Nuclear power has the ability to provide cheap, renewable, safe, clean energy for all mankind. But only 11% of global electricity comes from nuclear power.
Why is something so great so rare?
Because government strangles nuclear power with regulation.
Why do governments strangle it?
Because nuclear power is unpopular.
Why is it so unpopular?
First, innumeracy. The gains of nuclear power vastly outweigh all the complaints put together, but the complaints are emotionally gripping. Deaths from radiation are horrifying; vastly higher fatalities from coal are not. Even nuclear accidents that kill zero people get worldwide media attention, fueling draconian populist regulation.
Second, spookiness. Scientifically illiterate people can imagine endless far-fetched dangers of nuclear power. And at risk of sounding elitist, almost everyone is scientifically illiterate.
[brief pause]
Immigration has the ability to double the wealth produced by all mankind. But only 3% of people on Earth are migrants.
Why is something so great so rare?
Because government strangles immigration with regulation.
Why do governments strangle it?
Because immigration is unpopular.
Why is it so unpopular?
First, innumeracy. The gains of immigration vastly outweigh all the complaints put together, but the complaints are emotionally gripping. Deaths from immigrant crime are horrifying; vastly higher fatalities from native crime are not. Even immigrant outrages that kill zero people get worldwide media attention, fueling draconian populist regulation.
Second, spookiness. Economically illiterate people can imagine endless far-fetched dangers of immigration. And at risk of sounding elitist, almost everyone is economically illiterate.
READER COMMENTS
Kurt Schuler
Nov 19 2018 at 10:51pm
You make an analogy to nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe — provided you follow the protocols strictly. If you don’t, you can get Fukushima or Chernobyl. By proposing unrestricted immigration, you are proposing to omit any safety protocols.
Since one of the categories your post is filed under is “cost-benefit analysis,” please state how many deaths or maimings of Americans by immigrants are acceptable to you. How many Kate Steinles, San Bernardoninos, Boston Marathon bombings, or 9/11s need to happen until you say “stop,” if you ever do? Also, is there an obligation to allow immigration by people with serious communicable diseases or obvious mental illnesses? If you think not, congratulations for having a dollop of common sense, but then you have backed away from a pure open-borders position.
Mark Bahner
Nov 20 2018 at 12:47am
How was Fukushima unsafe? It suffered from the effects of a tsunami that killed over 15,000 people. How many people were killed by the Fukushima plant meltdowns?
Hazel Meade
Nov 20 2018 at 2:13pm
Chernobyl terrorized people so much they later developed heart problems from the stress. Or so I have read in Greenpeace reports.
Jon Murphy
Nov 20 2018 at 8:07am
That is incorrect. Open-borders have, since day one, provided provisions regarding communicable diseases (quarantine). It remains a “pure open-borders” position to say we should take steps to prevent diseases from spreading through peaceful means. You might as well say it is not a pure property rights position to advocate locking one’s door!
Regarding the various incidents you list, I respond: so what? Everything can have bad consequences. If I advocate putting a giant spike in car steering wheels to end auto accidents and you object, would it be a persuasive argument to you if I said “how many more auto deaths do we need until you say ‘stop!’, if you ever do?” We can play this game with anything you want: “How many more baseballs to the eyes do we need before we ban baseball? How many more false convictions do we need before you ban courts? How many more plane crashes do you need before you ban flying? How many more forest fires do you need before you ban matches?” Etc etc etc.
To rehash Bryan’s point, you need a cost-benefit analysis. The optimal level of very few things is zero. There are always trade-offs.
Warren Platts
Nov 22 2018 at 2:07am
The true cost-benefit analysis is something you guys never do.
Floccina
Nov 21 2018 at 11:00am
If you look at the murder rates over time of these cities, Miami, New York, El Paso TX, that attracted a lot of immigrants compared with other cities, it looks like immigration, reduces the chances that a US citizen will be murdered.
Black immigrants seem to effect the attitudes of black US citizens in some way that lowers their murder rates.
Alexandre Z
Nov 25 2018 at 11:01pm
Is there an obligation for say, Missouri to accept someone from Alabama who has an obvious mental illness or a serious communicable disease? Is there an obligation for Los Angeles to accept someone from Long Beach who has an obvious mental illness or serious communicable disease?
