Hey everyone, welcome to season 2 of reversing climate change.
We are doing that podcast thing. Now in launching a patreon, you
can find it at patreon.com slash Nori podcasts.
There are various tiers with different types of goodies
available. Do you want to receive a special
newsletter digestive? What?
Nori knots are reading that week.
Be a part of a Nori book club. Get special access to Nori
events. Go take a look at patreon.com
Nori podcast for what we're offering and in that Spirit of
being lean and that startup kind of way that That, you know, we
like to do this list of goodies is subject to change and we'd
very much like your feedback. Is there something that you'd
really like to see? But it isn't listed here.
Honest, feedback does a lot to help us shape what we offer to
you, you can send an email to podcast at Nori.com or fill out
our podcast survey anonymously in our newsletter, which you can
find at nor e.com. Subscribe, and thank you so much
for listening to another season of reversing climate change.
Hello and welcome to the reversing climate Podcast.
I'm Ross Kenyon, we have Paul gamble with us.
Now, Paul when's the last time you did a shack here?
I'm back. I can't remember.
That was months ago, but dozens of episodes, perhaps, but we had
to bring you back on because we have someone that has come up on
the show. So, so, so many times we have
dr. Bryan Caplan, who's a professor
of Economics, at George Mason University, author, of a couple
different books. The myth of the, rational, voter
selfish reasons to have more kids and most recently open
borders. The and ethics of immigration
which was co-authored or done in partnership with Zach.
Weiner Smith of SMBC, my favorite web comic.
Yeah, I've always been sending me these on and off for some
years so that was a very good get Brian.
Thank you for being here. Great pleasure to be here with
you Ross. So many times, we've talked
about the ideological Turing test, we're gonna get into
climate change and immigration, which we've been meaning to do a
show about, but the ideological Turing test is been super
useful. We strive to You exemplify this
test on the show, what exactly is it and to, what degree did
you originated this or capture something out of The Ether and
why do you think it's important? Right.
So just for background there, once long ago, was the Turing
test from Alan Turing and for him, it was a way to adjudicate
whether or not a computer actually was intelligent and it
came down to this, you have a computer in one room, a human in
the Other and then there is a blind audience, the cap to the
dust, get to see what's behind the door and in the original
Turing. Test.
If a human audience, cannot tell the difference between the
computer and the one room and the human the other room.
And you say, the computer has passed the Turing test.
Now, my idea was to say, well, we can think about something
similar for being able to explain a view that you disagree
with. And I called it, the ideological
Turing test. And as far as I know, I am the
human being who originated the phrase by The Logical train
test. And it just said, look suppose
that we get a person who sincerely believes interview and
then another person who does it and we make it blind.
So the audience doesn't get to see who is who and then we get
to see whether people are able to tell the difference.
Between the sincere here into the view, and the person who
disagrees any, especially the best way of doing this, is if
people actually sincerely, hold of, you can't tell the
difference between the person who sincerely holds it and you,
then you the non-believer or the unbeliever have passed this
ideological Turing test. And in the motive of this was
really inspired by JS Mill, who has this line.
If you'd only explain your side of a case, you know, but little
that and yeah, the motive was to say, all right, of course, it's
easy for an individual just Proclaim unilateral 8.
I understand views, I disagree with incredibly.
Well, real to be kneel before me, but that's not a test,
that's just self-evaluation. What's, what's great about that?
On the other end of test is one where you actually put your
ability to mimic a view on the line and see whether people
really can in a blind test. Distinguish between you and
someone who really believes it. And if they can't then you have
shown not just to your own satisfaction which is a really
low bar but a satisfaction of people actually hold the view
that you understand that view right now this by itself doesn't
show that you're right, and they're wrong but it is still a
very reasonable first step to say look I understand this view
that I disagree with, you can't just simply say, I don't get
what you're saying. I have managed to mimic you.
So it's not a matter of, I'm confused.
I havent heard the arguments, I don't get it, rather.
There's got to be some deeper reason for the disagreement.
And that way, it does advance the dialogue because it gets
past all of these common objections of my critics.
Just don't get what I'm saying, man, it's so subtle, it's so
difficult. So complicated?
Or of course, they are such a bunch of dummies there.
So dishonest they could never comprehend what I'm trying to
say. And the ideological Turing, test
is a neutral objective way of seeing whether you actually are
as good as you think you are. It's such a useful, your ristic
and you're a man of your wrist. Dicks.
We wanted to ask you additionally about public
bedding, which is something that you've done with Scholars with
whom you might have disagreements or different ways
of viewing things. So Paul one of you, you ask
Brian about that. Yeah, so I saw a reference to
this on Twitter a little bit ago.
You made a public bet against yoram Bauman in 2014 regarding
climate change. So for the listeners, what are
the terms of the wager? And how's it going so far,
right? So just let me back up a little
bit. So background is I have a whole
lot of public debts, and Rye record right now is 20 wins out
of 20 bets that have resolved undefeated until a few years ago
when there had been a 15-year pause.
And global warming. I told yoram Bauman who has
written a graphic novel on, I think it's a, I think it's like
the cartoon guide to global warming or something like that.
I said, look, I think that warming will continue but I
think you're overconfident to think that well and I got him to
give me 3 to 1 odds that the pause would continue for another
15 years. So basically, I win if the pause
continues for and we have continues overall in town,
January 1st 2013 and he wins if the balls ends and then in the
subsequent years, worming resumed.
All right. Now I would say that in my view,
The Classy thing for him to say with as well, obviously it was a
we gave him good odds so it's not fair to say that he was a
fool for for baby making this fact, you know.
So he being perhaps a stand-up, you know, like he literally is a
stand-up comedian so maybe he's just doing this to be funny.
But for each year, when the data comes Shin he laughs at me on
Twitter, right? And I would say, well gee, I
mean I you gave me 3 to 1 odds. So bargain for that, I wasn't
saying that I thought that this wouldn't happen.
