If, of late, you haven’t heard of or read about the Jevons Paradox, you likely will.
Named after 19th-century British economist William Stanley Jevons who observed in his 1865 book The Coal Question, the paradox states that as engines became more coal-efficient and needed less coal, demand for coal actually increased. On a larger scale, the paradox says that as the use of a resource becomes more efficient and can lead to decreased consumption, it could also lead to increased consumption. Jevons and economists since have written extensively on the paradox, and all the graphs you could possibly want are available. To economists everywhere it remains a paradox.
Jevons Paradox as seen by “soft” scientists
Economics is a “hard” science: data driven and formula dependent, thus explaining the stubborn, persistent state of paradox. On the other hand, to the psychologist, sociologist, the philosopher – the “soft” scientists – this phenomenon is easier to explain – and to live with.
I rarely find myself referring to or leaning on Sigmund Freud, but in this case, that works. We find in Freud’s depiction of the human psyche – the id, the ego, and the superego – that we feed our id’s basic needs with little concern for the consequences. As we evolve, we become more ego (self) serving and conscious of it. It is here that we want to achieve, amass, surpass – to do all we can.
And then there’s the superego, the place where we find our conscience. “Could we?” gives way to “Should we? – both as individuals and as members of a larger society. Among other things, Freud tells us, the three parts of our psyches are in constant conflict.
That should make the phenomenon of the competition between progress and ethics easy to understand – and to manage. Until now.
Along comes AI
Whereas every human discovery or invention has brought with it the conflict between could and should, that is no longer in question. The question, especially with AI, is how far and how fast will it all happen? AI has already demonstrated its inevitability, and we can only nod in understanding as to its nature, pace, and scope. For sure, though, the conflict – and the paradox – are there.
The paradox becomes the certainty.
Examining the intramurals going on within the human psyche doesn’t resolve the conflicts. But it does explain them, thus moving Jevons’ observation from the paradox column to the certainty column.
The certainty here is human nature
“While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle