The Myopia Behind the Protectionism

There appears to be something in the protectionist genome that triggers obsessive factual cherry-picking. Genetics may explain the protectionist propensity for Malthusian sensationalism, too. Some of the folks at the U.S. Business and Industry Council provide the latest example.

In an article that ran in yesterday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, erstwhile doomsayer Alan Tonelson and a colleague present their view that the “fiscal stimulus” will have limited impact because consumers have few alternatives to spending their checks on imports. They provide statistics showing the rising import share in major consumable goods categories to support their argument that even if consumers wanted to buy American, it is becoming close to impossible. As a result, the stimulus “benefits will leak overseas,” and the “near-term economic performance will be modest at very best.”

And, as sure as all roads lead to Rome, “failed trade policies deserve much of the blame” for allowing the “import tide [to grow] large enough to sandbag Washington’s best –laid stimulus plans?” Let me review critical assertions from the article and suggest some genetic tweaks (i.e., the truth).

Assertion 1: “[B]uying products (or services) made in the United States creates the biggest and quickest domestic growth bang per stimulus buck because it encourages companies to ramp up output and possibly build new facilities and hire more workers.”

But in fact…

…the fiscal stimulus package is unlikely to have any effect on output and investment. Even if Americans could only purchase domestic goods and services, suppliers would know that the uptick in demand was a short-term response to the stimulus, and not worthy of expanded investment and output.

Assertion 2: “American spending on imports would increase U.S. growth as well – by stimulating the wholesale and retail and transportation and warehousing sectors.”

Kudos for the half-truth, but…

… let me add that U.S. spending on imports helps American industries all along the supply chain – not just in the four sectors mentioned. U.S. design, advertising, marketing, legal and other professional services, and yes, manufacturing industries (like components, raw materials, and capital equipment suppliers) all partake of the benefits of import sales in the United States. Protectionists have difficulty comprehending that the world is no longer characterized by “our producers” against “their producers.” With proliferation of global supply chains, import sales support more profitable U.S. activities at both ends of the value chain (from product design and finance operations to logistics and advertising).

Assertion 3: “Higher profits and stock prices in these sectors [wholesale, retail, transportation, and warehousing] would help, too, by enriching American investors.”

Uh huh, but…

…didn’t John Edwards just drop out of the race because he couldn’t convince voters that there are two Americas? Indeed, higher profits and stock prices would benefit American investors, but the phrase “enriching American investors” is intended to connote “The Rich.” In fact, Americans across income groups hold stock or mutual funds.

Assertion 4: “Unfortunately, this smaller stimulus bounce is inevitable – and resulting growth will fall well short of politicians’ and voters’ expectations – because import levels have grown so high for so many types of manufactured products.”

Right, but more wrong because…

…a negligible stimulus bounce is inevitable, but it has nothing to do with imports. If imports were at the considerably lower levels that the authors implicitly prescribe, there wouldn’t be any discussion about a stimulus plan. Policymakers wouldn’t be panicking about a relatively mild slowdown after 25 years of nearly uninterrupted economic growth. Instead, without imports, our $14 trillion economy would be a considerably smaller economy, with anemic annual growth rates evocative of Japan—the bête noire of protectionists past. Our problem would be quite serious. Instead, the increasing volume of imports has inspired competition and U.S. productivity gains, which has delivered better prices, higher quality and more choices, while freeing up resources to invest or purchase U.S. and foreign goods and services.

Assertion 5: “In many major consumer goods categories … the rates of import penetration are much higher. For example, in 2006, nearly 96 percent of the men’s dress and sport shirts sold in the United States were imports. More than 90 percent of the non-athletic shoes came from overseas, along with nearly 90 percent of the women’s coats, and more than 86 percent of the women’s blouses.”

Good statistics that support a different conclusion because…

…even though Americans rely heavily on imported shoes and clothing (as evidenced by the stats), those products are subject to the highest duties in the U.S. tariff schedule. In fact, while clothing and footwear comprised 5.1 percent of the total value of imports in 2005, duties collected on clothing and footwear accounted for 42.3 percent of all duties collected. Not only are these tariffs some of the worst regressive taxes under U.S. law (lower-income Americans spend a higher percentage of their income on these necessities), but if you’re worried about “leakage” from the stimulus package then you should support abolishing those tariffs. What’s the sense in handing chunks of your allowance back to the government?