I'm just saying I thought you were overconfident anyway so
those those are the terms that I win.
If that 15 year, pause that what did happen in June until 2030
and he went otherwise and right now he's winning and you know, I
will say like I regret the bad. I wish I had made it, but on the
other hand I got 10 more years so things turned around.
Probably won't, but it would not bother me at all.
If on 2030, I lost my first vet because that would mean, I had
another ten years of perfect perfect wedding.
My guess is probably all lose something before that.
It, well, that it won't be actually be your room that my
track record, but just stepping back singing with anyone can
lose it that. All right, we're lit.
Winning winning those in one bet, doesn't do very much on the
other end. Waiting 20 bets out of 20.
I have said does show a lot shows that you've got Something
that would be very unlikely to happen by chance.
Indeed, and I connect this with your Turing test in that your
ristic. That the way I framed this
question is because public betting in this way, is a way of
holding Scholars or people who run their mouths and public
accountable. And some quantifiable way is
that probably what you're trying to do.
Absolutely. So anyone can make vague
predictions and then wait around for something to happen.
That's kind of consistent with the prediction and then go a ha.
See, I'm right. I can make the prediction of
there's going to be horrible, terrorist attacks.
Coming in the future. And then, I just wait around.
For the next one is aha wasn't I right?
Wasn't I brilliant didn't I have a crystal ball, right?
And if they don't happen, then I just say, don't you?
Just you wait and then I just wait around for something to
happen and I say see there's that right?
So anyone could do that is totally cheesy, it's pathetic
and you shouldn't do that. Now what's the alternative?
The alternative is to very clearly specify what you're
saying so to give a cut off and you know, for like how many I
have to die from their service attack and also to give a
deadline so you by June 30th 2023, all right then you've said
something where you can be definitively right or wrong and
then when you're right it means something.
And of course when you're wrong, I mean something now even that
though isn't so great because you could just make something
that's so likely to happen that you're right all the time.
So yeah, I could say here's my prediction in the next 5
minutes, there will be no terrorist attack that kills a
million or more people. And then I just wait five
minutes ago, huh? See you on?
So, right, right. Yet again right now, with the
BET you've got to find some other human being that disagrees
that, right? And then you have rations the
right to be right. So only one of the two of you
and then actually turned out to be correct.
And when you're doing that you'll find you're not going to
get a lot of people who will take the effects like in the
next five minutes, no terrorist attack that we can we kill
million people or more people aren't going to want to put
money on that because yeah. Yeah, well obviously that's such
a ridiculous BET, right? And so when you have to
negotiate with another person, is it disagrees?
Just finding anyone on Earth is willing to put money on the
other side, really does put you in a better League of
production. And of course, part of what you
often want to do then is to negotiate odds.
And then again, you can see well, are you winning bats?
Where you have to offer fantastic odds to get somebody
else to bet. And that case again it doesn't
really show that much on the other hand if you give odds
today, You went anyway, that's impressive.
Rationing the right to be right. Is such an economist way of
putting that. Yeah, I'm here.
Like if you're the judge in your own case you're right all the
time, everyone's right all the time if they get to adjudicate
it. Yeah, so let's say out of all my
batch, there's only one where the person who lost just
stubbornly say no I didn't write.
So you know, of course you could bet on the sunrise tomorrow and
the other person to do to say there with the sunshine in the
ation do it didn't just like that's possible.
The one case where my partner did not admit that he was right.
Was there's a bet on deaths from terrorism, is Terrorism and
France and was really bright and terrorism and the standard was
no more than 500 and then he just counted a plane crash that
no one else on Earth considered terrorist.
I mean, he said oh that's terrorism and like how is that
terrorism is well, Isis said they were happy like so that's
your stasis good. You're so if there's an
earthquake and Isis said ye earthquake, this was the this
was a last punishment to France that would have meant that.
That was terrorism. Yak so, yeah, like there's,
there's a point where some people will believe and say
anything. But the nice thing that Betty is
someone has to really actually just baldly refuse to face facts
for reasonably specified that it's not.
And in the honest outcome of one side says, yes I was I was
wrong. Here's your money.
Yeah. Well that's the beauty of making
the public but I want to shift gears here and ask about your
latest work which is open borders as the title and it's a
graphic novel is drawn by is a queen your Smith of SMBC.
We talked about him he's not a nonfiction graphic novel
important to specify? Yes.
Yeah. So how did that come about?
What inspired you to write that? And and also just for the
listeners you haven't read it. Like, what's the thesis?
Alright, so in terms of the inspiration, so I'm a researcher
and a lot of what I do is try To take research that is actually
really important and interesting but it's written and written in
a boring way and appears in journals, no one ever would
whenever an open voluntarily and just to put it all together in a
package to draw it to the attention of a broader audience.
That's what I've done in a lot of my work.
Right? And in my mind is always well,
how can I make it even better? How can I communicate more
effectively? How can I get people to pay
attention? And in my reading I noticed that
there are a number of very high quality nonfiction graphic.
Roles most notably Larry godox, cartoon history, the universe.
And when you read these works, you look at them and say, oh,
this is just for kids, the open up, say no, this is not just for
kids, it's highly accurate. It's careful.
It's just a really effective way of conveying.
A lot of information to the reader.
In a short amount of time. He is a well drawn picture.
Really is worth a thousand words.
It's not just cheap talk, that's true, right?
So I looked at these works and said, here is this great author
who has taken human history and accurately Conveyed, it in a
highly efficient way so that people can learn a lot in a
short amount of time. And furthermore, he makes it so
fun that people will keep reading.
So, first increases the density, the informations get more
information per minute than you ever could from regular book and
then makes it so entertaining. People read the book, right?
So I looked at that and said, wow, that's a great thing that
he's done. Can I do that?
And I really like books of this kind.
So I just curious just the fact that Larry got, I can do it.
I mean I can do it, but I said well why don't I try?
