Alex Tabarrok, over at Marginal Revolution, had a good post on February 14 about how little people know about how things work. He quoted from an essay by Charles Mann, who has a new series titled “How the System Works.”
Here’s a quote from Mann, a quote that Alex didn’t use but that I like:
At the rehearsal dinner I began thinking about Thomas Jefferson’s ink. My wife and I were at a fancy destination wedding on a faraway island in the Pacific Northwest. Around us were musicians, catered food, a full bar, and chandeliers, all set against a superb ocean sunset. Not for the first time, I was thinking about how amazing it is that relatively ordinary middle-class Americans could afford such events — on special occasions, at least.
My wife and I were at a tableful of smart, well-educated twenty-somethings — friends of the bride and groom. The wedding, with all its hope and aspiration, had put them in mind of the future. As young people should, they wanted to help make that future bright. There was so much to do! They wanted the hungry to be fed, the thirsty to have water, the poor to have light, the sick to be well.
But when I mentioned how remarkable it was that a hundred-plus people could parachute into a remote, unfamiliar place and eat a gourmet meal untroubled by fears for their health and comfort, they were surprised. The heroic systems required to bring all the elements of their dinner to these tables by the sea were invisible to them. Despite their fine education, they knew little about the mechanisms of today’s food, water, energy, and public-health systems. They wanted a better world, but they didn’t know how this one worked.
Both the part that Alex quoted and the part that I quote above reminded me of a troubling conversation at Washington University in St. Louis between Douglass North and his Ph.D. students.
In the fall of 1994, I was on leave at Wash U, where I was with Murray Weidenbaum’s Center for the Study of American Business. Nobel Prize winner Doug North was on the faculty and so I decided to sit in on a class he was teaching.
One day in class, he mentioned some U.S. mortality statistics. I don’t remember many details but he was talking about how during some period in the late 19th or early 20th century, the U.S. mortality rate had risen somewhat. (No, it wasn’t the Spanish flu; it happened before World War I.) Doug asked the students if they had any thoughts about why. One student, who was one of the brightest in class, suggested that it was due to the introduction of canned food. His hypothesis was that that somehow made food more dangerous. I was stunned; if anything, canning had to make food safer. Think of the fact that food would have spoiled if not canned and so you were taking a bigger chance of food poisoning before canning. I looked around and saw some of the students nodding in agreement with this student.
I was a non-paying guest in the class and so I didn’t feel right challenging the student. But Doug did, and made the point that I made above. I was hoping to see the lightbulb go on in a number of students’ eyes, but I didn’t. I think they had picked up an anti-technology, those-were-the-good-old-days attitude.
Ever since, I’ve seen many, many instances in which people show the same kind of ignorance that Charles Mann writes about.
I remember thinking that, just as Leonard Read came up with the idea of “I, Pencil,” someone could write something similar titled “I, Can.”
P.S. One reason I enjoyed teaching U.S. military officers is that hey were way more grounded in reality than those Wash U Ph.D. students.
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Feb 17 2025 at 8:09pm
My guess would be urbanization creating population densities allowing things like the flu, TB etc to flourish. Industrialization, indeed we are all familiar with the pick atop Rock Center in the 1930s (obviously not 20th century).
“Think of the fact that food would have spoiled if not canned and so you were taking a bigger chance of food poisoning before canning”
I buy canned food, peas, corn, carrots, because after all there’s nothibg worse than fresh vegetable flavor, right? I never buy one with a dent because sometime I learned dented cans might mean botulism. So yeah, maybe food rots quicker but maybe a purchaser would see the rot or smell it better? Dunno, fortunately never dealt with botulism. Today more people die in car accidents than ever did on horseback and I am led to believe that, initially, train safety wasn’t too good so one could jave a technological improvement that might result in slightly higher mortality.
So I wouldn’t say its a bad guess?
john hare
Feb 18 2025 at 3:59am
I would challenge that unless backed up by some strong data. Horses are quite dangerous compared to automobiles. Not just riding, but training, harnessing, walking behind, plowing, etc.
By total numbers maybe, by percent and especially utility, I seriously doubt it.