Protectionists tend to see the U.S. market as the reserve of U.S. producers, while simultaneously berating foreigners for protecting their own. But there is a strong linkage between imports and exports. If Americans don’t buy imports, foreigners can’t buy U.S. exports. If Americans spend large chunks of their stimulus checks on imports, U.S. manufacturers are sure to add to the record export (and output and profit) performance they’ve been experiencing over the past couple years.

National Review on the FISA Overhaul

Yesterday, National Review Online ran a misleading and misguided editorial on the FISA debate. The editorial states that “Last year, a FISA-court decision required judicial authorization even in those cases where the government sought to monitor terrorists communicating with each other outside the United States.” This is doubly misleading.

On the one hand, the FISA ruling only held that a warrant was needed to install wiretaps on US soil to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications as they pass through US infrastructure. No one has ever claimed that FISA has jurisdiction over communications that occur entirely outside of the United States. Second, both sides of the FISA debate in Congress agree that the law should be changed to explicitly exempt foreign-to-foreign communications from FISA oversight. Every serious legislative proposal in Congress, including the one the House passed last November, changes this aspect of the FISA rules. So it’s extremely misleading to present this as if it’s the heart of the dispute.

In reality, the president has threatened to veto the House’s legislation for two reasons that have nothing to do with foreign-to-foreign communications: judicial oversight of calls that originate on US soil and the lack of amnesty for telecom companies. National Review’s take on the latter issue is particularly wrongheaded:

Some Democrats oppose the legislation because they want the FISA court to have more authority. They laud it as a responsible manager of intelligence collection, even though tribunal is unaccountable and has a spotty record. (The most important part of the Patriot Act was its dismantling of the “wall” between agencies that obstructed intelligence gathering before 9/11. The FISA court tried to undo that part of the act, but was thankfully unsuccessful.) We have less confidence in the judiciary’s ability to manage wartime intelligence operations.

Other Democrats oppose the measure (Sen. Chris Dodd is threatening a filibuster) in no small part because of the telecom immunity provision. This objection is specious. The bill provides protection only for companies that acted on assurances from the administration that the program was lawful. If the companies cannot bank on such assurances, they have no incentive to cooperate in the intelligence collection that is a must if Americans are to be protected.

Rather than complaining about courts being “unaccountable,” most of us call this “judicial independence” and consider it a virtue of our system of government. And an important part of judicial independence is the principle that a warrant from an independent judge, not merely “assurances from the administration,” are required to permit searches of Americans on American soil. That’s the whole point of having a warrant process. AT&T and Verizon’s lawyers probably know this area of the law as well as anyone in the country. They can and should have done what Qwest did and told the NSA to come back when they had a warrant. Reports suggest that telecom companies that have chosen to cooperate with the government have made a healthy profit from doing so, while firms like Qwest have taken a financial hit for obeying the law.

If Congress lets the lawbreaking firms off the hook this time, they will have absolutely no incentive to obey the law (and protect their customers’ rights) in the future. National Review’s advocacy of amnesty for telecom companies is especially ironic because for the last year, they’ve been banging on about how amnesty for illegal immigrants “rewards lawbreaking” and breeds disrespect for the law. At least under the leading immigration reform proposals, immigrants would have been required to admit their lawbreaking and pay a fine. In contrast, NRO believes that lawbreaking telecom companies deserve immediate, blanket amnesty with no penalty or even admission of guilt. If we want to foster a culture of respect for the law, there’s no better place to start than with some of the largest, most powerful companies in America.

Common Sense, Free Enterprise Values in Virginia

The Richmond Times-Dispatch issues a stirring editorial call today for free-enterprise insurance reform. It’s worth quoting in full:

In a state that ostensibly is a bastion of capitalism, government intervention in the marketplace turns up surprisingly often. Two parties who are negotiating a contract for a good or service often find a third party – the commonwealth – sticking its nose in where it doesn’t belong.

For decades, Virginia law prevented insurance companies and policyholders from deciding who could receive health coverage. Not until three years ago did the General Assembly pass legislation allowing group accident and sickness policies to cover any class of persons mutually agreed upon by the insurance company and the policyholder.

Before then, health-insurance coverage was limited to spouses and dependent children. If a worker wanted to include someone else in his or her coverage, the law said he couldn’t – even if the worker’s employer and the insurance company both were happy to fulfill the request.

