Haven’t read the book, so forgive me if this is covered.
It is easier to imagine this as the laws of physics being 10 times slower, then multiply everything by 10.
[begin slow-physics POV]
Manufacturing and agriculture slow significantly. Everything weighs a tenth of its current weight, but muscles and engines are 10 times weaker. Inertia and viscosity become important. The marginal cost of per km of shipping goes up by about a factor of 10, but the fixed costs of shipping remain about the same. With the fall in trade, specialization decreases. Solar radiation is 10 times weaker, and plants grow 10 times slower. Renewable energy sources become 1/10th as appealing (non-renewables are better). Smelting, tempering, and other time-bound processes proceed at 1/10th the current rate. Capital intensive manufacturing steps become 10 times as capital intensive. Real wages fall.
The service sector (which is a majority of GDP) is not nearly as slowed. Since the day is now 240 hours, sleep cycles and work schedules are no longer connected with the sun. The whole planet can coordinate on a work schedule, maybe with 8 30-hour sleep cycles per earth rotation. Computers are as fast as in mid 2000s. Email and other telecommunication is virtually unaffected (voice data increases by 10x, but voice data is small these days). People type slower, but we can easily invent less laborious keyboards. Commutes are difficult, as cars race on highways at 10 km/h but are only as maneuverable as cars moving at 100 km/h in our world. People move closer their offices and telecommuting becomes much more commonplace.
All in all, it seems like a slowdown in physics would cause a slowdown in our economy, but we would rapidly adapt.
[end slow-physics POV]
The rapid change in comparative advantages would immediately expose much low-hanging fruit (moving to more labor-intensive manufacturing techniques, for example). Growth would increase rapidly as industry re-optimizes for the new high-speed labor force. Growth slows after this low-hanging fruit is plucked.
Why are these smart people making all of these mistakes?
I wonder if it is because the mistakes are so extreme that the original failures that lead to them can’t just be ones of poor problem-solving. If an IQ test asks what can be logically inferred from some evidence, I’d expect smarter people to do better. If an IQ test asks whether astrology can be logically inferred from no evidence, I expect very low levels of intelligence to be required to figure this one out. So to the extent that people answer ‘yes’, it is for some non-intellectual reason which are more or less uncorrelated with intelligence.
Do you have evidence that intelligence isn’t correlated with all those three? IIRC Kahneman’s research has pointed out that intelligence seems to protect against certain types of cognitive biases.
Very smart people, like everyone else, have emotional responses to situations, then fit a set of rationalizations to what their emotions tell them in the first place.
I would like to give better answers in the aggregate-maybe we can gather some more evidence, but I’ll just give a few well-known examples of people who would’ve done very well on IQ tests:
Ayatollah Khomeini
Hermann Goering
Alan Turing and Friedrich Nietzsche, both of whom sadly ended their own lives. Unfortunately, that is fairly common among the highest IQ scorers.
Intelligence is not the only personality trait to consider.
Difficult question. Do you mean also ten times faster to burn out? 10x more time to rest?
Or due to simulation not rest, just reboot?
Or permanently reboot to drug boosted level of brain emulation on ten times quicker substrate? (I am afraid of drugged society here)
And I am also afraid that ten time quicker farmer could not have ten time summer per year. :) So economic growth could be limited by some botlenecks. Probably not much faster.
-Ten times faster does not help people driving vehicles that much, unless they can use the time to multi-task.
-For people who carry things around to complete their job, or manipulate objects, we have to decide whether they are physically able to do those actions faster, or are they just able to think faster.
Presumably, we’re holding physical running, walking and carrying speeds the same, and people are thinking a lot faster. Thus, people can plan their farming enterprise much more effectively, but they still need a lot of people to actually pick the crops.
In this scenario, we would end up with a lot of people who have an expert-level mastery of many professions. Since it does not take much time to learn anymore, a lot of people would be MD, JD, MBA, triple PhDs, know how to operate dozens of pieces of equipment, know ten languages and be able to design and build their own house or office.