Bedarz Iliachi
Nov 20 2018 at 12:57am
Nuclear power can provide 100% of the electricity. But can 100% of world population be immigrants? If all the people in France move to Germany and simultaneously the Germans move to France, why should this population movement generate economic growth, except in railways and moving industry?
Does the law of diminishing returns fails to operate for immigrants? Germans accepted 1.5 million migrants 3 years ago, do you have economic data for the acceleration in German growth caused by these immigrants?
john hare
Nov 20 2018 at 4:44am
Does the law of diminishing returns fails to operate for immigrants? Germans accepted 1.5 million migrants 3 years ago, do you have economic data for the acceleration in German growth caused by these immigrants?
Now this is something I would like to see definitive answers on. The immigrants I know personally are net producers though mostly of limited education, but I also recognize that I am experiencing selection bias. I suspect that random immigrants not migrating for economics reasons may not be as positive, or even negatives.
Jon Murphy
Nov 20 2018 at 10:03am
Why are you assuming no diminishing marginal returns for nuclear power plants?
Alan Goldhammer
Nov 20 2018 at 8:38am
IMO, this is a false comparison. Nuclear power has inherent risks that have to be carefully managed. Power plants require redundant safety control systems in contrast to fossil fuel facilities and the employment of safer and smaller new reactor designs has essentially been stagnant. While the US has only suffered one major reactor failure (Three Mile Island in PA) the issue of nuclear waste disposal has not yet been solved (the ground in the governments Hanford WA area is heavily contaminated with nuclear waste material). The lone commercial reprocessing plant was closed some years ago (France which I believe has the highest % of nuclear generated electricity extensively reprocesses fuel rods for reuse). Immigration poses no such risks.
Mark Z
Nov 20 2018 at 11:14am
You’re assuming that the generation of nuclear waste is such a huge problem in itself that it outweighs the costs of other types of energy generation, which I don’t think is self-evident.
Hazel Meade
Nov 20 2018 at 2:12pm
The risks are miniscule when compared to the risks of every other energy source available.
We literally had three reactors melt down at Fukushima, and nobody died or even got radiation sickness.
Warren Platts
Nov 22 2018 at 2:15am
Entire regions have been depopulated because of the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. It was mostly pure luck the same thing didn’t happen in Pennsylvania (or Idaho).
But hey, go vote with your dollars and your feet. Please move there and show how stupid everyone is for evacuating…
Mark Z
Nov 20 2018 at 11:11am
The potential benefits from open borders are overstated here. The primary impediment to human migration isn’t government regulation: it’s probably the fact that most people like living near the friends and family members they were born near, and in a place where most of the people speak the same language, the same dialect, and share certain cultural commonalities. If every country eliminated its borders, people wouldn’t suddenly allocate themselves optimally to maximize global GDP.
Jon Murphy
Nov 20 2018 at 11:41am
That certainly is true, but I don’t think that would undermine Caplan’s point at all. We’re not talking moving everybody, just the people who already want to move, and thus the benefits of migration likely outweigh the costs.
Even if Caplan’s estimations are high, open borders would still lead to an improvement given your reasoning above.
Hazel Meade
Nov 20 2018 at 2:09pm
I think you are overstating the case by comparing it to nuclear power. Nuclear power has very few legitimate downsides. There are virtually no downsides outside of losing the feelings of moral superiority that people get from opposing it, and taking a small hit to one’s self-esteem from being wrong about it. (Which seems to be enough to stop 90% of the left from changing their minds nonetheless).
I am in favor of vastly liberalizing immigration, but the reason it is opposed is because it does plausibly create negatives for certain segments of the population who have significant political power. Working class labor does have a rational case for why immigrants are bad for them. Nuclear opponents don’t.
Working class labor is engaged in a classic protectionist gambit with all the same incentives as protectionists everywhere. It is, of course, economically suboptimal and should be overcome, but it’s not an irrational position, unlike the opposition to nuclear. They’re just responding to the incentives they are presented with.
