Let's Talk About Population Control

[Micro2Macro]

M2M, anything new to share?

Yo.

I think a lot of it is just randomness, and what looks like a bunch of things that could collectively be taken as branches of one specific agenda, a lot of them have nothing to do with each other in reality but only appear to based on how the author has categorized his post.

Most of these sort of things are just a result of individuals looking to maximize their utility. In the case of corporations, do what they can to make more money - pushing the female empowerment idea is a sure way for them to achieve this. In the case of politicians, do whatever it takes to get elected - could also follow the same thing that a corporation does even if there is no link. Or they could be bought out and there is a link. I think its unlikely they are altogether planned for some grand conspiracy, but the idea itself is cool and I think its great that we can have a discussion about this stuff.

Author gives people way too much credit for being so clever, which is probably some projection of himself into his writing because to me he appears to be a very deep, analytical thinker. Most of us are just going off whims on what we think is right without really breaking it down to a science and he is probably overlooking this.

[a500lbgorilla]

Most of these sort of things are just a result of individuals looking to maximize their utility.

Careful now. If someone weren't maximizing his utility, it'd look just like he was.

I think its unlikely they are altogether planned for some grand conspiracy, but the idea itself is cool and I think its great that we can have a discussion about this stuff.

4 real. I may try to shame people for the things they think, but so long as you're a lively thinker, you should explore every avenue of thought you can find.

[wufwugy]

Careful now. If someone weren't maximizing his utility, it'd look just like he was.

I get the joke.

Think of it as assuming up is up and down is down. If we were to assume up is not necessarily up, well, we wouldn't be able to make sense of related things.

[a500lbgorilla]

I get the joke.

Think of it as assuming up is up and down is down. If we were to assume up is not necessarily up, well, we wouldn't be able to make sense of related things.

:^)

If up were down, we'd still manage just the same.

[wufwugy]

:^)

If up were down, we'd still manage just the same.

That's not the only other option though. Up is either up (or some other exact designation) or it's maybe up, maybe down, maybe something else. The whole maximizing utility thing arises from economists using the assumption that people are always trying to have more good than have more bad. So far this appears to be a reasonable assumption.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Careful now. If someone weren't maximizing his utility, it'd look just like he was.

I don't see how you, wuf, can even argue with this.

You said that every human action is a result of that person attempting to maximize their utility, even when the result is the opposite of maximizing their utility.

You said a person not addicted to heroine choosing to use heroine and in all likelihood become addicted is acting out of maximizing their utility. You said that all "negative outcomes" which happen to anyone are the result of those people acting to maximize their utility.

As it stands, all you've said is... here is a new word... it means everything bad that happens is the result of someone trying to make good happen, and all the good things, too. The word means all the things are 'cause people are trying to be good! They're just really bad at it, sometimes.

[wufwugy]

As it stands, all you've said is... here is a new word... it means everything bad that happens is the result of someone trying to make good happen, and all the good things, too. The word means all the things are 'cause people are trying to be good! They're just really bad at it, sometimes.

It seems you're thinking in terms of an overarching assessment of results. The base assumption is not concerned with what the outcome is; it is just an assumption that people want more good and less bad. This is for each decision; it's not a plan or anything. "Good" is 100% arbitrary.

If people are always deciding for more good, it necessarily means that even the decisions that look objectively poor to others are still good to that person. IIRC it was Gary Becker who first popularized this idea, using the heroin addict example.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It seems you're thinking in terms of an overarching assessment of results. The base assumption is not concerned with what the outcome is; it is just an assumption that people want more good and less bad. This is for each decision; it's not a plan or anything. "Good" is 100% arbitrary.

If people are always deciding for more good, it necessarily means that even the decisions that look objectively poor to others are still good to that person. IIRC it was Gary Becker who first popularized this idea, using the heroin addict example.

@bold... these sentences are meaningless when the meaning of "good" is left to each individual to define however they want and to consider whatever time-scale they like. This puts the definition in a spot where it has a subjective meaning for each perspective on each situation. There is no "truth" in the word when it bears all meanings.

[wufwugy]

I don't see how you, wuf, can even argue with this.

One of the base assumptions is that utility is always maximized.

If I could have chosen to word some of these economics things differently, I probably would have.

[MadMojoMonkey]

One of the base assumptions is that utility is always maximized.

If I could have chosen to word some of these economics things differently, I probably would have.

Go for it. It's a living language.

[Savy]

I don't see how you, wuf, can even argue with this.

You said that every human action is a result of that person attempting to maximize their utility, even when the result is the opposite of maximizing their utility.

You said a person not addicted to heroine choosing to use heroine and in all likelihood become addicted is acting out of maximizing their utility. You said that all "negative outcomes" which happen to anyone are the result of those people acting to maximize their utility.

As it stands, all you've said is... here is a new word... it means everything bad that happens is the result of someone trying to make good happen, and all the good things, too. The word means all the things are 'cause people are trying to be good! They're just really bad at it, sometimes.

People that use heroin are doing so due to a choice they are making that is usually a result of a pretty situation which it is an escape from. It's been shown that drug addictions are much less crippling both in terms of dealing with them and getting them in the first place in better off societies.

When people are making choices what exactly do you think is driving those choices?