Apparently, all of that happens for some people before their 10th birthday-but what did this speed-up mean for their emotional development? Do they start working at 5 years old? Do we end up with very expert people who still cannot manage their temperament, thereby making them very effective threats?
One good question is the degree to which speed translates into quality-how many more people would be able to write a coherent 100-page document with this new ability? Not clear.
Some would use all of the additional time to play 10x more video games, watch 10x more soap operas or to delve deeper into Sufi mysticism. A segment of the population would use these gifts well, others would not.
Team leaders frequently would do much more of the work of their projects themselves, since after their interdisciplinary education they would not require specialists for many task. However, when necessary, these leaders could have fifty people reporting directly to them, rather than just 5.
Ten times faster communication between people would allow them to correct many social mistakes prior to damage, to make very detailed business contracts, and sometimes to avoid armed conflict. Critical relationships where both parties have an incentive toward preserving the relationship would improve.
There would be more time to make sure that you were buying the right product, and more time to make sure that your sales pitch was as effective as possible. However, sometimes that would only mean 20% more sales resulting in a 15% better product purchased.
The queues in store check-out lines evaporate, and wait times on phone interactions with businesses and governments also fall. An array of telepresent services becomes possible.
At the same time, however, our ability to search for new relationships would also improve.
In the event of business competition, some strategic advantages would multiply, others would be neutralized. The business who can make purchases for 3% less has a much greater advantage and defeats equal competition much more quickly.
Identifying your adversaries before they identify you would become extremely important, because you could set up a multi-step plan to defeat them quite quickly, or serve ten people with just a slightly better product where you otherwise would’ve only gotten one.
If people were ten times faster, how much faster would economic growth be?
Haven’t read the book, so forgive me if this is covered.
It is easier to imagine this as the laws of physics being 10 times slower, then multiply everything by 10.
[begin slow-physics POV]
Manufacturing and agriculture slow significantly. Everything weighs a tenth of its current weight, but muscles and engines are 10 times weaker. Inertia and viscosity become important. The marginal cost of per km of shipping goes up by about a factor of 10, but the fixed costs of shipping remain about the same. With the fall in trade, specialization decreases. Solar radiation is 10 times weaker, and plants grow 10 times slower. Renewable energy sources become 1/10th as appealing (non-renewables are better). Smelting, tempering, and other time-bound processes proceed at 1/10th the current rate. Capital intensive manufacturing steps become 10 times as capital intensive. Real wages fall.
The service sector (which is a majority of GDP) is not nearly as slowed. Since the day is now 240 hours, sleep cycles and work schedules are no longer connected with the sun. The whole planet can coordinate on a work schedule, maybe with 8 30-hour sleep cycles per earth rotation. Computers are as fast as in mid 2000s. Email and other telecommunication is virtually unaffected (voice data increases by 10x, but voice data is small these days). People type slower, but we can easily invent less laborious keyboards. Commutes are difficult, as cars race on highways at 10 km/h but are only as maneuverable as cars moving at 100 km/h in our world. People move closer their offices and telecommuting becomes much more commonplace.
All in all, it seems like a slowdown in physics would cause a slowdown in our economy, but we would rapidly adapt.
[end slow-physics POV]
The rapid change in comparative advantages would immediately expose much low-hanging fruit (moving to more labor-intensive manufacturing techniques, for example). Growth would increase rapidly as industry re-optimizes for the new high-speed labor force. Growth slows after this low-hanging fruit is plucked.
On this subject, I’d like to link Stanovich on intelligence amplification.
Why are these smart people making all of these mistakes?
-Intelligence testing fails to incorporate your chance of falling prey to cognitive bias.
-Intelligence testing does not test the quality of your information sources
-Intelligence testing does not test how well you control your response to negative stimulus.
It sounds like we’re having to add in a series of other improvements to get an acceptable ubermenchen, not just more speed or higher IQ.