And I've been really passionate about immigration for, I've been
blogging about it for 15 years. There's a lot of fantastic
research about it that I think if people would just listen to
it and really absorb it, it would blow their minds.
And I took this research and I presented in this graphic format
and then I shopped around for artists and I was able to get my
number one choice artist in the world, which is a cleaner spent
of Saturday Morning Breakfast. Cereal sounds like you guys know
who he is. He's And I talked him into
working on it with me and open borders is the product of our
collaboration. So I wrote 95% of the words and
I also did storyboards. So that means that I use Google
images and some comic software to lay out with book would look
like and then he drew it but then he pumped up the funniness.
Especially, and then he also had a lot of great advice about how
to change the panels to make them work better.
He had Great advice. And just how to present the
argument in a way that would be more appealing to a broader
audience. So Zach great this collaborator
I've ever had he's just so wonderful and such a great
mentor to me in the graphic arts.
Now in terms of what the book says, well, there's a few things
that are going on. So one of them is I just begin
with a more perspective that says that preventing someone
from moving from a poor country to rich.
Country is a Very harsh punishment to impose on another
human being. And so, if you're going to do
it, you ought to have a good reason.
In other words, they say that morally, yes, to immigration
should be our default our presumption, right?
And then the question is, all right, so why not?
There are a lot of horrible things where when you know all
the facts you can say well it's terrible.
But the alternative is even worse.
So we should do this terrible thing but just flipping the
presumption and saying that immigration.
Actions of the kind of things that need to be justified.
Once you're doing them, you should always be asking what is
the cheapest and most humane way of dealing with the problem that
the restrictions are meant to address.
So we aren't any harsher than we really need to be to deal with
these severe problems if they're out there.
So that's where I just begin. And then, I go over all of the
main complaints about immigration will lead to all the
main ones, but the way I try to go for the main ones again, I
will just say, since this is given this podcast, I really
dropped the ball on the Garments and I can say I ran out of ran
out of space, but I could have rearranged it and I didn't know
if there could be a second edition.
I really like to put in an environmental chapter, there's
some, there's a bit on the environment but it's not nearly
enough I would say and this is my bad but in any case I go
through the arguments that I hear most often and I begin,
then with the idea that a that open border is sore that we
would cost poverty and there I say there is a lot of research
saying precisely the opposite that it wouldn't borders is the
best known way of reducing poverty or increasing human
productivity and the research just comes down to this when you
move subtle, a human being from Haiti to Florida, their
contribution to the world economy increases enormously,
right? So obviously their earnings
increase and, you know, there's a reason why there are things
increase, which is that a Haitian can accomplish a lot
more in Florida than Haiti. We're flipping it around.
Imagine that you just got shoved over to Haiti.
What can you accomplish their only not very much.
All right. When you move a person from a
poor country to rich country, you don't just make their life
better. You increase their total
contribution to the world. And when you just go and do the
math on this and say, well, if each individual, when they move
becomes vastly more productive, and then, if a whole lot of
people want to move which other research strongly confirms,
well, then when we think about, what would be the effect of open
borders on the well-being of mankind, it comes down to this,
your multiplying, a huge gain for immigrants.
Aunt times a huge number of people that want to move and
when you multiply one really big thing times, another really big
thing, you get the biggest thing that any Economist has ever
measured, right? So a very standard estimate of
the economic games of open borders, is that it would double
the production of an kind, you're not instantly because it
takes a lot of time for people to move but the ultimate effect
would be a massive increase in the productivity of mankind.
And that for me then is whenever you're thinking about Other
problem with free immigration, you always need to weigh
whatever you're talking about against many tens of trillions
of gains per year, right? And that's really where the book
comes down to. I talk about a lot of other
problems but now he's just saying none of them are in the
ballpark of tens of trillions of dollars per year.
Yes, I know that trillions of dollars of gains are not going
to make headlines the same way. That one terrorist attack makes
headlines. So yeah, that's why I wrote the
book because the The enormous benefits When borders are not
psychologically compelling whereas the trivial harms are
psychologically compelling. So I wanted to write this book
to give people a better perspective and to say, look
forget about your emotions, calm down, humble yourself before the
evidence. Just realized the fact that
you're upset proves really next to nothing and the fact that
something bores you again, disapprove very much although
along the way I try to make the gains exciting and try to Make
the focus on symbolic costs unappealing and then when you do
a lot of a lot of what you can do with this nonfiction graphic
novel format is to try to not just get people to rethink
things, but also to try to get people's emotions to align with
what rational person would have. Indeed, and you are correct that
in my reading, this there are a lot of points and questions.
I wanted to ask from a climate perspective that I know you ran
out of room. There's a lot that is covered in
this book. You basically take on common,
right? Of Center and left of center
objections to more open immigration policy.
I imagine that most people listening to the show, have an
understanding of right-wing objections to immigration that
are about culture and integration and depressing wages
of native born. Citizens and you take that on,
but I think something that might be more interesting to our
listeners is that they're worried that if we have
trillions of dollars of goods and services being generated,
additionally, every year from an open immigration policy,
wouldn't this put, you know, multiple times the amount of
stress on the climate than we're already putting on there?
Isn't that a good reason for environmentalist to be
suspicious of immigration, right?
So I would say that it's if you are just suspicious of economic
growth in poor countries and General.
Then that's also reason to be suspicious of open borders.
In both cases, you're talking about trying to give a standard
of living of the developed world to the rest of mankind, who the
target doesn't currently enjoy it.
I'd say when you put it that way, then it does become harder
to just bite the bullet and say yeah we've really just got to
prevent this. We have to go and keep most of
mankind mired in poverty in order to save the planet.
And it does make you think well it's really that bad.
Or is there any other or specially?
It's Or any other way. Good God is there.
