By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
The human race has a funny way of evading Armageddon. All
the best people keep promising us a world-ending catastrophe, and all we get in
the news is more Anthony Weiner pics. Admittedly, some would prefer a
mass-extinction event to one more photo of Mr. Huma Abedin brandishing his unit
at strangers on social media, but, so far, no dice.
The ur case of the-end-is-near thinking (of the
non-awesome variety) is of course our old friend the Reverend Thomas Malthus,
the adjective-inspiring Georgian economist who reminds us that the two most
dangerous words in English are Latin: “ceteris paribus.” The Reverend Malthus
calculated that human populations were growing geometrically while farm
production was growing at a merely arithmetic rate, hence mass starvation was a
mathematical certainty. Malthus, like a surprising number of our so-called
free-market Republicans today, was an opponent of free trade and an advocate of
the British Corn Laws, believing that if commerce were allowed to follow its
own course the British people would starve themselves to death. It was a funny
argument, and the eminent contemporary economist David Ricardo thought so
little of Malthus’s work that he attacked his rival’s most famous book, Principles of Political Economy, with a
book of his own, titled . . . Principles
of Political Economy.
Malthus was wrong — ceteris
did not turn out to be paribus, and
both population and food-production trends evolved over time — but
Malthusianism lived on.
For well over a century after Malthus’s death, variations
on his prophecy — that growing human populations would eventually overwhelm the
world’s natural resources, resulting in famine and other unpleasantries —
thrived. They are, in fact, the most popular genre of political writing.
Apocalypticism is the great survivor of the world of ideas, mutating as
necessary: Many popular modern libertarian figures, natural enemies of the
Malthusian creed, make a good living promising that disaster lurks just around
the corner, and that it can be best weathered with a large investment in gold
coins or freeze-drying equipment for your bunker. A form of Austrian economics
(often half-understood) “guarantees” this outcome in much the same way that
Malthus’s calculations “guaranteed” mass starvation some years ago.
Malthusian thinking, like a member of the Clinton family,
can survive practically any public-relations disaster. In 1980, there was a
famous bet between Paul Ehrlich, Malthusian par excellence and author of The Population Bomb, and Julian Simon, a
fellow at the Cato Institute, regarding the prices of a handful of widely used
metals (chrome, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten). Ehrlich believed that the
Earth was running out of resources, and that scarcity would send the price of
these metals higher, while Simon believed that human ingenuity and the creative
power of capitalism would lead to abundance, and hence to lower prices for
those benchmarks. Simon was right, Ehrlich was wrong. But there is almost no
price to pay for being wrong if you are wrong in the service of that which is
popular — see the case against free trade — and Ehrlich remains an important
intellectual figure for progressives, especially for environmentalists.
Not long after the Ehrlich-Simon wager, there began to be
a great deal of very energetic, sometimes hysterical, talk about “peak oil.”
The intellectual vector will by now be familiar: Progressives, socialists,
environmentalists, and sundry anti-capitalists did their best Chicken Little
impersonations, argued that world petroleum production was at or near its
inevitable peak, and that the steep slope on the other side of that peak would
send us all tumbling into Malthusian catastrophe . . . unless we invested
progressives, socialists, environmentalists, and sundry anti-capitalists with
enormous political power, giving them control over the commanding heights of
the world economy. Barack Obama, though usually more measured in his rhetoric,
is clearly a product of this school of thought, and has spent a great deal of
your money on his friends’ and supporters’ projects to jumpstart a fantastic
green-energy economy, the first steps on a long march or great leap forward
toward a post-petroleum world.
Petroleum production did not go into steep decline. A
bunch of high-tech nerds led and inspired by an old-fashioned Texas oilman
figured out how to pull oil and gas out of shale. Oil prices sunk so low over the
past several years that the Saudis started talking like The Architect from The Matrix — “There are levels of
survival we are prepared to accept” — and, for a while there, you could get a
really good deal on a mansion in Houston.
The peak-oil gang had all sorts of crazy proposals, none
of which will surprise anybody old enough to remember that a few decades before
global warming was going to kill us we were all supposed to be dying in a new
ice age, and that the same enviro-nannies had proposed covering the Earth’s polar ice caps with soot to raise global
temperatures. We are, in retrospect, glad that we did not do that. Others
proposed banning private automobiles, a Puritan-Malthusian reflex that was
echoed in post-9/11 calls from the likes of Arianna Huffington to curtail
Americans’ enthusiasm for big trucks and SUVs. Many are glad we didn’t do that,
either.
But the internal-combustion engine may be going dodo
nonetheless. Mike Fox, executive director of Gasoline & Automotive Services
Dealers of America — i.e., the boss at the trade group that represents filling
stations — recently told the Wall Street
Journal that if the new Tesla 3 lives up to its promise, then his industry
is going away. Tesla, which currently is building the fastest production car in
the world and recently unveiled a new battery pack, intends to bring the price
of its cars down from the $100,000 range to the $35,000 range. “If Tesla can
deliver on its current promises with the Model 3, gas vehicles are history,”
Fox said. “It’s horse and buggy days.”
The predominance of the gasoline engine is a minor
question. But the major questions have a way of working themselves out, too.
The Malthusians proposed all sorts of invasive and occasionally nasty measures
to limit population growth: Eugenics programs often were justified on
population-control grounds, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously made some pretty
creepy eugenic arguments for abortion rights, that they keep down the “growth
in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” We didn’t do very much
of that, either, but most of the forecasts currently predict that the
population of the world will peak around 2050 or 2055, and will decline slowly
after that.
That’s going to be hard on the Malthusians.
So, meet the super-neo-reverse Malthusians!
The Reverend Malthus worried that natural resources would
not keep up with population growth, that there would not be — could not be —
sufficient production. Akin Oyedele, writing in Business Insider, is raising the alarm about “peak energy” — not
peak production but peak consumption. With population growth slowing and then
reversing, services playing a relatively larger role in advanced economies that
had once been dominated by energy-hungry heavy industry and manufacturing, and
technology producing advances in energy efficiency, the per capita consumption
of energy (in real or cost terms) has been stagnating, and even declining at
times. “There isn’t much more growth in the amount we can consume,” Oyedele
writes.
We’ll see about that.
The super-neo-reverse Malthusians mainly are concerned
with a different commodity: labor. We are getting so good at making things,
they say, that there simply won’t be enough jobs in the future. Which is to
say, they believe that we are going to make ourselves poor through abundance.
It may be the case that nothing in this world is truly
unlimited, but one thing that certainly appears to be close to unlimited is the
capacity and variety of human desire. What do we want? More. More and better
material things, bigger and broader experiences, more extravagant and rarefied
leisure, more more. If I were a betting man, I’d bet on our finding some use
for all that energy that’s supposed to be sitting around doing nothing, and for
all that labor, too.
What will those jobs look like? Nobody knows, any more
than the Reverend Malthus could know what a modern farm would look like. In the
1950s, my father was employed as a butcher. If you could go back in time and
explain to him that in 2016 there would be such a thing as a “celebrity
butcher,” or that the smart and chic young things in Brooklyn and Los
Angeles would spend their generous allowances on a chance to spend an evening
with one, he’d have thought you insane. He probably still thinks that’s insane.
But in the 21st century, we have a major industry based on the odd fact that
men in white-collar jobs like to go home at night and watch men do blue-collar
jobs, in automotive shops and pawn brokerages.
Reality television is one of the great indicators of our
age of abundance. Naturally, one of its popular subgenres is shows about
Armageddon, which is always right around the corner, after a brief word from
our sponsors.
No comments:
Post a Comment