Skepsis #41: Nuclear borders
The ethics and economics of open borders, and why nuclear power has still not delivered on its promise.
The case for open borders
I recently read “Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration”, by economist Bryan Caplan. The book is a persuasive case for open borders with arguments that can convince people from all sides of the political spectrum. It is very accessible since it's published as a graphic novel and written in a casual manner.
Dealing with such a complicated and contentious topic, the book serves as a good introduction to the ethical, economic, and social arguments in favor of more open immigration, not just in the US but globally. The book covers some of the main cases for open borders, such as:
The moral and ethical case
Helping people who are less well off and improving poor people's living standards is an unequivocally good thing to do. Giving people the option to move to a country where they get a better standard of living through increased wages, security, and all the other things we take more or less for granted in the first world is perhaps the simplest way to achieve this. The status quo is effectively global apartheid.
The Rawlsian thought experiment "the veil of ignorance" - which states that you should want to construct a system of laws based on not knowing beforehand where you'll end up socially and financially (behind a veil of ignorance) - applies as much to nations as it does to the global community; you don't want your place of birth to be the ultimate determinant of your prospects as a human being, only your own ability, and your choices.
The practical and economic case
Open borders would likely double global GDP per year because it unlocks a tidal way of economic growth based on hitherto untapped human potential, made possible by the economic environment afforded to people in developed nations (stable institutions, trade, safety, better health etc).
Open borders benefit not only the migrants, which is obvious but broadly also the receiving countries and the countries from which they have departed. Open borders really is the tide that lifts all boats, especially in the long run.
It's worth noting that open borders doesn't mean no borders at all. You can have all the relevant checks and controls on people passing through the border regardless if they are citizens or non-citizens.
An important point in the book is the idea that even when there are clearly demonstrated harms from an open borders policy, the right solution is not to restrict immigration across the board. Instead, you should develop keyhole solutions to deal with the specific problems, which are often both cheaper and the more ethical thing to do. This, Caplan argues, is the way to deal generally with any specific objection to such a policy. For example, if you are worried about the effect on the economy of too much immigration. Instead of outright prohibiting it, you could impose tariffs that essentially charge a fee for immigration subject to market forces - something many people would gladly pay if they are given the chance to immigrate to a nation like the US. (Not to mention the fact that there's a giant black market that takes advantage of refugees seeking asylum in other countries where they have to pay huge sums of money to get smuggled across borders by criminals.) Other keyhole solutions are also possible and many have already been implemented to one or another degree, like language or cultural fluency requirements for immigration/citizenship, restrictions on social welfare payouts for new immigrants, and more.
The main downside of the book is also its strength, I would have like to see a deeper exploration of some of the topics and arguments as I could still find myself coming up with objections that weren't fully answered. In addition, it's unfortunate (but understandable) that the book doesn't go into enough detail on non-US perspectives, arguments and issues around immigration.
Caplan points to data that shows that immigrants have actually been a net-positive in terms of costs to the receiving nation (at least for the US). Within 1-2 generations and even with social welfare costs taken into account, the receiving nations more than make up for it economically speaking. But would this still hold true in other places such as Europe today with its recent waves of immigration?
Although a lot of the statistics and arguments in favor of immigration and open borders are broadly applicable, I find that there are plenty of counter-points and statistics that may undermine at least some aspects of the case for open borders. An example would be the over-representation of foreign-born citizens and migrants in crime statistics in many parts of Europe, such as in Sweden. These particular examples are not contented with and I'm left wondering how this should affect one's assessment of the open borders or pro-immigration stance from a non-US perspective.
Another aspect is the demography of immigration. One of the main reasons for why immigration is a positive force to the economy - and why many western governments want(ed) more of it while many citizens didn't - is because migrants have been mostly young and working-aged, able to contribute to the labor force right away (which is very important to developed nations with low birth rates and larger cohorts of retirees). In an open borders world where moving is low-risk, should we expect a broader slice of a country's demography to emigrate? How would that change the equation?
Something not covered in the book but which I find to be an interesting thought are the second-order consequences of a truly open-borders world; if the world looked much like the EU does today with nearly free movement of products, services, and labor could this be what's required to enable something close to world peace? Would the fact that countries can trade freely and people can live and work wherever they want to integrate the world to such an extent that war becomes nearly impossible, not to mention highly undesirable? I imagine that in such a world, going to war with another country would be like California declaring war on the state of Texas, which although not outside the realms of possibility, would be highly unlikely at this point. (Because of the high degree of cultural, economic, and social exchange between the states.) Moreover, a world with open borders would enable fair competition between nations because people could freely move to the countries that have the best institutions and the best prospects for a good life. People "Voting with their feet" by moving would mean that bad governments are forced to improve their policies, serving as a check on their power. If they want to retain their citizens they can't rely on other countries' closed borders to keep them in.
Ultimately, I find the book's main thesis quite convincing: even when we account for all the [possible] negative effects of a sharp increase in immigration, economically/politically/socially, the benefits to both migrants, the receiving countries, and the world would still drastically outweigh the harms. An open borders policy is one we should all take much more seriously.
Even the staunchest anti-immigration proponents can come away from this book having learned something new, and at the very least, the book serves as a good foundation for exploring the topic further.