No. Other way to save the planet
other than to keep billions of people trapped in horrible
poverty right now. That's the again, that's just
the kind. Now, again, of course, you could
ask that question and then think about it for years and said, no,
there's no other way. Oh, man, but on the other hand,
when you start asking that question, I think that it does
get your mind working in a more constructive way.
So, in terms of my response that I'd say both for economic growth
for saving the planet or restricting immigration.
Saving the planet I would. First of all, go to something
that's called the environmental kuznets curve.
I don't know if you guys have talked about that on this, we
have the runners running through it again.
Yeah. So there's a great Economist
thing, Simon kuznets and he noticed that if you just focus
on the kinds of pollutants of industrial civilization that
when economic growth begins, then those pollutants increase,
and then you get more growth of increased further just but then
once you get to a mid-level well of development pollution per
person starts to go down again. And so what this means is the
poorest countries are totally lacking industrial pollutants
and then countries that are moderately richer or Worse,
countries the rich and that are even worse but once finally the
countries actually get reasonably good.
Then the problem starts to go down and then finally you go to
the richest countries and see that their that they are pretty
clean most measures. Now this already see that this
has happened for a lot of particulate measures, the
pollution and now It seems like it is happening for countries
like the US for carbon emissions where you'll seeing that see at
least the go like carbon per unit of GDP is definitely going
down and I think that it's actually actually emissions per
person are starting to go down as well for the kuznetsk curve.
So mean really what this says is that the danger zone is when
you're in the middle level of development.
And so the best thing for the planet is just to fast forward
through the middle Zone and get everyone Rich really quick.
It's quick, as you can. Alright, so that is the coolest
that story, which I will say least for a lot of pollutants.
It's clearly true. And for things like particulate,
it's so it really is true that when you go to the richest
countries, the air is good. Again, people challenge it.
This is the whole decoupling argument with d growth
economics, where they're saying that actually the wealthier.
You are. There's almost a linear
relationship with how much material throughput is consumed.
How many emissions come out. So I wonder to what degree it
is. Truly decoupled.
Although whenever we talk about this on the show, we get emails.
Got it from one side or the other or our guest is vociferous
in their defense of their perspective.
So I guess you would say that this holds true for you and your
mind this model for carbon emissions.
I saw, I'll be honest and say, like I'm not an expert on this.
But I would say that among all of the environmental economists
that I have read and say good. Number is two, coupling
argument, seems to be accepted front of my people from a wide
range of ideologies. So that is one of my critics for
when you can trust results in people with very different.
These who are never less quantitatively scale degree.
So that seems pretty good. Now, you know, kuznetsky
herbicide, this question of are other cheaper more Humane ways
of dealing with problems of the warming or environmental
problems generally, then just keeping people in poverty and
their I know that there is a very nice list.
So basic environment economics says that not only can you
reduce pollution by taxing it. But you can get a better more
cleanup for dollar of cost than by any other methods and this
approach has really been check so you can go and read like
Alan. Blinders hard had soft Hearts
where he goes and talks about. This isn't just some kind of
textbook Theory where we've actually gone and compared the
abatement cost of traditional command and control to just
doing taxes it looks like you can cut the cost down 50% by
doing it through pollution taxes, right?
So there is that At and then also I am perhaps not
surprisingly. I think that nuclear power is
greatly undervalued and that is of course, a super-clean very
low, carbon way of getting energy, right?
And I think a very unpopular, but I think for toe, almost
totally emotional reasons might say like Fukushima nuclear
accidents as far as an 80, people have died.
And yet this leads Germany to go and start shutting down, their
nuclear plants and switching over to Cole, which by all the
estimates I seen will. Thousands of people and be much
worse for carbon emissions. But nuclear power is highly
emotional and cold. People are just used to it.
Yeah, this is one of the many psychological facts about
technology is that bad technology that is familiar
doesn't upset. People wear as much better
technology. That seems spooky and unfamiliar
on the other hand, freaks people out.
So if I could summarize because of the Cuckoo's Nest curve, I
think, what I hear you saying is that if open borders and more
immigration would increase economic output, your argument
is that, well, yes, that could in the short term potentially
increase emissions. But ultimately, it should cause
a decrease because of the effects that we observe from the
kuznets curve. So right, you know, in other
words, I'd say that we know the worst thing for global warming
is for most of the world to just stay stuck at middle income for
a long time. Yeah.
Is that still? That's when they're doing the
worst thing and I think Still this point, it's pretty much
inevitable that almost all the world is going to be
middle-income and really like that actually most of it already
on majority of the world already has been ill income by
conventional definitions and that's going to continue.
And if we could just very quickly, Zoom through middle
income into Rich, then it seems like that's going to be the best
scenario that's available, right?
Any, of course, I, you know, I do think that you should always
think about what is the harm of keeping people in poverty.
As well. So I would say that so many of
the problems with global warming can be mitigated by Rich Society
whereas or Society really is in great trouble.
So I think about Bangladesh when I hear they've had fantastic
economic growth for 10 years. And all right, well, it's
especially good for them because they're one of the countries
that is most at risk from global warming.
If they were still, as poor as they were in 1980, then they
probably wouldn't have the resources to cope with it.
Let this economic growth continue and they'll have the
money to go and Build some awesome, dikes and least have
earned a lot of the harm. So you know, given an
ideological Turing test like why are the D growth ours saying
what they are like, why you know given what you're saying here is
seems to me like it's a pretty clear case that what we want and
what we should all want around. The world is just massive
increased economic growth as fast as possible everywhere.
So why do people believe otherwise?
Well, so I think, in terms of the ideological Turing test,
what I would say is I Brian, I'm offering you false alternative
between either the rest of the world gets his rich as the us or
they just stay stuck where they are and we continue doing what
we're doing, how about an alternative scenario, rich
countries? Just go and give a whole bunch
of help to poor countries so that they can rather than
becoming like us just have essentially just get a big share
of our production and then we don't need to actually change
total emissions of all we just go and have rich countries give
away. A lot of foreign aid is either
charity reparations or countries and then, we don't need to
really develop the rest of the world.
