GMO Project Laid to Rest

As a coordinator for the EMC2 program this year, I was given four students to guide, advise, and assist. Unfortunately, one of my students, Shika, has decided that her obligations are too demanding to meet all of them. She has decided that she will no longer be participating in EMC2, freeing up some time to satisfy more urgent tasks before her. I bear her no ill will, and I wish her well in all of her other endeavors. Learning how to say no to too much work is a lesson that took me many years, and much misery, to learn. I respect that she seems to have already learned it.

Of course, that leaves a project unfinished. Now, one could say that no project is truly finished. Not in research, anyway. I’ve never known an intellectual to stand back from their writing and lab results and notes and say that there was nothing more to be done. However, there are natural points of demarcation, where projects may be laid to rest if necessary. Shika’s project, I believe, had not yet reached such a demarcation, and that leaves me a little sad. I’ve decided to briefly bring her project to a point where it can, in fact, be laid to rest, as a tribute to the work that she has already done.

Shika was studying GMOs. Apparently, it was a topic that had interested her for a long time (she posted an essay to her website that she wrote some years ago in which she called for the banning of GMOs). By the time she started her project this year, she had grown to the point where she no longer believed that GMOs should be banned (after all, we have people to feed), but she did believe that they should be labelled so that people could make informed choices in the market. So, her project was going to focus on reasons for labelling GMOs, and perhaps with a call to action. As she began to research, though, she became interested in the backstory of GMOs, the drama that comes before the product gets to the store shelves. She became interested in the history of Monsanto and its contracts with farmers who use its seeds and its legislative power. She became concerned with the plight of these farmers, who weren’t understanding what they were agreeing to or else were deceived about their future of growing GMO crops. She became angry with the monopolistic nature of the big GMO seed manufacturers. 

At the time that Shika left the program, she had not yet realized that her project needed to shift from labelling and spend some time on learning market structure and business ethics. But I knew it. Labelling is a surface-level issue, something that everyone talks about. Dig a little deeper, and you start to find all the other interesting aspects of a subject like GMOs. She wasn’t gonna stick with labelling for long (after my prodding), even though that was her ultimate motivation. And, indeed, I was gonna bring her back to it after some proper research on the other aspects.

How do companies come to dominate an industry? There are, essentially, just two ways. The first way, the political way, is to get the government to enact a bunch of regulations that your competitors can’t afford to comply with or perhaps have the government grant you an outright monopoly. The second way, the economic way, is to serve the consumers better than your competitors, and thereby drive them out of the market. There’s nothing inherently bad about dominating an industry, about having market power. In a free market, whatever power a business has ultimately comes from the consumers. The consumer is king in a free market economy. So, there’s nothing inherently bad about Monsanto having market power if the consumers have willed it to be so.

However, it is entirely possible that Monsanto may be using its market power to do horrendous things in the production of its product, including bankrupting poor farmers or locking them into a never-ending debt cycle. If the problem with Monsanto is its industry practices, and not its product (although Shika believed that GMOs could cause some health issues for a few people), then that’s the problem that we should be focusing on. And how do we solve this problem? By appealing to a higher power, of course. The first instinct of a student today would be to appeal to the government, to get the FTC to classify Monsanto as a monopoly, or a human rights bureau to condemn its practices, and begin to crack down on its practices through regulation. 

But I think that there’s a much more elegant solution, one that ties Shika’s project together nicely. Appeal to the consumers. That is, tell consumers what Monsanto is doing, and then let them determine the punishment, let them determine whether Monsanto can continue its abuses. And, of course, the way to do this would be to start labelling GMO products. At the end of the year, after studying in-depth the GMO market structure and the abuses it involves, Shika could have presented her findings and made an argument for GMO labelling based not on the boring assertion that consumers should know what they’re buying, but that consumers should know who they’re buying from. Much more interesting.