Not that I don't agree that it's a fairly empty definition due to how vague it is & how poorly understood what really drives are decisions are.

[MadMojoMonkey]

People that use heroin are doing so due to a choice they are making that is usually a result of a pretty situation which it is an escape from. It's been shown that drug addictions are much less crippling both in terms of dealing with them and getting them in the first place in better off societies.

Obv. My point is... that person probably doesn't want to be addicted to heroine, they just want to feel better for a while. But they do something - which they have no reason to claim ignorance of - which will almost 100% have them addicted to heroine. My point is that person's choice to use heroine is explained as a choice to maximize utility.

My point is that same person at that same moment not doing heroine is said to choose to not do heroine in order to maximize their utility.

So no matter the outcome, it's said that the impetus was identical. What's the utility in this word? That's all I ask.

When people are making choices what exactly do you think is driving those choices?

IDK. People lie about why they do things all the do da day. I have observed that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior and will admit to as much when asked.

I only know that I sometimes make choices with low risk and I sometimes make choices with high risk. I sometimes make choices which I know will have negative consequences. I frequently do things which undermine my conscious goals.

Not that I don't agree that it's a fairly empty definition due to how vague it is & how poorly understood what really drives are decisions are.

To be clear, I'm not saying the thin definition is bad. I'm saying I don't see the utility in offering it as a starting point if it's not used as a foundation for greater understanding.

To me, it's no different than saying, "People have noses." Whether or not it's true is beside the point. What does it have to do with economics? / How can it help me to understand the economic world in which I find myself?

[Savy]

Obv. My point is... that person probably doesn't want to be addicted to heroine, they just want to feel better for a while. But they do something - which they have no reason to claim ignorance of - which will almost 100% have them addicted to heroine. My point is that person's choice to use heroine is explained as a choice to maximize utility.

My point is that same person at that same moment not doing heroine is said to choose to not do heroine in order to maximize their utility.

No that person is going to make a decision to do it or not do it. He will always pick one or the other. It is the act of actively picking one that is maximising his utility. If we understood people better we'd be able to say what that person was going to pick before they did & why.

I don't believe this has anything to do with long term aims or goals. It'll be a function of payout over time type scenario. If you think of it as there is a pain medication that if you take you'll be addicted to there would be a point where you were in enough pain where that short term benefit becomes worth it.

You can also argue that really comprehending the consequences of your decisions is actually a really hard thing to do. Whereas short term effects aren't.

IDK. People lie about why they do things all the do da day. I have observed that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior and will admit to as much when asked.

Not sure what this has to do with it & why it couldn't tie in.

To me, it's no different than saying, "People have noses." Whether or not it's true is beside the point. What does it have to do with economics? / How can it help me to understand the economic world in which I find myself?

I'm understanding it as more of here is a function that max with their choices what that function is is more the point of contention & clearly it's so abstract or whatever that it becomes a bit of a nonsense but it certainly can be applied to very simple scenarios in a very concrete way.

People make emotional decisions or impulsive decisions all the do da day, too. Not every decision is a rational choice.

There is much psychological evidence which suggests that people are totally full of lies when it comes to explaining their decisions, anyway. There is every reason to believe that our decisions are made many seconds before we become consciously aware of them, and we do a few little things to trick ourselves into thinking the decision is evolving in our minds, when really, we're stalling for time to come up with rational, word-based excuses to perform what we were gonna do anyway.

This is agree with. I'm not expecting people to understand the decisions they are making but I don't see why that won't become better understood with time & they are still making a choice.

[MadMojoMonkey]

When people are making choices what exactly do you think is driving those choices?

IDK. People lie about why they do things all the do da day. I have observed that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior and will admit to as much when asked.

Not sure what this has to do with it & why it couldn't tie in.

I'm not sure why my (lack of) understanding on the matter is relevant, mostly. Nonetheless, I think people have a variety of motivations which drive them throughout any given hour of every day. I can't figure out how I'm supposed to know what any of those are, though.

I can't think of any way to find out other than to ask the people why they did what they did.

Problem is: people are unreliable sources - especially when asked about their motivations.

Even discarding the unreliable reports about their motivations, I find the statement that there is no such thing as intentionally self-destructive behavior to be ignoring a wealth of evidence.

To write off the matter as if to say that all people are basically good is fine. You'll never hear me encourage anyone to act as though anything else were true. I've said repeatedly that I will choose to believe this even against evidence showing me otherwise.

So on the one hand, I think it's a fine attitude to hold about people - that they always act toward the greatest good they conceive. On the other hand, it seems to be blindly at odds with the actual reality of human experiences.

I'm not turning to economics for moral piece of mind, though. I can find much better sources for that.

[a500lbgorilla]

People that use heroin are doing so due to a choice they are making that is usually a result of a pretty situation which it is an escape from. It's been shown that drug addictions are much less crippling both in terms of dealing with them and getting them in the first place in better off societies.

When people are making choices what exactly do you think is driving those choices?

Not that I don't agree that it's a fairly empty definition due to how vague it is & how poorly understood what really drives are decisions are.

Big cluster of neurons near the sense organs, built by genes, molded by evolution, adapted to experience, attempt to survive. Lots of overlapping circuits and newly growing functions that battle out for what to do in any given situation.

Something like that.