I wonder if it is because the mistakes are so extreme that the original failures that lead to them can’t just be ones of poor problem-solving. If an IQ test asks what can be logically inferred from some evidence, I’d expect smarter people to do better. If an IQ test asks whether astrology can be logically inferred from no evidence, I expect very low levels of intelligence to be required to figure this one out. So to the extent that people answer ‘yes’, it is for some non-intellectual reason which are more or less uncorrelated with intelligence.
Do you have evidence that intelligence isn’t correlated with all those three? IIRC Kahneman’s research has pointed out that intelligence seems to protect against certain types of cognitive biases.
Very smart people, like everyone else, have emotional responses to situations, then fit a set of rationalizations to what their emotions tell them in the first place.
I would like to give better answers in the aggregate-maybe we can gather some more evidence, but I’ll just give a few well-known examples of people who would’ve done very well on IQ tests:
Ayatollah Khomeini Hermann Goering Alan Turing and Friedrich Nietzsche, both of whom sadly ended their own lives. Unfortunately, that is fairly common among the highest IQ scorers.
Intelligence is not the only personality trait to consider.
Difficult question. Do you mean also ten times faster to burn out? 10x more time to rest? Or due to simulation not rest, just reboot?
Or permanently reboot to drug boosted level of brain emulation on ten times quicker substrate? (I am afraid of drugged society here)
And I am also afraid that ten time quicker farmer could not have ten time summer per year. :) So economic growth could be limited by some botlenecks. Probably not much faster.
What about ten time faster philosophic growth?
Breaking this down a bit:
-Ten times faster does not help people driving vehicles that much, unless they can use the time to multi-task.
-For people who carry things around to complete their job, or manipulate objects, we have to decide whether they are physically able to do those actions faster, or are they just able to think faster.
Presumably, we’re holding physical running, walking and carrying speeds the same, and people are thinking a lot faster. Thus, people can plan their farming enterprise much more effectively, but they still need a lot of people to actually pick the crops.
In this scenario, we would end up with a lot of people who have an expert-level mastery of many professions. Since it does not take much time to learn anymore, a lot of people would be MD, JD, MBA, triple PhDs, know how to operate dozens of pieces of equipment, know ten languages and be able to design and build their own house or office.
Apparently, all of that happens for some people before their 10th birthday-but what did this speed-up mean for their emotional development? Do they start working at 5 years old? Do we end up with very expert people who still cannot manage their temperament, thereby making them very effective threats?
One good question is the degree to which speed translates into quality-how many more people would be able to write a coherent 100-page document with this new ability? Not clear.
Some would use all of the additional time to play 10x more video games, watch 10x more soap operas or to delve deeper into Sufi mysticism. A segment of the population would use these gifts well, others would not.
Team leaders frequently would do much more of the work of their projects themselves, since after their interdisciplinary education they would not require specialists for many task. However, when necessary, these leaders could have fifty people reporting directly to them, rather than just 5.
Ten times faster communication between people would allow them to correct many social mistakes prior to damage, to make very detailed business contracts, and sometimes to avoid armed conflict. Critical relationships where both parties have an incentive toward preserving the relationship would improve.
There would be more time to make sure that you were buying the right product, and more time to make sure that your sales pitch was as effective as possible. However, sometimes that would only mean 20% more sales resulting in a 15% better product purchased.
The queues in store check-out lines evaporate, and wait times on phone interactions with businesses and governments also fall. An array of telepresent services becomes possible.
At the same time, however, our ability to search for new relationships would also improve.
In the event of business competition, some strategic advantages would multiply, others would be neutralized. The business who can make purchases for 3% less has a much greater advantage and defeats equal competition much more quickly.
Identifying your adversaries before they identify you would become extremely important, because you could set up a multi-step plan to defeat them quite quickly, or serve ten people with just a slightly better product where you otherwise would’ve only gotten one.