This year Del. Adam Ebbin is sponsoring legislation (HB 865) that would open up life-insurance coverage in much the same way: It would allow insurance companies to offer group coverage to anyone policyholders wished to cover – brother or sister, elderly parent, life partner, or third cousin twice removed – not just spouses and children.

Note well what this bill is not: a mandate. Insurance companies would not be required to cover anybody they did not wish to. They would remain free to reject coverage they did not care to offer. They simply would not be prohibited from covering persons they are willing to cover.

In a free market, that is precisely how insurance ought to work: The buyer and the seller of the policy work out the terms between themselves. The state’s job is merely to enforce the contract – not to write it. Ebbin’s bill deserves a resounding and unanimous aye.

The Times-Dispatch is well known as a conservative editorial page, so it’s gratifying to see them endorsing this pro-free enterprise, pro-business bill – even though some conservatives might object to it on the grounds that it will allow, though not compel, businesses to offer group life insurance to employees with same-sex partners. The Times-Dispatch commendably wants such issues worked out within companies, not by a state legislative ban.

Housing Slump Puts Schools in Danger … of Slipping Below $15K Per-Pupil!

It’s a sad day for America. The Washington Post brings us incisive reporting on the latest casualties of the housing slump:

The rapid cooling of the Washington area’s real estate market has hit school systems with force, abruptly ending years of plenty and compelling superintendents to ask their teachers, bus drivers and custodians to do more with less.

The summary news lede simply doesn’t do justice to this looming educational catastrophe … we need to turn to the numbers.

At Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, parents fear cuts in Montgomery County’s proposed $2.1 billion budget will threaten the math-science magnet program.

The desperate schools of Montgomery County will need to find some way stretch the $15,246 they have to spend on each of the 137,745 students in their schools. The Post informs us that the $2.1 billion budget is “a year-to-year increase of $110 million. But it would be the smallest annual increase since 1997.” This 5 percent increase is the smallest in 10 years! Surely bake sales must be held.

But the devastation is not confined to the wealthier Districts …

The financial hard times are even more visible in jurisdictions with less money to draw on. In Prince George’s County, no money for teachers’ raises is available in the proposed $1.67 billion budget, and an ambitious program to create schools that run from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade is on hold.

Somehow, Prince George’s County must find a way to educate their 134,000 students with just $12,463 to spend per child.

And Virginia is perhaps the hardest hit of all. Fairfax County is staring down a $100 million shortfall that may force them to stop paying some students’ fees for taking Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate tests.

With only a $2.1 billion budget and $15,246 per student, there is no room for such extravagances in Fairfax County.

I have saved the most touching story for last …

In Loudoun County, School Board members approved a budget 14 percent higher than last year’s to accommodate an expected 3,000 new students. The county faces a projected $250 million shortfall, and the 54,000 student system will probably have to look for new places for savings.

My heart goes out to the Loudoun County administrators. I can’t see how anyone can be expected to educate a child with just $15,000 or to cover a 6 percent enrollment increase with just a 14 percent increase in the budget.

Clearly, our schools have fallen on hard times. We must dig deep into our pockets and pull out just a little bit more to get them through these trying times. We owe it to our children.

Terrorism and Terrorism Counter-Strategy: Some Rudimentary, Necessary Thoughts

I share Tim Lee’s disagreements with our colleague Roger Pilon’s WSJ op-ed. Roger received far less gentle treatment elsewhere. I’m impressed, as usual, with Tim’s depth on the FISA law and the FISA debate.

This stir reminds me of a broader problem that pervades debates on anti-terror policies. Many perfectly intelligent public policy experts still lack a sound understanding of terrorism as a strategy. This degrades their ability to conceive of counter-strategic responses, causing them to promote ideas that would not help and that would even hurt our efforts to control terrorism.

In early January, I presented at a conference held by the International School on Disarmament and Research on Conflicts, the Italian branch of the 1995 Nobel-Prize-winning Pugwash Group. The topic of the conference was “Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Human Rights.” I have done some work on the privacy implications of technical anti-terrorist efforts, of course, and am increasingly (and necessarily, it seems) focusing on terrorism strategy and counter-strategy. I presented on both and learned a great deal from the perspectives represented at the conference.