The problem with nuclear power is not nuclear power
Jason Crawford, an independent researcher within the field of progress studies, recently reviewed the book "Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop" that tries to answer the question: Why has nuclear power not delivered on its promise? Although the article is largely a book review, I found it useful as a broad overview of the arguments for and against nuclear power, as well as what we can expect from it in the future.
In contrast to the public’s perception of nuclear power, I've come to believe it is as close to a panacea for dealing with climate change AND our increasing energy needs that we can hope to get (before we run out of time). I’m afraid that the failure to expand nuclear power usage and build more modern nuclear power plants is something we will pay sorely for.
"This is the Gordian knot. Nuclear power is the sword that can cut it: a scalable source of dispatchable (i.e., on-demand), virtually emissions-free energy. It takes up very little land, consumes very little fuel, and produces very little waste. It‘s the technology the world needs to solve both energy poverty and climate change."
Most fears that people have around nuclear power and most arguments against it are largely based on a misunderstanding of the safety concerns, its true costs, and the near-term viability of alternative renewable energy sources. In the book, as explained in the article, the author outlines some of the main reasons why nuclear power still only makes up about 10% of the electricity consumed worldwide.
First of all, the nuclear power industry has faced stark and burdensome regulations that most other energy sources have not even come close to - not even oil and coal. For example, waste from nuclear power is the only form of waste from energy production that is safely stored and managed. Batteries and old solar panels often end up polluting the environment on land-fills after they have been expended and aren’t nearly as well-regulated. Should tougher regulations on the management and disposal of other forms of energy waste be enforced the cost-benefit calculation would shift more clearly in favor of nuclear power.
It's good that we take nuclear power safety very seriously, but it should be treated more like how we treat airplane safety. Everyone knows that airline crashes can and will happen, and we do everything we can to prevent them and to learn from them when they happen - but we don't shut down the whole industry because we realize that the benefits outweigh the costs by a wide margin.
Second, the public's fear of nuclear radiation is largely unfounded. People will happily bake themselves in the sunshine at every chance but don't realize (or don’t care) that they are getting bombarded with harmful UV radiation. And at the same time, they overestimate the harm from other sources of radiation generally and nuclear energy in particular. Of course, high doses of radiation are very harmful and deadly, but I'm only slightly exaggerating when I say that you're getting more radiation from bananas throughout your life than you are from sources of nuclear energy (including nuclear meltdowns).
The reality is that nuclear power is very safe, and the scaremongering promoted through most popular media and news during the past half-century has only helped to fuel the misperception that it isn't. There have quite literally only been a few dozen deaths from nuclear reactor meltdowns and the second-order effects are not as bad as people have come to believe.
"The deaths from Chernobyl, 35 years ago, were due to unforgivably bad reactor design that we‘ve advanced far beyond now. There were zero deaths from radiation at Three Mile Island or at Fukushima. (The only deaths from the Fukushima disaster were caused by the unnecessary evacuation of 160,000 people, including seniors in nursing homes.)"
In a misguided effort to appease people’s worries, the nuclear power industry has been promoting a story that nuclear power meltdowns and disasters will never lead to large releases of radiation, which is unrealistic and unconvincing. Instead, they should explain the fact that the negative risks of low doses of radiation exposure are very small and treat safety concerns in the same way the airline industry does its safety issues.
"In reality, we‘ve seen three major disasters—Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima—in less than 15,000 reactor-years of operation worldwide. We should expect about one accident per 3,000 reactor-years going forward, not one per million. If nuclear power were providing most of the world‘s electricity, there would be an accident every few years."
But even in the case of pretty bad nuclear power disasters, like Chernobyl, the worst case is not that bad. It’s estimated that only 1-200 people have or will suffer from Thyroid cancer as a result of the increased exposure to radiation after the accident, which is a cancer form that is very treatable.
Along with a few key initiatives like regional or global carbon taxes, we need a renaissance for and the swift, widespread adoption of nuclear power to keep climate change and global warming at manageable levels. We need to do that while also enabling further economic growth and technological progress, not just for the developed world but to ensure that we can lift the developing world out of poverty and into a much higher standard of living without resorting to a reliance on fossil fuels - as we have done in the developed world.
For a quick overview of some of these topics, check out this podcast interview with environmentalist and nuclear power advocate Michael Shellenberger.
All in all, I wonder: What if we already have the tools for dealing with climate change and poverty at the same time? Namely, open borders and nuclear power. I welcome your thoughts, responses, and counter-arguments wherever you may disagree on these topics.
Movie: Stowaway
In a near-future world, a science mission to Mars accidentally brings a launch support engineer into space, leading to damage to the ship's life support systems. Faced with the prospect that they won't all be able to survive their trip, the crew is forced to make the worst decision imaginable. An exciting space thriller that could have been really great movie, but is still definitely worth a watch.
Tyler Cowen interviewed by Lex Fridman
Tyler is one of my favorite public intellectuals. He's smart, nuanced, and incredibly well-read across a wide range of subjects outside of his field of economics. They discuss capitalism, communism, philosophy, ethnic foods, and much more. Tyler usually offers a different perspective that runs counter to the accepted narrative and I always come away having learned something new after reading or listening to him. Here's the podcast in video form:
As always, stay safe out there.
/Phil