So, in other words, you know, I think, in terms of the
ideological Turing test, you can just say, well, Brian, just
trying to let rich countries continue.
Being the corrupt consumption Hogs that they are right now,
and then go and concern for all to say, what about all those?
Poor people in poor countries, shouldn't they be able to have a
nice life too? And I think someone might say,
hey, how about rich countries us cut back by?
50% which is well within their abilities.
We won't starve in the u.s. we cut back, our consumption by 50%
and then give the Surplus to poor countries in return for
them, not industrializing. So I think that is something
that you very well. Might say and reply.
So again, if I wanted to have a good version of it, I think I
probably would push on that a lot.
Yeah. Isn't that isn't that incredibly
selfish? Like the idea that these poor
countries shouldn't be allowed to industrialize?
Shouldn't be allowed to achieve the same levels of Comfort and
luxury that we have well they support redistribution.
They say like if the economy is in steady state or its in an
indie growth then we are obliged basically to redistribute
because if the pie isn't growing that's what justifies the myth.
This is in their words that it's the only way to keep the system.
Going that the bigger the pie is, the more people will serve
but if the pie was no longer growing their be revolutions
tomorrow, therefore redistribution, right?
So mean, that one seems so exaggerated that immediately
Like so that's the Naomi Klein version.
Brian right. Well, mean, she's not known for
her moderation or or, or, or version to hyperbole, right?
You so you like the idea that it like it, like if countries don't
have growth, this is likely to lead to Revolution.
Like I really don't see that. There's of course throughout
most of human history. They had no growth and
revolutions rare. So I don't think that that makes
too much sense. So again I mean I would think
that the anti-growth you like Carrying anti-growth policy
would be to say, look, we're not saying poor country should stay
live in misery. We're saying that rich countries
should go and make it up to them rich.
Countries have already messed up the planet and they should hand
over a whole lot of surplus resources.
They don't really need so that we can fix the planet.
And also greatly reduce the amount of poverty in the rest of
the world, and really just get rich countries to appreciate
that. The world does not revolve
around them, just because you're born in the US, doesn't mean
you're entitled to have Have a Hummer one of the other cases
I've heard for immigration coming from left-of-center
circles is about adaptation. And there's a Justice claim here
which is that western or countries in the global North or
responsible for emissions that, you know, but the small island
nations of the world or Bangladesh underwater.
There's a responsibility to offer them status to immigrate
very easily to some of these wealthier countries and this is
kind of a softball for you though because you would just
say sure that's fine by me, right?
Not only fine, I think it's great.
So, you know, you know, I mean, obviously there's a lot of
people who would, rather that their Islands not sink and that
they not have to move, but if that's going to happen, anyway,
it would be terrible. Of course, of No Country would
take them. And then what are they supposed
to do? Become both people for the rest
of their lives. So, ultimately, I think the
world is not quite so dysfunctional that if an island
sank that the inhabitants would be stuck as most people forever,
but then again, maybe it is that bad.
So yeah, I think Hong Kong kept a lot of Vietnamese pho.
At people to stock. Well, I doubt in their hardware
for decades before they finally did forcible repatriation to
Vietnam. So yeah.
Then you know, that was another thing that I didn't do just for
lack of space in the book. It's just have a chapter in
refugees. Yeah, climate refugees.
See, this is another important argument for open borders.
That this is a way where people who otherwise would be suffering
from the carbon emissions that are mostly produced by Rich
countries would be able to escape from the harm, right?
And I have blogged on this more generally Which is that within a
country? If a disaster is coming, the
normal thing to do is to evacuate the population before
the disaster strikes, like so and Hurricane Katrina was on the
way, the USA US Government, Louisiana, government, and all
these government, all told the population, get the hell out so
that the damage is reduced, right?
This is just common sense, if it is, aster is coming.
Move the people out of the way so that all you lose are some
buildings instead of human lives.
Duh. All right, and as long as the
disasters happening inside of the country, this is what
country is almost always do. However, if the disaster is
international, if, for example, a civil war is looming in Syria.
Then the normal reaction is quite the opposite and it's to
go and say no no no, you don't know that it's going to be a
disaster, prove it and until you prove it then we're not going to
let refugees in, all right? And as a result, you wind up
keeping people stock in disaster zones, the disaster strikes and
then often countries they are Alright well now that 100,000
people have been massacred and there's great going on in the
streets, the alright then? Alright fine.
We'll take some refugees now, right?
And this not only means the disaster is worse, but also it's
even a bigger burden to the receiving countries.
Because if you let people leave before disaster strikes, they
can often take care of themselves.
They arrived and the way later they still the money either, so
they're ready to go and hit the ground running, whereas if you
wait for people to be absolutely desperate in refugee camps, or
worse before Or you say they can come, then when they arrive,
they're generally destitute. And then, of course, this point,
people say, oh, well, how are we supposed to afford to take care
of them? Like, well, maybe the thought of
that, that about that, before we wouldn't be in this situation
people. So, okay, if we summarize so
far, made the argument that open borders increases, economic
growth. We've argued that economic
growth is better for response to climate change and you've also
argued that a little better in the long run.
I don't want to oversell sure. Sure, sure, fair.
And then also So, from like a Justice and Equity perspective,
the idea of letting in people who are most affected by climate
change, is also an argument for open borders.
So, what are the remaining Arguments for it?
Like, it seems like you're addressing issues that the left
might raise with immigration and the right might raise with
immigration. So how much of it in terms of
opposition to immigration? How much of that do you think?
Is just because of the nature of partisan politics or how much do
you attribute to like these actual The differences, right?
So actually, you're my view is that a lot of the opposition is
covertly bipartisan. So of course in terms of us
politics Republicans will say a lot of mean things about
immigrants and Democrats will try to say the opposite.
But when you really press Democrats and say okay should we
have open borders? When Republicans accuse
Democrats, have saying do you believe in open borders?