Though I don’t feel fully expert yet, I’d like to share some more detailed thinking about terrorism and counter-terrorism strategy. I hope more people will put their thinking into this kind of context.

To Define or Not to Define “Terrorism”

The terrorism definition I offered was: “a strategy used by the weak to goad the strong into self-injurious overreaction.” Rightly, my colleagues prompted me to refine this to “A strategy of violence used by the weak to goad the strong into self-injurious overreaction.” Civil disobedience is designed to elicit overreaction, of course, but it is as far from terrorism as one can get.

Some questions emerged during the conference that are relevant:

  • Can states use terrorism? Or is it only used by non-state actors? - These are important questions. My preference is to find that terrorism is only used by non-state actors. When a state tries to provoke another in some way (even using proxies who look like non-state terrorists), this can and should be treated as a tactic in war. The terrorism counter-strategy I’ll discuss below is inapposite for when a state does terrible things, and this should be treated as a separate problem.
  • Is terrorism only used by the weak? - Regrettably to me, I have heard the United States cited as a possible example of a “strong terrorist.” It is possible that the strong might use terror to provoke, but the strong are almost always states whose use of terror may be acts of war or crimes against humanity, but not acts of terrorism that can be addressed with terrorism counter-strategy.
  • Does terrorism require attacks on civilians? - I think not. Terrorism can be committed by attacks on civilian or military infrastructure, or even without attack - by making a credible threat. To the extent it can be defined at all, terrorism can not be defined with reference to specific targets or acts.
  • Is terrorism a crime or an act of war? - Placing terrorism in a conceptual box like this is a part of developing a counter-strategy, which I discuss below.

Intentional creation of fear would also seem to be an element of terrorism. Not all fear-creating is terrorism, of course. Legitimate war-making probably includes and requires instilling fear at key times in key populations.

Despite all this, I’m tentatively persuaded that it is not actually useful to spend a lot of time parsing it down to the “definitive definition” - not for these purposes, at least. Terrorism requires a definition if you’re going to extradite people for “terrorism,” but as I conclude below, terrorist acts are best treated as crimes and made extraditable as such. States, especially, will use the process of defining terrorism for self-preservation, treating all non-state violence as terrorism. They do this to have a rhetorical upper-hand when confronting any rebellion, even a legitimate one, fought fairly. George Washington’s army may have been considered “terrorist” by the British.

What matters is not the definition, but how terrorism works.

Terrorism at Work: Overreaction
I do believe that terrorism has a defining characteristic: it seeks to goad the strong into self-injurious overreaction, with results falling into the following categories:

  • Waste of Blood and Treasure - Terrorist attacks - or well-placed threats of attack - can prompt the victim to waste its own resources, both the blood of its soldiers and the wealth of its people. The U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks provides many examples of both. It terms of blood, there is the Iraq War. (n.b., I was sympathetic to the war at the beginning and quite capable of defending its rationale, but the result now is clear: that we have wasted many lives and much treasure.) The creation and operation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration are basically permanent multi-billion-dollar drains on the public fisc. The REAL ID Act and Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative are similarly wasteful, self-destructive programs. These are just a few examples and they all were prompted by a $500,000 al Qaeda investment. Ohio State professor John Mueller’s legendary Regulation article is required reading for anyone studying terrorism or thinking in terms of terrorism counter-strategy.
  • Recruitment and Sympathy Gains - A strong power victimized by terrorism is very likely to do violence or take other responses that are badly directed, or even entirely misdirected. This will tend to engender sympathy for the terrorists and aid in their recruiting and support. The Iraq War has drawn energy to al Qaeda, as the U.S. is widely perceived as a Middle East menace, its good intentions unknown. Not just the war-making matters, of course; its conduct does, as well. Think Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo - gigantic PR victories for terrorists, and many other opponents of U.S. power. Paddy Hillyard from Queen’s University Belfast has articulated well how British responses to IRA terror won sympathy and recruits for them. Lashing out against the communities in which terrorists live, or the places where they hide, forces local neutrals into the wrong camp. These are people who are uniquely positioned to undermine those terrorists should they so choose.
  • Weakened Political Order/Society - Finally, terrorism causes what I have tentatively called a “weakened political order/society.” Terror attacks on the Western democracies have caused them to come somewhat loose from their (classical) liberal moorings. In the U.S. since 9/11, we have seen proposals for massive domestic surveillance, we have seen Americans taken prisoner and held without charges, we have seen surveillance conducted in violation of the law. These are just a few of the more prominent examples. (A list Paddy Hillyard produced with reference to Northern Ireland looks remarkably familiar.) Now, naming all these “civil liberties violations” is not mere (neo) liberal carping. Mike German’s book Thinking Like a Terrorist shows that terrorists are battling for legitimacy. With little ability to build their own legitimacy, they can at least degrade their opponent’s. Overreaction by the victim state erodes its claim of moral authority to rule. This is more relevant when a terrorist group makes a credible claim on territory or when it represents a distinct population, of course, but look at how Osama bin Laden has occasionally offered to make “great power”-like deals with European states. This is a man seeking after legitimacy. Unfortunately, U.S. officials have given it to him in their rhetoric by allowing HIM to declare war! U.S. officials have likewise undermined U.S. legitimacy (and grown the terrorists’) by seeking excessive new powers, exaggerating threats, and undermining the rule of law. It is a successful execution of the terrorism strategy when an attack causes a state to deviate from its ordinary practices and founding ideals.

