It goes without saying that I do not know enough about the details, but I certainly treat this tweet as good news. And in case you missed reading about it, there’s also this from last month.
It is remarkable how much progress we’re making in the medical field, and based on what little I understand of the developments over the last two to three years, we’re only getting started.
But it was a reply to this tweet that had my EFE antennae really and truly perk up:
There’s so much to analyse in that short little tweet!
- Autonomous cars are coming – they’ve “been coming” for a long time, it is true. But whenever they do, y’know, actually come, will they make the world a better place or not?
- We can (and do) worry about what impact this will have on employment, car ownership patterns, parking lots within cities and lots of other things. But what about fatalities?
- Do I mean fatalities caused by having autonomous cars, or fatalities avoided because we have autonomous cars? Well, the net effect, of course.
- This tweet makes the claim that fatalities will, on net, go down because of autonomous cars. Maybe you agree, maybe you don’t. But especially if you do not, I would argue that you should focus on not just newspaper reports about deaths caused by autonomous cars, but also check to see if fatality statistics drop as autonomous cars become more prevalent. This is where a carefully designed econometric analysis can be truly useful. Counterfactuals really and truly matter!
- But let’s assume, for the moment, that fatality statistics will actually come down. If they do, surely that’s a good and wonderful thing?
- But ah, TANSTAAFL! What this tweet is really getting at is the opportunity cost of a reduction in fatalities as a consequence of greater deployment of autonomous cars. That is, the author of the tweet assumes that fatalities will come down with autonomous cars… but then asks about some of the second order effects.
- And one second order effect, he says, is that we simply will not have as many organs up for donation as we used to earlier. Fewer fatalities by definition means fewer deaths (which is awesome), but it also means lesser organs up for donation (which is not so awesome)
- And so we need to get a move on in biomedical sciences, and make sure we figure out how to grow organs suitable for human transplants.
- Have fun going further out on this limb if you are a student of economics. Imagine, for example, what a world with abundant organs for transplants might look like. Will people end up being less careful about their health? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
- You might be tempted to say it is a bad thing. But consider this: will not this cavalier attitude towards health lead to greater demand for better quality of transplants and at lower prices?
- Note that I have no clue what the “correct” answer is! I’m simply trying to point out that simple applications of simple economic concepts can help you frame better and more thought-provoking questions.
EconForEverybody 