Watching this Bloggingheads between Tyler Cowen and Will Wilkinson, and they ask the following question:
Suppose the population of Japan, which is shrinking, continues to dwindle, while advances in robotics prevent a large drop in GDP. Thus we’ll have a smaller and smaller population with a greater and greater per capita wealth and well-being, until eventually a single family ends up owning all of Japan and then dies out.
Is this scenario worse than one in which population stabilizes but GDP grows so quickly that every person has the standard of living of the one family Japan?
Is this a good scenario or a tragedy, as compared to a situation where the population stabilizes and continues to grow, but every single person has a lower standard of living - a much lower standard of living - than that last family?
I imagine that a common set of responses will be 1) it’s worse, and 2) it’s a good scenario in comparison to masses of relatively badly off people. In that case, then you must believe that more poor people, as long as they’re not terribly poor, is better than fewer rich people. What is the minimum drop in living conditions that would make it worthwhile to have more than one family?
Of course this question has all sorts of philosophical implications for public policy and economics. For example, unless you say that scenario 1 is hunky-dory, then to some extent you must regard slowly-growing rich countries, such as Western European countries, as “worse” than less rich but more fecund ones.
It’s worse because in the end there’s no one left.
How much worse? Every single person could be VERY well off and still be much less so than a single family with all of Japan’s resources.
That’s a false dilemma; the best situation is one with a great deal of people in the middle. Not a tiny ultrasuperrich family owning a whole country ( and then dying ), and not a sea of people living hand-to-mouth.
Not at all. We have too many people; I want the world population to decrease. Just not to zero.
Good point. My comparison point would be the current growth trajectory of the US, which would make future people better off than we are now, but still massively worse off than the super-rich family.
What paradoxical about it? Is it a paradox to say that’s I’d prefer bland food to my favorite food if the plate with my favorite food has been dusted with poison?