So now that we have the terrorism strategy in hand, and how it works, we can turn to counter-strategy. My potentially-clever line summarizing good terrorism counter-strategy is:

Do what you can – AND NOTHING MORE!

There are lots of things to do that can thwart terrorism and defend against terrorist attacks, such as infiltrating and disrupting terror groups. (They have to operate clandestinely so they are wonderfully paranoid. This can be exploited, and has been in the past.) Targeted, lawful surveillance of terrorists and terror suspects is good. Controlling access to weapons of mass destruction and WMD precursors - vital. Taking reasonable precautions to secure against likely vectors of attack on infrastructure. Preparing for attacks and their aftermaths. Communications that accurately convey risks and appropriate responses. These are all viable counter-terrorism activities - and it’s not nearly an exhaustive list.

The counter-strategy’s most interesting part, of course, is the “nothing more” part. This is the commonsensical but elusive idea that you should not take anti-terrorism measures that aren’t going to work. Believe it or not, this implies a slight preference for inaction (or perhaps under-action) in anti-terror efforts. If it isn’t provably a good idea, don’t do it!

This is not pacifist foolishness; this is hard-edged counter-strategy taking advantage of the fact that terrorism alone is inherently self-destructive. Only when joined with overreaction does terrorism become “productive.” Overreaction must be avoided.

So our counter-strategies, which map to the gains terrorists seek, are:

  • Hold on to Blood and Treasure - If at all possible, don’t go to war. As I said, I was sympathetic to the Iraq War at the outset. My intellectual superiors here at Cato did a better job of it at the time, and now continue to counsel less war over more. This is consistent with good terrorism counterstrategy.
  • Don’t Give the Gift of Overreaction - As I touched on above, terrorists want their opponents to strike at them and miss. They don’t even mind too much if they get hit - as long as there is some good collateral damage. Overreaction - in war, prisoner detention and mistreatment - even in the conduct of investigation - these things are all good for terrorists because it helps them get recruits and support.
  • Stand By the Values of Your Society - Similarly, deviating from the rule of law, seeking extraordinary powers, using mass surveillance - these things all give terrorists legitimacy by admitting their power. These things also undermine the legitimacy of an incumbent government by placing the state at odds with its people. (By the way, false security measures will do yet more to undermine a state’s legitimacy when they actually fail. Placing the government’s legitimacy on the table in a bet on “security theater” is anti-terrorism malpractice.) When the terror-victim-government simply behaves well, this can be a devastating blow to terrorism because it causes the bad behavior of terrorists to dominate public perceptions. It destroys terrorists’ legitimacy and it undercuts their support, sympathy, recruitment, and fundraising.

One thing about all this is important: “War” is the wrong reaction by any measure. Going to war literally saps a nation of blood and treasure. It also will result in damage that draws sympathy and support to the terrorists. The rhetoric of “war” also gives terrorist groups legitimacy in the eyes of their current and potential allies, supporters, or members. I get very frustrated when I hear U.S. public officials give Osama bin Laden this gift.