Almost every Democrat will say of course not, that's
ridiculous, right? And I actually want to endorse
The View that almost no person who wants to get ahead and
politics will endorse. So I think that it's just a very
intellectually meritorious possession and I'm not running
for office. So I'm not afraid of saying
things that are really unpopular.
So we know I think we're really what's going on is there's a
very fundamental human xenophobia, just blaming things,
and out groups, and having extreme pessimism about groups.
And it's being willing to take. Very Petty harms to natives as
an argument in favor of doing great harm.
Stout groups to something that has great human appeal, right?
And Enough into Darwin that seems possible me that a lot of
this has evolved. So you know what human beings
have often tribes, and we just have a very built in tribal
mentality. Although also say that the rise
of modern society show that we are, very capable of totally
redefining. Our tribe is over time, so used
to be tribes or 20, to 40 people and now Americans think that
their tribe is 330 million people.
All right. So you're able to go and By the
size of our tribe by 10 by factor of 10 million, right?
So I say the shows that even though there's something very
xenophobic built into human nature, probably still.
There's also an incredible flexibility as to what counts as
foreign. So that gives me a lot of my
long run, hope is we'll just rethink.
What counts as being part of the group and not part of the group
until eventually, All Humans, count, there's would help if we
discovered Life on Mars, they say, well, all humans have good.
Gather, something like that or some scenario like that.
So in terms of other things going on.
So what was interesting is that, if you look in the 1980s, so
immigrants divided, very evenly between Democrats, Republicans
the 1980s. This isn't something that is a
fundamental feature of us politics.
It's something that's Arisen in the last few decades, and I
think a lot of it is that there's been a feedback loop,
where Republicans, became more hostile immigrants, which made
immigrants were Hospital, Republicans, which made
Republicans more hostile than me.
Parents and so on is brought us to the sad state that we're at
today, but at the same time, there have been big demographic
realignments before. So if you were to go say 50
years ago and tell Republicans oh you're going to get a lot of
Catholics on your side they would just laugh and say yeah
fat chance that the totally happened.
So political entrepreneurs are always looking for ways to go
and crack these demographic death Spirals and appeal to
groups that don't currently appeal to them.
Yes. Takes it does take time but in
the long run and it is very common and it's not nearly as
hopeless as a lot of Republicans seem to think.
Yeah, Ross and I both spent our formative childhood years in
Phoenix in Arizona, and it always seemed odd to me to see,
like, in the 2000s and maybe late 1990s to see, Republicans
sort of spurning immigrants from Latin America, when like, their
social values are the same. They're, they're identical to -
social values. I always found that very weird.
Yeah, so were mean, to me, what's really striking?
Is you look at indian-american, So Young Americans from the
country of India and you'll cease, they are now the richest
ethnicity in America, and by many measures.
They're also the most socially conservative at this, the
America. So, in terms of their views, you
would think that they would be a really terms of their just,
their whole social station. You think they would be very
heavily Republican and yet their democratic-republican ratios for
21 and this is one where there's no way Republicans could.
We say oh well it's just a bunch of people that want to go and
waxed fat off the welfare state. They don't want to work the
obviously that just doesn't make any sense for any every Indian
Americans. So I mean I think that really
does leave you with. You alienated people who in
terms of their issue views and their position of society would
be your natural allies and you know, like how do you do it if
you would just having a bad attitude just talking to people
and unfriendly way, right? And of course, also just
tolerating people in your party who do it.
Because there's just one really mean.
Big mouth and your party not mentioning any names that can
make the whole party, look bad and Italy.
There's this peculiarity of us politics works really hard to
kick a person out of your party, right?
If you go over to the UK, they kick people out of the part of
their parties all the time, right?
Whereas in the u.s., the Republicans couldn't even kick
out David Duke. Now, that's right, some
Parliament. Billy, as to why this happens,
I'm a little confused. I haven't talked to any lawyer
on how this works, but Anyway, like that, you would think that
would be very important for protecting your brand.
We don't want to have horrible, monstrous loud, Turks represent.
Yell at like giving our party a bad name, Brian.
I'm surprised that you didn't reference The Simpsons meme that
I've seen going around, which is the old guy in the theater and
someone says way. No one's saying open borders?
Just I said open borders. Oh, yeah.
Moment. Yeah, man.
There you go. I'll put that in the shown as if
I can track. That.
That mean down. We've covered this a little bit
but do you think that Predictions in the book.
Do you think what we've talked about would change the content
of your book at all? Do you think any of these
challenges posed new directions, that you might have to address
in a future Edition or does broadly your arguments?
They just they hold for this as well, right?
So mean I do make a big efforts whenever I write a book to to
make it stand the test of time. I don't want to be super
current, I don't want to talk a lot about the Scandal that
happened that year, that won't register at all to people even
in five or ten years much less in 50 years.
So when I wrote them in borders, I really did try to make a lot
of the content Timeless course. The empirics are going to be
superseded by later. Empirics that hopefully will be
an improvement. Probably will be an improvement
in terms of whether I'm likely to update it.
If the publisher is willing, you know, then I would love to
actually do an expanded version again, minimum, I want to have
another chapter on the environment, another chapter on
refugees. So there's a lot that I could,
that I could have added even the current length original Oh I
thought I was going to keep it lit down to 16 hundred sixty
pages and then my collaborator just said, oh well you know I'm
happy to make it 200 Pages at no additional charge.
Hello great. So that's part of the backstory
the book but he didn't say 300 Pages.
No charge probably would have started to get it.
Get it hard to be published when it gave the got to be that long
but you know, the books been successful.
So I really can see in 10 years coming back and doing the
expanded version especially if it's continues to sell and
There's a lot of classes where people liked it.
And yeah, I think the issue is going to continue, right?
And again it's hard to be sure, but in my view actually is that
things are going to slowly move in my direction.
