1. If culture socially communicated thought patterns and behavioral tendencies are what determine economic performance, why do we not see more convergence?
2. Assuming that genetic engineering of humans becomes feasible, what traits will parents select for, and will this lead to convergence in the human race?
Tyler Cowen posed the first question to Joseph Henrich in his conversation with Tyler (you may need to Google for a link, and it may not be up yet). Tyler pointed out that even within the United States, we are seeing divergence in economic outcomes across geographic areas.
Later, at a private dinner, Tyler posed the second question.
It is possible to give similar answers to both questions. Two factors are involved.
a) parents want children to be like themselves, not simply copies of people that the parents admire.
b) we do not understand the processes well enough to reliably get the outcomes that we want. There is too much causal density.
Because of (a), we will never get complete convergence. Also, the fact that parents want children to be like themselves slows down the process of cultural convergence of thought patterns and behavioral tendencies across countries. Even if a family moves from a poor country to the United States, parents will want their children to retain a lot of the “old ways.” If it takes a few generations for people to assimilate thought patterns and behavioral tendencies when they are immersed in them, imagine how much longer it takes for people to assimilate distant thought patterns and behavioral tendencies when their immediate surroundings differ.
Because of (b), even if we knew that we wanted a particular outcome (a highly-growth economy, a high-IQ child), we do not know which changes to make to achieve that outcome. We do not know which genes to edit in order to produce high IQ. We do not know which social institutions will promote the thought patterns and behavioral tendencies of Iraqis in order to transform that country into a Jeffersonian democracy.
I suspect that a lot of the assertions about the intractability of genetic engineering or other selective breeding for polygenic desirable traits is overwrought signalling or preemptive strategic prevention of a conversation going into taboo territory where one might be baited or cornered into expressing socially undesirable ideas.
I’d guess we will soon start making animals which are very smart for their species as proof of concept. What then?
It’s legit to wonder if we can really edit for intelligence well enough. Remember its not just intelligence. You don’t want to increase intelligence while breaking other aspects of the brain or you get a bunch of Una-bombers. Highly intelligent but crazy.
I’m agnostic about the issue. We’ll see when it happens. I mostly don’t like seeing genetic engineering used as an excuse not to deal with issues.
Arnold:
Your last sentence –
“We do not know which social institutions will promote the thought patterns and behavioral tendencies of Iraqis in order to transform that country into a Jeffersonian democracy.”
– reminded me of another thought experiment that I had considered over a decade ago that addresses your point. As follows:
At the “end” of the Iraq war, the U.S. imposed/encouraged democratic elections and rule (as happened). However, the “ownership” (rights to proceeds and rights to control) of Iraqi oil assets were left in the hands of the “government”, rather than being “owned” by private Iraqi citizens, as is the case in the U.S. That just entrenched the prior state of animosities between the oil-rich Kurdish North, the oil-rich Shia South, and the underpopulated (but not oil-rich) Sunni center.
Consider the following alternative, in the context of your last statement …
Instead, had the U.S. not only imposed democratic elections/rule, but also privatized all Iraqi oil assets – with ownership (rights to proceeds and rights to control) equally distributed between ALL Iraqi citizens – Iraqi history would likely have evolved differently.
For example, after the war, the U.S. also imposes an “Iraqi Petroleum Corporation” (IPC), comprised of all formerly state-owned (Hussein-owned) oil assets. As well, 100 shares of that IPC common stock is then issued to each Iraqi citizen, who benefit EQUALLY from all distributed earnings/dividends AND the rights to control the board/management or the corporation – just as stockholders of, say, XOM now enjoy. The elected Iraqi Government has the right to tax the corporate “profit” in order to provide government funding, but only to the extent of, say, global average corporate profit tax rates – NOT the 100% tax rates of the currently (and prior) state-owned entity.
I suspect, given the “newness” of the concept of this sort of capital stock “ownership” to the Iraqi culture, some additional restrictions might have had to be imposed. For example, a law that no common stock may be transferred (bought OR sold) for a period of say 5 years of the initial distribution. That would minimize “losses” attributable to “stockholder ignorance”, at least for an initial acclimation period.
To my knowledge (somewhat slight), such a counterfactual private stockholder scheme would not be in violation of Shia law. And I suspect that such private ownership (both proceeds and control) of Iraq’s leading economic asset might well result in more informed democratic voting and less regional/ethnic/religious friction.
I think it is because there isn’t a one size fits all set of socially communicated thought patterns and behavioral tendencies. What works for the most talented 5% will often be problematic for the bottom 50%. And this is the fundamental problem of markets. Markets want the best to always win. Markets are intrinsically most attracted to the patterns and tendencies of the 5%.
Donald Trump was elected as a rejection of convergence, and a rejection by many of the socially communicated thought patterns and behavioral tendencies of the most talented 5%.
What works for the top X% doesn’t work for most of the bell curve pretty much sums up the problem today. Good luck getting the top X% to realize that.
I would also point of that its not really working out for the top X% in a way that really matters…having replacement fertility rates.
There are SOME sorts of “convergence” on which we can all agree. Imagine you have a button on the wall you could press which would which would eliminate schizophrenia in all people born after say January 1, 2017. Would you press it? Or would you insist that conservatives could never be so despotic as to eliminate such a basic human tendency? Would you be upset if some crass unreflective domineering liberal shoved past you to press that button himself? You’d live with the horror and the terrible consequences, I suspect. Freedom from Alzheimers? You’d probably accept that too, And hemophilia and Tay-Sachs disease and several dozen other ailments.
Let’s not argue too much over which or why. Clearly there are some conditions for which we might wish our offspring to “converge.”
Other hand, too much convergence on “good things” might be less advantageous that we assume. We want our children to be handsome, tall, healthy, bright, sociable, athletic, musically talented, etc. But suppose a generation of children, ALL of whom are equally bright, equally athletic, equally skilled as thespians and musicians, etc. How do we expect our children to stand out when all children are equally admirable? How do we expect them to succeed in life when all about them are bold and domineering and ceaselessly striving and oriented toward success?