Rather than war, terrorism should be treated as a crime problem, for at least two reasons: First, that treatment is far less likely to lead to overreaction, and, second, treating terrorism as a crime is an energy-draining “dis” to terrorists themselves. My colleague Roger Pilon is mistaken to put our efforts against terrorism within the constitution’s “Commander in Chief” power, whatever its appropriate scope is. As far as extradition, terrorists should be extradited based on the criminal acts or criminal planning they have committed. (Perhaps certain conspiracies might be added to the substantive law in some countries.) Treating them fairly - as criminals - will quickly melt the “mystique” that terrorists try to mold around themselves.

There are many pieces missing from this discussion. There are certainly many details about which reasonable people can differ. One thing I think is certain: Failing to address terrorism counter-strategically has done our nation immense damage, and threatens still more. We need to change that.

Emerging Technologies: A New Era of Regulation

The world is gearing up to regulate new technologies such as genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, robotics, and nanotechnology. While extensive regulation of all these areas is under consideration, the most pressing in policymakers’ minds seems to be nanotechnology. And no wonder – the industry is booming. Lux Research estimates that nanotechnology was incorporated into more than $50 billion worth of manufactured goods last year, and that by 2014 the nanotechnology market will grow to a $2.6 trillion industry.

On February 28-29, 2008, the Food and Drug Law Institute is sponsoring the First Annual Conference on Nanotechnology Law, Regulation and Policy in Washington, D.C. No where in the world does any nano-specific regulation exist. But it is on its way. At this conference government officials such as Norris Alderson, FDA Associate Commissioner for Science; Michael Taylor, author of an FDA report on nanotechnology and Sen. Ron Wyden, co-chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus will describe their vision for future nanotechnology regulation.

On January 22, science and technology advisors to European presidents, the EU, and various multinational organizations attended a meeting in London sponsored by the Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies to discuss the risks, policies, and ethics associated with emerging technologies. The meeting was confidential, and attendees agreed not to quote any of the participants, but I am allowed to share my prepared comments:

Presentation, as prepared, for the C-PET Meeting: “Risk, Policy and Ethics,” London, 22 January 2008

Nigel asked me to give you a sense of the American / libertarian approach to emerging technologies. Let me being by sharing with you some dialogue from a movie that I first learned about from students at a U.S. high school for children gifted in science and technology. The movie is called Serenity and it (as well as the T.V. show Firefly on which it was based) has almost a cult following among American students interested in science and technology.

Background: The Earth becomes too crowded and dozens of other planets are terraformed to support human life. The central planets form an Alliance rule by an interplanetary parliament. The narrator tells us at the beginning of the film that “the Alliance was a beacon of civilization. The savage outer planets were not so enlightened and refused Alliance control.” In a war to “ensure a safer universe” the Alliance defeated the Independents. “And, now everyone,” the narrator continues, “can enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of true civilization.”

First scene: A school classroom: a student asks “Why were the Independents even fighting us? Why wouldn’t they want to be more civilized?” The heroine answers out of turn, “We meddle. People don’t like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.” The teacher responds, “We’re not telling people what to think … we’re just trying to show them how.”

Scene near the middle of the movie: The heroine and her friends find an outer-planet where everyone is dead. A beacon leads them to a laboratory where they find a recording left behind by an Alliance scientist.

Dialogue:

These are just a few of the images we’ve recorded. And you can see…it isn’t what we thought. There’s been no war here…and no terraforming event. The environment is stable. It’s the Pax. The G-[exclamation] Paxilon Hydroclorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work…they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There’s a million people here, and they all just let themselves die.

[Crashing] [Gasps] I have to be quick. About a tenth of a percent of…the population had the opposite reaction to the Pax. Their aggressor response increased beyond madness. They have become… [crashing] Well, they’ve killed most of us. And not just killed…they’ve done things.

Reavers [monsters that have been attacking settlers] They made them.

I won’t live to report this, but people have to know. We meant it for the best… to make people safer. [Reavers growling] God! [Woman screaming][Reaver growling]

This movie, so loved by science oriented teenagers all over the U.S., doesn’t reflect a new mistrust in government. One of America’s founding principles is a mistrust of government. Our constitution contains numerous safeguards to protect individuals against tyranny of the majority and the abuse of power by government officials.

