I'd rather listen to Dave Cohen in a howling snowstorm than read the nauseating bathos that passes for intelligence at edge.org - but then I guess when very important people have their heads up their asses, the view is very parochial.

[Jim]

The basic problem is unsolvable. Civilizations expand to the point where they can't meet their own requirements and they either slowly decay, are conquered, or collapse. We're at the plateau period where diminishing returns are exponentially increasing. It's the end - and one of those three scenarios are our future no matter what we do. And we have a global civilization.

From a cultural and biological perspective, the human species seeks social status in the methods that that culture emphasizes. We are literally hard-wired to do so, and whatever a culture emphasizes for social status will determine its priorities. We live in culture that emphasizes material wealth, and so this the inevitable course our culture will take - ever-increasing attempts at maximizing material wealth.

Here is an interesting recent article:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312061337695543.html

We don't see the obvious because of our cultural assumptions. It's culturally right to accumulate and store wealth individually, it's right to claim resources from future generations whlie doing so - and there is no cultural requirement or significant social reward to share wealth with others. A person gets a pat on the back if they give to charity, or they can impress their neighbors and the opposite sex with how big a yacht they have. It's perfectly fine to lock wealth away from others - the wealthy earned the right to do so. All these things we assume to be natural.

Because the roller coaster of history has only gone up the past 200 years, our 'brightest' thinkers also assume that that's the natural course for the future. The assumption is that evolution leads in a straight line, instead of a twisting path with hills and valleys.

[Ben]

Re: mating market in China, leaving perhaps up to 15% of young men without mates.” He also notes that “cross-national research shows a consistent relationship between imbalanced sex ratios and rates of violent crime.

What effects if any can this demographic imbalance have on geopolitics? Can this male/female imbalance contribute to tensions between China and it's neighbors?

[James]

Too few humans, now *there* is a serious problem.

It's like drowning and wondering if you are going to have enough water in a week.

[Mike Roberts]

Well said, Dave.

I wonder where Kelly got his population figures from. The population today is over 7 billion (not 6 billion) and the latest UN projections don't show a peaking by mid century, at 9.2 billion. In fact, they show global population still increasing at the end of the century (I know, highly unlikely), albeit very slowly, and at over 10 billion by then. This stuff isn't hard to find, but Kelly's to even abreast with current numbers; it's like his essay was written at the turn of the century.

[Ben]

"Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html

[Makati1]

When you have committed your life and feeling of self worth to one topic or area of expertise, it is impossible to admit after say 20 or 30 years that you were wrong. Better to beat the dead horse than to lose face or reputation, or ... GASP! ... your easy income. Besides, most people are too stupid to even notice.

You can only see reality when you have nothing to lose ... or are extrodinarily brave. Many have the former. Few are the latter.

[Alexander Ač]

Dave, another bat-shit crazy essay is the following:

The deep origins of economic growth are not entirely clear. One possibility is that the ultimate root of economic growth is something very fundamental within us; I remember once chatting with Nobel-winning economist Daniel McFadden about this topic, and he laconically observed—as an initial stab at an explanation—simply that "People like to shop."

Another possibility is that the straightforward, inexorable rise in population size is the key driver of economic growth.

JFC!

Alex

[Alexander Ač]

Yeah, and no-one mentioned "peak-oil"... so no problem :-)

Alex

[Oliver]

Ben / Dave - Did you see the response to Attenborough? I think they'll be handing out earplugs in Pittsburgh.

bit.ly/UgTCm2

bit.ly/VRQUU6

[Dennis]

After reading this post, Dave, I checked out 'edge.org'. I decided against adding it to my (short) list of favorites.

[malgorzata]

I've recently started a web site, the information you provide on this web site has helped me greatly. Thanks for all of your time & work.