JohnBuridan
Nov 23 2018 at 8:55am
Came here to write this comment. 🙂
There is a difference between the benefits outweighing the costs to an individual and society. The costs of immigration are felt more by the less educated, by the more financially unstable, and by property developers. Furthermore, the costs aren’t economic, they are ‘social.’ There is no tool for comparing social discomfort with economic gain.
We need to find ways to decrease the costs enough so that those who are responding to their natural incentives will see the benefits of immigration and nuclear. Besides, if the benefits greatly outweigh the costs, then it makes sense to invest in the types of social programs which help immigrants assimilate and meet their neighbors, etc.
Zeek
Nov 20 2018 at 10:17pm
That only takes into account INTERNATIONAL immigration though. It’s surely much higher if you consider cases where people move from say, North Carolina to California, or from Berlin is in to Munich, etc. In fact, the reason that countries like the United States and Germany have such wealthy economies is BECAUSE it is easy to move vast distances within them for better opportunities. Unfortunately, most people can’t make the (correct) logical jump that it would be EVEN BETTER for EVERYONE if people could also easily move from say, Honduras to California, or Serbia to Munich.
Thaomas
Nov 22 2018 at 9:16pm
A further difference between nuclear power and more immigration is that nuclear power is not held bad ONLY by possible excessive regulation. in addition private insurance against Chernoble, Fukashima or even Three mile Island accidents and damages from leakage from long term storage sites would probably be unaffordable. This is also probably due to innumeracy/scientific illiteracy, but it runs parallel to regulation. There is not corresponding non-regulatory constraint to greater immigration.
Swami
Nov 24 2018 at 2:14pm
I too am extremely pro immigration. But open borders in any modern democratic society is suicidal and extremely anti utilitarian.
The reason is that prosperity and modern living standards depend upon institutions, and institutions depend upon beliefs, norms, shared goals and Schelling points. If you change a population too soon, too dramatically you will undermine its institutions and social fabric. Ten thousand immigrants in San Diego would make very little difference (probably not even ten thousand per year), but a million uneducated, clan based, religious extremists, who are both illiterate and don’t speak English would fundamentally change everything about San Diego’s institutions and way of operating. We would no longer have San Diego, we would have a free for all with people living and defecating in the canyons, using democracy to vote themselves and their clan brethren whatever redistribution or ignorant mystical belief is popular. The case is exaggerated just to make it obvious
Nobody has been able to refute this charge, without just hoping that it never happens. I am totally open to the theoretical possibility that society can adjust to massive influxes of extremely different types of people over a very short time. But I simply ask for some empirical proof.
Absent said proof, I will posit that open borders is a catastrophic, existential level risk to humanity. There are too many people who could get to France or the US too soon, too cheaply, too easily, who are too different from those who make modern society work.
Again, I am a huge fan of immigration. It is indeed a win/win. But open borders is potentially suicidal. It risks undermining the modern miracle itself which is responsible for the current living standards and population carrying capacity of the earth. Existential threats should not be taken lightly.
Alexandre Z
Nov 25 2018 at 11:20pm
Prominent reactor accidents have led to the creation of substantial exclusion zones which have been and remain depopulated. The Chernobyl exclusion zone for instance spans 2,600 km^2. Losing such large swats of land for the foreseeable future seems like a very high cost. You’re right that I have not done the math, but it seems like solar, wind and water turbines are more and more effective and have much less catastrophic failure modes.
Mark Bahner
Nov 28 2018 at 11:43pm
The Chernobyl (RBMK) reactor type is uniquely unsafe, with features such as a large positive steam-void coefficient (so overheating causes even more power output) and reactor power which is very sensitive to control rod movement. The lack of containment was also uniquely unsafe.
The exclusion zone size of 2600 sq km is significantly a result of not only the uniquely unsafe nuclear plant type, but also from the fact that the Ukraine is very sparsely populated. It simply doesn’t make sense to decontaminate the land when there is so much other land available in the Ukraine.
The cost of solar, wind and water turbines are heavily dependent on location. Solar will almost certainly never be cost-competitive with nuclear in a country like Canada…or Japan, even considering the cost of Fukushima. But photovoltaics are currently more cost-effective than nuclear plants in hot, sunny locations like Abu Dhabi (where the Barakah nuclear plant is still under construction).
Comments are closed.