For all of us, emerging technologies conjure up images of both a new enlightenment and the possible destruction of what is most valuable in human nature. Of course, there are also a range of possibilities in between. Talking and thinking about the necessary and sufficient conditions for what it means to be human, as we have done here today, is important, and we should share our insights with the public.

The role governments should play in the development of emerging technology is to protect academic freedom, encourage the sharing of information, and enforce informed consent for research subjects. Governments should not try to assess what types of research are most beneficial to society. There is no shared conception of humanity and not even the wisest men and women could possibly judge for anyone other than themselves whether the use of a particular technology would constitute an affront to their humanity.

The Nobel economist F. A. Hayek in his last book The Fatal Conceit argued that human beings are daunted by unintended consequences and that governments that try to regulate human interaction based on broad-scale economic and social predictions are destined to make large mistakes. Applying Hayek’s reasoning to emerging technologies means that the best way to ensure caution is to keep government out of the pursuit of scientific knowledge. When governments, which are run by individuals no less fallible than the rest of humanity, make mistakes, those mistakes loom larger than life, affecting not only the lives of the individuals who willingly participated in private experiments, but the lives of whole populations.

I have time for only one example, but it is a poignant one. At the beginning of the 20th century, eugenics was touted as the answer to all of humanity’s problems. Great scientists such as Alexander Graham Bell and Carl Campbell Brigham (inventor of the SAT test used to test American students for university admissions) at first supported eugenics, as did numerous Nobel Laureates, most European governments, and every U.S. president between 1901 and 1933. (See below.) Many people all over the world worked hard both in their private lives and through government policy to implement the principles of eugenics.

Both individuals and governments had their own ideas about how to improve the human gene pool. Individuals tried marrying only people they considered superior specimens of humanity. Governments, on the other hand, imposed laws against interracial marriage, sterilized those they believed to be of low intelligence or mentally ill, and even exterminated whole groups of people who because of their race, sexual orientation or religion were thought inferior specimens of humanity. If the eugenics movement had remained in the private sphere, resulting in nothing more than discriminatory marriage practices by some private individuals, the word “eugenics” would be remembered as little more than a silly fad. Instead, governments got involved and now the word “eugenics” is almost synonymous with mass sterilizations and genocide.

Emerging technologies such as genetic engineering, nanotechnology, mechanical implants, artificial intelligence, and all the others we’ve discussed today may be the answer to many of humanity’s problems. Or, they may be the next eugenics. Government intervention turns potential mishaps into disastrous tragedies. Let’s keep government out of science and let the advances and mistakes take place in the private sector where humanity can learn from scientific successes and failures on a manageable scale.

NOBEL LAUREATES WHO SUPPORTED EUGENICS

• Theodor Roosevelt (1906 – Peace prize. U.S. President 1901-1908)
• Elihu Root (1912 – U.S. Secretary of State under Teddy Roosevelt )
• Alexis Carrel (1912 –Experimented with tissue and organ transplantation)
• Woodrow Wilson (1919 – Peace prize – U.S. President 1912-1919)
• George Bernard Shaw (1925 – Literature)
• Thomas Hunt Morgan (1933 – Role of chromosomes in heredity)
• Jane Addams (1933 – Peace prize for her social work)
• H.J. Muller (1946 – Discovered that x-rays cause mutations)
• Winston Churchill (1953 – Prize in literature. Prime Minister of England 1940-45)
• Linus Pauling (1954 – Nature of certain chemical bonds)
• William Shockley (1956 – Semiconductor research)
• Joshua Lederberg (1958 – Recombination of genetic material in bacteria)
• Francis Crick (1962 – Discovery of the structure of DNA)
• Konrad Lorenz (1973 - Organization elicitation of individual and social behavior patterns)
• Gunnar Myrdal (1974 – Interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena)

OTHER FAMOUS PEOPLE WHO SUPPORTED EUGENICS

• All U.S. Presidents between 1900 and 1933. In addition to Roosevelt and Wilson, there were Taft, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover.
• Helen Keller – “some ‘defective’ children should not be saved from a premature death because of their propensity to criminality.”
• Alexander Graham Bell - Wanted to discourage deaf people from marrying each other.
• William Welch – the first dean of the School of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. (Father of American Medicine)
• Margaret Sanger – Founder of American Birth Control League which later became Planned Parenthood of American
• Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. – Civil War hero and Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902-1932. Considered one of the most influential justices in U.S. history.