Craig
Feb 18 2025 at 10:13pm
You might very well be right on that one. Still as humans invented ladders, people began falling off of them so at least some of the time there is some tradeoff. Off the top of my head, with respect to the 19th century I think ‘trains’ which then were pretty dangerous apparently, also things like TB were circulating and as cities industrialized I think of things like lead paints and asbestos (not sure when they were invented), but still industrial pollutants generally.
Also was thinking about a scenario where generally improved conditions might lead to a situation where mortality drops and then death ‘catches up later’ think about a Hollywood fact pattern where I invent a pill where everybody will live until 150 years old. No exception, nothing will kill you, but at 150, that’s it. Well instantly mortality rates drop to 0 and will stay at zero until people age into death at 150 at which point the mortality rate increases, initially quite dramatically from the 0 baseline that had been established just prior.
Mathematically this could be possible with respect to number of children being born. 1800 I am googling up 7 children, by 1850 that number is just over 5. Ignore infant mortality for one moment and let’s just assume, for simplicity, everybody passed on at 50, well, the number of people aged 50 as a percent of total population goes up and likely the mortality rate with it which I tend to see expressed as X deaths per 100,000.
Craig
Feb 17 2025 at 8:15pm
Also just as an aside, usually when a professor asked a question like that in class, Johnny would say A. Mary woukd say B, Timmy would think ‘maybe C’ and the actual answer was somehow always counterintuitively surprising.
Ben y
Feb 17 2025 at 9:06pm
So what, indeed, was the reason for the lower mortality?
David Henderson
Feb 17 2025 at 11:34pm
I don’t know. I don’t think we came up with a good answer.
Bruce Freeman
Feb 18 2025 at 7:36am
Was there an increase death rates in the late 19th century? It doesn’t show in this graph (which may not have enough data points): United States: life expectancy 1860-2020 | Statista . The leading cause of death in the late 19th century was TB, which is viral and may have been exacerbated by increasing population density. The graph does appear to show the flu outbreak of 1918-20.
Alan Goldhammer
Feb 18 2025 at 8:51am
It’s pretty depressing on how little the current generation know about how things work. Perhaps it’s the lack of shop classes in high school that were mandatory back a lot of decades ago when I was a student. Cars have become increasingly more complex because of computerization (of course they are far more reliable as well). I’ve done a fair amount of plumbing and electrical work as a home owner and aside from saving money, found enjoyment in fixing things. I’ve been building my own computer workstations for the family for 15 years now and do general IT support as well (which is sometimes a bit of a bother). If you don’t know how things work, you may be in trouble at some point with no clue how to get out.
steve
Feb 18 2025 at 12:22pm
By the late 1800s, and earlier, canning was safe. Pasteur had figured out the science and the production methods well developed. However, the Golden scandal in the 1850s had a negative effect on canning in general which decreased its popularity. If you were talking about the mid 1800s then maybe that scandal could have resulted in people temporarily diverting away from canned foods to other preservation methods not as reliable.
https://www.thedailymeal.com/1319894/meat-controversy-nearly-ended-canned-food/
On the general topic, I am not so worried. We really do need the geeks who obsess over their particular interest. They invent stuff. They become entrepreneurs who obsess over developing their products and companies. We also need generalists. It’s the old fox and hedgehog thing. I used to laugh at the sub-specialists who worked for me as they seemed to think our entire budget should be devoted to their special area as they had little idea or concern about how everything else was paid for. Regardless, we still needed those guys.
Steve
Roger McKinney
Feb 18 2025 at 12:23pm
Most historians, sociologists, professors of humanities, and mainstream economists teach Marxism. So real economics has little chance of cutting through the disinformation.
Herb
Mar 1 2025 at 4:55pm
Just a thought. The Civil War had a high mortality rate which killed off ~600,000 people. I believe the average lifespan was around 50 years in this era. The children born between the war and the 1890s would be a larger portion of the population and in middle to old age and their mortality would increase.
I tale it that the mortality rate dropped again after this period (not many were lost in WWI).
Comments are closed.