Although 10 years we will still have nothing like open borders
but we just look at u.s. opinion.
We have gone from a world where almost no one favored more
immigration. So we are like we got public
opinion on immigration, going back to around 1970, if you look
at that data, Tell about the year 2000.
It was pretty much never the case that more than 10% of
people. Wanted more immigration is just
a debate between, keep it the same and reduce it.
And since then, the share of the population that says, we should
have more has gone from under 10 to about 30 percent.
Okay? Now still a minority view, but
this is basically something where you take a view, that
almost nobody held and turned it into a pretty normal view,
right? And once you have a lot of
people saying, we should have more than you'll have me there.
Saying yeah. Well how much more how about a
lot more? Why do we want to stop it at
all? Yeah that's very good to know
and I look forward to that in the book One useful tool
conceptually that people might want to employ in the future is
this idea of Keyhole Solutions. So what are they and what might
be some for the link between the environment and immigration?
No, so back in the year, just for context, back in the old
days, you've seen movies about the Civil War, whatever surgery
was truly horrifying back in the old days there amputating.
You might say, well didn't have anything better to do well over
time, we have learned and some things we've learned is let's
try to keep sigh. Oh, that horrible side effects
to a minimum, let's try to reduce the collateral damage.
And one thing you can do is to reduce the size, the incision so
much more common Day is what's called a keyhole incisions.
We just do a very small incision and then you, and then you
insert a little camera and use, tried it.
Try to just do the smallest harm to the patient in the process of
helping them. All right, now, the economic
journalist, Tim Harford went and took this idea and said, well we
can of the same intuition for policy.
So whatever, there is a social problem when we're thinking
about designing remedies, let's think about the cheapest and
most humane way of doing it in the same way that You that you
we have Keyhole surgery, how about Keyhole solutions for
different social problems. And this is an idea that very
much appeals to economist's, right?
But I'd say really to any sensible person.
Yeah. If you're going to go and try to
fix a problem, try not to do a whole lot of harm.
And along the way, now, there's a whole field of environmental
economics, that's really built on this idea, right?
And it says, things like, well, if you want to reduce pollution,
why not tax it? Instead of having a phone book
regulations. Right.
If you want to go and reduce the amount of congestion on the
roads, which of course, leads to a lot of pollution, why not go
and have a toll on the roads that fairies by the time of day?
So the traffic is moving and you don't have people wasting time
and just pointlessly going and putting up wooten's.
Why not do things like that? Why not go and charge People
based upon the amount of pollution they emit rather than
just saying that there's a fixed fee for a car, for example.
So, in other words, you try to design.
I'm a policy. The targets exactly the problem
Sonia. Presumably the problem with cars
is not that they exist, it's that they're driven right?
And all cars do not pollute equally.
So you want to figure all these things and when you're
designing, any pollution policy. All right, so similarly in the
case of pollution immigration, what I would say is rather than
saying people can't comment would make a lot more sense to
think about. Well what exactly are the
environmental harms that immigrants are going to increase
and then Go and have special taxes that go and help you with
this problem, right? And assembles thing would just
be to say alright well immigrants have to pay an
admission fee, they have to pay extra income taxes right in that
would probably deal with it. Although, again just saying,
well, let's go and try to figure out exactly how much of
different pollutants immigrants are emitting and then attacks
exactly the thing. That's the problem, right?
So, I assume that your listeners are very familiar with carbon
taxes. So there's that kind of thing.
NG, right? And again, just to repeat the
often misunderstood economic case for these kinds of
pollution taxes, which that a tax does two things.
First of all, in the short run and encourages people to do less
of the bad thing, there's that, but it also has another
important long-run effect which that when you start taxing the
bad thing, people start trying to figure out ways to accomplish
the same goal without paying the tax namely by getting the same.
Result in a way that isn't harmful to society, right?
So for example, if you go and put a tax on carbon emissions
from Cars, well, this gives car builders in his hand and try to
figure out a way to make a car that doesn't moot as much.
But we're, it gives people a reason to take public
transportation word confirms a reason to actually privately
produce public transportation or to go and bid for existing
dilapidated, public transportation, make it nice,
some people want to use it, right?
And again, what's nice about this is often it's just Not
obvious, what the best way forward is and incentives.
Leave wide open the way of accomplishing.
The goal, while giving them an incentive to get it done.
Seems wise to me, to be conservative in that kind of
way, not trying to do everything trying to make sure it has the
smallest incision speaking of which I really.
I just go just by the way. So, you know, like Alan Blinder
again, I mentioned in his book hard had soft Hearts.
So he's a very famous left-wing Economist, but he has a lot of
work in this book. On how these kinds of incentives
are way better, both in the short and long run than
traditional methods of pollution control, right?
And I mean, I would just say that you like just just to get,
like, people that are scheduled to read and say, look, someone
that shares my values. Nevertheless thinks that we
should do it in a different way, right?
I mean, I think that's the kind of thing that really should
weigh on people and again, just to realize that it's easy to go
and tell people exactly how they have to do it.
But then you are, Are losing the advantage of creativity.
Like, you know, there are so many ways that you could
accomplish the same thing and it gives people some flexibility on
how to accomplish it, then that's much better than telling,
just how to do it. Because that assumes that you've
already got it figured out. Nobody really, really does.
Yeah, I'm very sympathetic to that personally, and I was going
to say that I had recently read selfish reasons to have more
kids, which is a previous book of yours found very interesting
and you address this a little bit that some of these same
climate or environmental rationales apply also to the
having of children and it works. Yeah, there's a lot of debate.
We've actually done episodes on on natal ISM and the mere fact
of me, mentioning it now means I'm going to receive mail about
it and given that you are a fan of Julian Simon, you think
humans are the ultimate resource.
They're actually problem solvers.
They're good to have around our IP my inbox right now.
So you think that these arguments though against
immigration apply even stronger against natal ISM or having
children, So most of them most of them.