This is the direction that I believe Shika’s project was heading, given her interests and my influence. Perhaps she’ll return to it someday; I think the result would be magnificent. But, at least we’ve sketched out the path that was before her, a hypothetical EMC2 project that can, for now, be laid to rest.  Thank you, Shika, for your thought-provoking research and questions.

Comment on Gugie's "Transience of Desire"

Comments I shared with Alex Gugie on his latest journal, "Transience of Desire" which I believe are relevant to my own project.

First, just a small thing.  You say that “the conscious existence of nearly all people is characterized by a desire to feel better in the coming moment than we did in the previous one.”  This is not strictly true.  Now, there’s not a lot of people who would’ve caught this nuanced distinction, so it’s probably not necessary for you to know this.  I only point it out because you said something similar in your "A Basis for a Moral System" journal, and I don’t want you to continue under a misapprehension.  Strictly speaking, it’s not that we want the future to be better than the present.  We want the future to be better than it would have been without our interference.  When human beings act, they are always comparing hypothetical future states, not intertemporal states of existence.  This follows from the nature of value.  Value is subjective, yes?  It cannot be objectively measured.  And it cannot be objectively measured because value is really just a preference.  Valuation is a choice between alternative ends, a preferring of one to another.  As value cannot be measured, different values cannot be compared.  There cannot be any intertemporal comparisons of utility.  It’s not just impossible; it’s nonsensical.  So, we act not to make the future better than the present, but to achieve the best possible future we can bring about.  

I dwell on this point about value because I think it implies a bigger criticism of this piece.  From my perspective, I don’t think it’s true that desires are all ephemeral and that the satisfaction of one desire leads to the creation of a new desire.  It’s more like: we all want a lot of things.  But we can’t attain all of our ends.  We live in a world of scarcity, which means that there aren’t enough means to attain all of our ends.  There’s the specifically economic point about the resources available to us not being plentiful enough to satisfy every human desire.  But there’s also the more general limitations of scarcity in that we have a limited amount of time in our lives and only one body with which to enjoy each minute.  This scarcity necessarily implies choices.  We have to prioritize which ends are going to be attained, and which aren’t.  Action doesn’t so much reveal our desires as it reveals our choices.  And I think this point clears up some of the confusing points in your journal, such as when you were describing the phenomenon of people going to work every day even while griping about their jobs, because they actually wanted their paychecks.  It’s not that they didn’t actually want to stop working.  They just wanted the money more.

In this present moment, there are a lot of things that I want.  I want to work the night shift somewhere so I can make some money.  I want to study so that I can get good grades.  I want to write this feedback.  I want to read some Bastiat.  I want to sleep.  I want to fuck a girl.  I want to get high.  There are a lot of things I want.  But I chose writing as most important, so that’s what my action reveals.  As soon as I get done writing this (and, indeed, at every moment in the process of writing this), I’ll have to choose again.  Sleep?  Get high?  It’s not that these desires appeared after I satisfied my desire to write.  They were always there.  We always want everything, don’t we?  It’s that I had to set these desires aside in the pursuit of my most valued end, and, once I’ve attained that end, I can now choose another end to pursue.  The “enlightened” complain that people always want more.  I contend that people always wanted more.  But, as they get some, they become positioned to seek more.  I think that your journal shows some confusion on your part about this.

As I hinted above, some of our desires are more long-term, and these we generally call more virtuous.  We do go to work, even though we say we’d rather sleep in the moment, because we value our long-term end of a steady income more than the short-term gain.  We study at night not because we prefer studying to video games, but because we prefer good grades to video games, and studying is a means to this important end.  So, I think your journal was a little confusing in that it was kind of saying that desires were only short-term things.  The truth is, every action of man is always a pursuit of his currently most-valued ends.  Eating the gallon of ice cream and going to the gym...it’s the same mechanism driving both actions.  It’s just a choice of ends.  So, this new direction for your project, getting people to put the needs of society over their own short-term desires, is an attempt to change the ends people choose, not to make people give up their ends.  Do you see what I’m saying?

