Interlude: Non-Scientific Pregnancy Froo-Froo

I wonder how many complications per year happen due to the overwhelming volume of non-scientific pregnancy-related froo froo bullshit.
— Zach Wintersmith (@ZachWeiner) December 18, 2013

Our delightful march of progress has, in a few scant thousand years, delivered humanity from the sort of abject, state-of-nature poverty that thankfully most of my readers will only ever vaguely grasp in the most abstract terms into the warm, comfortable hands you're enjoying right now. You aren't at risk for polio, or smallpox, and if you come down with dysentery or even the Black Plague itself, all you'll need is a quick dose of antibiotics and you'll be right as rain. Unless I have a very peculiar readership, you're at virtually no risk of being conscripted, and even if you were, your chances of dying in combat are a small fraction of what they were even during the heyday of mechanized warfare, let alone something as horrific as Napoleon's foray into Russia.

And to what do we owe this—I do not use the word flippantly—miraculous transformation? Well, to use a sort of weaselly word, signals. Signals that tell us that peaceful, cooperative trade is more dignified than conquest through force of arms; signals that tell us that scientific inquiry fell not from the bosom of an heresiarch, but by His Grace; signals that sing panegyrics to Courage, Love, Justice, Faith, Temperance, Hope, and Prudence.

And like with any signal, there is noise.

Most of the time, we're pretty good about ignoring noise. Most of us (I hope) can tell when someone's pulling our leg by age of majority. Or, barring that, we know where to turn for solid advice. But think about Zach's worry up there. Particularly under conditions of rapid social change, legacy noise filters may break down and when you couple that with pregnancy hormones and run-of-the-mill anxiety, it's entirely plausible that expectant mothers could be guzzling snake oil by the bbl. Not very euvoluntary. True-blue exploitative even.

So what's the answer? Well, you can start with Emily Oster's book. And you can seek unbiased medical advice from multiple sources (hello Bayes!). But how about something more punitive? How about banning sketchy advertising for suspect products?

I hesitate advocating this solution for the reason that it doesn't do Jack F. Squat to remedy the underlying problem of prenatal ignorance. Papering over balderdash (weakly) gives an incentive for women to be less engaged in the fine details of pregnancy and early term care, on the margin. Even if the effect isn't particularly strong, muting noise rather than strengthening signal serves to stifle innovation. If an honest person of modest means has an idea that can actually, genuinely help people, it's best to keep barriers to the marketplace nice and low and let the discovery process work its magic. Fight fraud valiantly with the saber of truth (it's got a +3 enchantment).

Ergodic Catastrophe and Moral Intuition: EE and Genetic Tinkering.

My man Adam G., longtime EE booster and all-around great guy wades hip deep into a tussle over the role of genetic modifications (a weird term, don't you think?). He pits the always-excellent Virginia Postrel against the irascible Nassim Taleb. The OP on The Umlaut (sorry Eli, Adam, and Angie, I can't be bothered to open my character map) can be found here: The Risks and Rewards of Genetically Modified Organisms [Edit]: Postrel's Time opening salvo article here.

Since it was a Postrel tweet that prompted Adam's musings, it should come as no surprise that the subsequent discussion unfolded there. Here's what he posted later, following a discussion with both Postrel and Taleb (and some minor side commentary from a few spectators): GMOs Rehashed with Virginia Postrel and Nassim Taleb. If you're confused after trying to wind your way through that Storify thread, you're not alone. The threading is kind of ragged, but as I read it, here's the gist of the dialog:

Postrel: Kickstarter is a cabal of Luddites. GMOs are the future. Standing athwart history impoverishes people yet born. Opposing them is monstrous.

Gurri: Hang on a tic. You're right about the potential upsides, but isn't there a corresponding downside risk? Taleb warns us that long-tail events are catastrophic and that the tails are thick.

Taleb: Yes Adam, and when Mother Nature shakes off her fleas, "catastrophic" is gently understated.

Dr. Phil: Not risk, ergodicity.

Taleb: Exactly. Not only are the potential downside outcomes unknown, but they're unknowable. Furthermore, they're irreversible AND they're tightly wound. A rogue GMO could wipe out all agriculture dudes. A perfectly reasonable application of the Precautionary Principle insists on some prophylactic prohibition.

Postrel: Ridiculous. By your logic, all of the great social changes we've had from ending slavery to the liberation of women to the gay rights revolution we're seeing right now should have been prohibited. They're all tightly wound, irreversible, and unknowable. Will you argue that ex ante, they were ill-advised?

[Several People]: B-but, that's not the same thing.

Postrel: Apply your principles consistently, people. Postrel out. *drops mic*

Gurri: Well that was certainly enlightening. I have more to think about.

It's that last line from Adam I want you to pay close attention to. For those of you who don't know him, Adam is one of the most thoughtful, circumspect people it is my privilege to know in real life. He routinely engages thorny topics like this with a toothy grin and joy most people reserve for, I don't know, puppies and caviar or whatever. And he's left with food for thought.

So here's my question: if this dude's ambivalent after talking with luminaries like Virginia Postrel and Nassim Taleb, how do you suppose it might be that ordinary folks are to form their attenuated policy positions grounded in common-sense moral intuition? How do people approach non-ergodic catastrophe? What does that imply for the Median Voter Theorem? For expected policy?

Look, we already know about cognitive biases that magnify rare, visible risks and ignore common, boring risks. That's why we see kids in homes with swimming pools alongside school bus terrorist drills. But it also may be empirically true that a substantial political upheaval can result in the untimely deaths of tens of millions of people and interminable oppression for generations. Not all ex post regret is equal, dudes.

My point isn't so much to ask if GMOs are euvoluntary or not, but to ask whether the casual voter, after mulling arguments for and against would think that they are. We know that there are a lot of crunchy granola types that oppose gene swapping for reasons that may not always be purely instrumental, but how closely do the opinion margins hew to the Taleb objections? And how much could we be giving up by yielding rein leather to puckerishness?

As Adam says, it's a lot to think about.

Reproduction is not Euvoluntary: Gamete Edition

Alex Tabarrok on the rent-seeking culture in assisted reproduction. Note the language used in the brief: "compensation 'should not be so excessive as to constitute undue inducement.'” Sounds an awful lot like BATNA disparity. Underprivileged women could be coerced by circumstance into selling ova.

Which is, of course, horsepuffles. Premium prices are attached to premium genetic material. It's the eggs of 23 year old PhD candidates with blonde hair and blue eyes that earn the most dough. But that's neither here nor there. I'm most fascinated by the odd paternalism that travels with both BATNA disparity and ex-post regret. You see, you can make a pretty solid argument that the kid in China who swapped his kidney for an iPad a few years back probably ended up regretting his decision. But eggs? Seriously? The alternative is... well, you're all grown-ups. You know what happens when Aunt Flo comes to town.

What's to regret? Prices rise, therefore inducing more women to donate, and what? They get paid more handsomely and some family gets the baby they've always wanted. If that's coercion, well, let's have more of it.

Eusocial: Voluntary?

The idea of "eusocial" species is what got me thinking about "euvoluntary" exchange in the first place.

Is eusociality adaptive? It is clearly adaptive for the hive, or the nest. But can we reconcile eusocial species with evolution?

Or would it be some kind of "choice," a collective decision to avoid competition among individuals in favor of competition among the equivalent of clans or bands?

(Thanks to Prof. Ward)