Yeah. So I mean again I would say that
free of from an environmental point of view, you might say
well allowing an immigrant at least you're just moving a
person from one place to another, whereas having kids
increases total population. So in that sense, you might say
that having kids is even worse than allowing immigrants in if
you're really worried about the environmental effects.
You know, the main thing I say there is that when you, if you
look at a human being and all you can see is the pollution,
they're going to make you really are missing a lot.
Human beings do a lot of things. They do a lot of good things
that a lot of bad things. And in my view is that the good
greatly outweighs the harm. So you like it for random human
being drops dead. My reaction is not, oh good.
Yes. While they did actually
producing useful stuff. But they also polluted and it's
better to have note that have the person to be dead and the
blue. Sure not exist.
You know? Again, now logically, that could
be true could just be the pollution is so bad that when
people die that's actually a good thing.
But it is the kind of Judgment. At least you want to double
check and say, some really true, is it really true that people
are that bad? It's an idealist osition.
I am in my view is now, so when people drop dead, I still think
that on balance that as a bad thing, and flipping it around
when people are not born. I think that's a bad thing.
So, you know, minimum of course there's a person that enjoys
being alive and I think that is a reasonable thing to keep in
mind but also in terms of what people contribute to the world,
I think that this is for a large Shorty of people greatly
outweighs. Whatever harm they do force.
Not in every case Baby, Hitler had not existed.
That would have been better, maybe Charles Manson but it's a
random person I look at them and when and if you add up all the
good they do and all the bad that they do still seems to be a
big net, positive doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to try
to figure out how to, how to make it more positive.
And again, you know, things like glue, some taxes are very
reasonable approach. Their one of our previous guests
and advisory to Nori is ramez naam.
Tom and ramez has a book called The Infinite resource which is
really about Innovation and Innovation comes from the
ability of humans to be creative and work together and produce
more value than they spend in producing that.
And so I think that that concept fits in very well with what
you're saying. Yeah.
Absolutely. Yeah, that's the I mean, Mez
told us as much as he's been indebted by Julian Simon's books
Club ultimate resource. So yeah, this has been a running
theme of the show. I guess.
You could say we didn't be optimistic too.
Brian. I think you do very well to add
the Nuance about various timeframes about, maybe the
kuznets curve applies, just farther in the future Than
People typically, look, because it's come under fire for those
reasons. A lot of people don't really buy
that because it's curved argument these days but I wonder
if it is an issue of time Horizons.
So, thanks for just adding your very good about adding caveats
or limitations to your various predictions.
I can see why you win. Bets is what I'm trying to say.
Yeah, well, that is a big part of.
It is just don't go further. Other than you really have
justification to do, right? And, you know, I'm Lionel say
that just my personality. I can't remember time that I
wasn't horribly arrogant, but I'm Alisha aware of it and I do
try to get it under control. You like I'm not like I'm not
going to say by any means that I've actually achieved it but I
do listen to what I'm saying and say, look, is that at like, can
I actually cash that check that? I just wrote and if I can't, I
better say we would give me give me Check here.
We've got a post, ate it. So that's how I can still
actually pay or repay you have. I got the funds in the account.
Great. Well, thank you so much for
joining us, Brian. If someone wanted to buy your
book, what's the most efficacious way for them to do?
So what helps your numbers and how can people keep up with your
work? Yeah, so I would say that the
best way of getting the book is Amazon.
It's solely 1339 in paperback so it's dirt cheap for you and you
had Amazon Prime free delivery might sound.
I say so. A cheap that I encourage people
to buy it for every kid. They like I did a lot of kids
have actually read the book because unlike, any of my other
books, this book actually is enjoyable to people that are
younger, right? So, you know, I gotta let you
know. So, Adam is the only book I've
ever had where my five-year-old looked over.
My shoulder was curious about is doing Brian has how they got
Socrates, though. You got to be careful.
Yeah. So yeah, we land I would say
like it and this is not because I've dumbed it down.
So I would still say that. I think the research is
validity. The discussions.
Very careful very accurate, well referenced, but just by
combining words and pictures, you make it more entertaining
and more accessible. So where's all of my other
books? I tried to make it work for
everyone from research, Specialists, all the way down to
go to undergraduates here. I think that I can go from
research, specialist all the way down to approach, a seven year
olds in terms of the audience. So mean of course you know, you
should also be a physical bookstores and like there's
wherever you like my books in terms of my other stuff.
So you can go to be kaplan.com. That's BC a pla n.com.
I also blog for econ log, usually whenever I'm writing a
book, I just spent a lot of time talking about what's on my mind
and what part of the book that I'm working on and trying to get
people's reactions to I'm doing and then they'll be a link in
the show notes to open borders if you'd like to buy it.
Oh I should also say it is maybe maybe the most reference notes
of any graphic novel that I've ever seen.
Brian. Do you think that you can claim
that title for yourself? I think I can.
So So Larry gopnik also does a good job, but I think I like
mine or a bit denser mean he's got five volumes.
So maybe a few, some all five this volumes.
He's got more than me but I think I've got more than anyone
of his volumes. Very nice.
Well, thank you again for being here.
Brian that was a lot of fun learned a lot.
Thank you. Thanks Greg.
Thanks a lot. If you like the show please rain
review us on. ITunes up a podcast or Stitcher.
Tell your friends and thank you so much for joining us.
But thank you so much for listening.
If you like the show, please rate and review it in apple
podcast and or Stitcher. It really helps us a lot to get
this content to a wider audience.
If you think what we're doing is useful, interesting.
Fun. Hopefully all three.
We certainly appreciate your rating and review.
You can keep up with Nuria and or e.com where there is a
newsletter that's Nori .com/srobiyt.
There's podcast there's a whole bunch else or you can send us an
email at podcast at nor e.com. We are also now on patreon at
patreon.com slash Nori podcasts, if you'd like more content
engagement and community and thank you so much for your
support.