And that leads to a comment on the relationship between individuals and society.  Their interests are not opposed.  And I think you know this, but your journal was a little unclear, and this lack of clarity, coupled with your affinity for declaratory statements, made it seem like you viewed the desires of individuals as conflicting with the needs of society.  But it’s important, I think, to reflect on what, exactly, society is.  Society is comprised of human beings, yes?  And human beings act, yes?  That is, everything they do is the outcome of a choice.  Which means that people chose to be a part of society.  Indeed, people chose to create society.  Society is a product of human thought and will.  And because society is a product of human action, and because human action is always purposeful, then society must have a purpose, yes?  What is the purpose of society?  You said it in your last journal: it provides us with things, it satisfies desires that we could have never had or gotten satisfied in isolation.  Society is a tool.  A tool that helps us achieve our individual ends and desires.  If it didn’t, we wouldn’t bother with it, as it does, indeed, restrict us.  So I think it’s a mistake (perhaps just of word-choice) to describe the interests of individuals and the interests of society as conflicting.  Society, after all, is a product of, is composed of, and exists to serve, individuals.  As your close companion on this journey, I understand what you mean, but I would urge you to be a little more precise with your language for the sake of a wider audience.

All that being said, I think that there were some good things in this journal.  First of all, I liked that you returned to natural science a bit.  It seems that you’re very comfortable there, and I think that makes your work better.  The idea that desire is ultimately a component of our biology is an important one, and could have a big influence on your project.  At the same time, there’s no real argument in that point.  The argument you seem to be making in this piece, in the part that makes sense, at least, is that we don’t have to let our desires control us.  Again, I think this is imprecise, in light of that fact that we’re always driven by our desires.  It’s just that sometimes we desire things that are more socially beneficial than others.  The idea behind your argument, though, seems to be that, because desires are so transient, because they’re randomly generated by our biology, and because there are other, better desires to choose from, we can disregard our momentary urges and focus on long-run goals, like the preservation and flourishing of society.  Okay.  Fair enough (besides the language).  You also say, at the very end, that desire both drives and limits us.  Again, sloppy language.  Desire always drives us, whether for good or bad.  

I think changing that last sentiment, that desire both drives and limits us, could be tweaked, in light of the discussion above, to say something like desire can both drive and limit us.  That is, that competing desires, for short-term pleasure and long-term gain, can balance each other out, so that we can act to preserve ourselves in the present and we can act to preserve society in the long run.  Because desire is a common factor in all our actions.  It’s just a matter of what we desire.  

The Economic Effects of a Schooled Generation

*originally written 08/31/16*

In my original writing of this piece, I discussed seven different effects of mandatory public schooling on the economy. However, the full exposition was necessarily lengthy and, in an effort to keep my articles within a reasonable word count, I was forced to reduce the scope of this piece. All this to say that, although I only talk about two more-often-overlooked effects, I am not unaware of other issues like actual money costs, limits on workforce participation, and degree inflation (partially discussed elsewhere).

The first issue I’d like to address is the public schools’ attack on diversity. In rhetoric, certainly, schools appear to praise the existence of diversity. However, diversity simply means “the existence of difference,” and schools systematically attempt to eliminate the differences between their students. Schools assume that everyone starts out with the same knowledge and abilities, assumes that everyone learns and develops at the same pace, and, by teaching everyone the same material, attempts to create a population where everyone has the same knowledge and skills.

This is, in effect, an attack on the division of labor. Economic growth is based on social cooperation, which is, in turn, based on recognition of two fundamental economic principles: The Inequality of Nature and The Law of Association (more commonly known as the Law of Comparative Advantage). The Inequality of Nature means that every individual has different preferences, laboring abilities, and resources upon which to labor. The Law of Association states that when people specialize in the work that they’re relatively better at (the type of labor with the smallest opportunity cost for them) and then trade the product of their work for the product of others who also specialized in the work that they were relatively better at, productivity is increased and all parties are made better off. Social cooperation and economic growth are not about having more people who can work together to create bigger things; they are about having more different people who can exploit their differences to increase total production of many different things. Hayek put it like this: “It is, then, not simply more men, but more different men, which brings an increase in productivity. Men have become powerful because they have become so different: new possibilities of specialization – depending not so much on any increase in individual intelligence but on growing differentiation of individuals – provide the basis for a more successful use of the earth’s resources.”

Differences, in knowledge, in skills, in inclinations, are therefore valuable to an economy. By attempting to eliminate (or at least severely limit the development of) these differences, public schools weaken the very foundations of our division-of-labor-based economy. They therefore limit the pace and extent of economic growth, resulting in a lower standard of living for all.

The second issue that I’d like to write about is the schooled mindset and its contribution to the decline in entrepreneurship. Now, there is a myth being spread in this country that tons of young people are starting their own businesses and becoming entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, it’s only a myth. According to data from the Federal Reserve, less than 4% of adults under 30 own stakes in private companies, down from more than 10% in 1990. There are many reasons for this trend: increased regulation, taxes, occupational licensing, and student debt. However, I believe that another major contributing factor is the psychological effects of spending 12-16 years in school.

To clarify, an entrepreneur is an individual who begins producing a good today knowing that it will only be of use at some future date, but not knowing what the value of the good will be at that future date. His uncertainty is what sets him apart; he produces for tomorrow without knowing what tomorrow will need. If his predictions are accurate, he will make a profit. If not, he will suffer a loss. A successful entrepreneur, then, makes a profit by correctly predicting a future change in demand and by acting to meet this future demand. Moreover, he must foresee this change more clearly than his fellow industrialists, who would otherwise also move to meet the future demand and bid away the entrepreneur’s profits.

In light of our preceding discussion on schools’ attack on diversity, we can easily see one way that schooling hurts entrepreneurship. By reducing differences between students and by forcing them all to learn the same material, schools make it difficult for students to think independently and plan for the future in ways different than their peers. However, schools do much worse than this: they create a mindset in their students that excludes entrepreneurial tendencies.

Schools encourage conformity. To succeed in school is to do exactly what you’re told to do, to meet or exceed the expectations on a standardized rubric. If you try something else different, you run the risk of “failing.” Outside of the classroom the situation is quite similar. To be a success in the social scene of the school, one must emulate one’s peers as much as possible, up to and including one’s hairstyle.

Schools also encourage passivity. Students sit passively at their desks all day long, with raw information being fed to them. They passively do their homework like they’re told, using the methods that they’re taught. They passively cycle through the school system, one grade at a time, taking the various subjects in the order that they’re prescribed. They passively apply to college in their senior year, without much thought of alternatives. And, when they’re done with college, they passively send out their resumes and wait for someone to call them back and just give them a good job. The schooling system assures students that it will take care of everything, and the students passively accept this. 

Finally, schools encourage a submissive, permission-based mindset. One cannot offer an opinion on a subject unless he is an expert. The teacher always knows better. The student cannot do or build anything with his knowledge until the teacher decides that he knows everything he needs to know (through testing) to do so. If the choices are A through D, the answer cannot be E. Everything is pass/fail; there is no way to grade “different.” Everything is planned by someone else and assigned. Students are conditioned to sit quietly, raise their hands when they wish to speak, ask permission to go to the bathroom, and accept the teacher’s views as authoritative.

Through all of this mental warping, by encouraging conformity, passivity, and submissiveness, schools reduce their students’ creative and entrepreneurial capacities. This hurts our economy by reducing our ability to envision and create a better future, resulting in a reduction in everyone’s living standards from what they might have been. 

These are just two ways in which mandatory public schooling hurts our economy (by hurting our children). There are other ways that they hurt the economy (at least five) and, while any one of them might have a small effect on the economy (though doubtful), together they no doubt have a quite substantial effect. This is not to say that public schooling has no economic benefits; it does. However, it is in no way conclusive that schools are an economic boon on net. In fact, when we consider the possibility of a free market in education providing all of the benefits and none of the disadvantages of the government version, it seems all the more likely that the opposite is true.