Plantonomics
What plants teach about human birthrates, scarce resource allocation, globalisation and the point of life.
Let’s talk plants
So a couple of weeks back I happened to order five indoor plants to add some life to the apartment since I have been living indoors for almost 6 months now.
I was watering them today when I realised different plants are growing and performing differently: some are thriving, some are almost the same while some are dying. Why was this happening? And, it got me thinking of the fertility rates of population in countries and of competition for scarce resources.
I think it can help learn some economics and policy framing. So let me try:
This is how the plants looked when they arrived.
And this is how they look now:
Now plants, of course, have a positive externality, they give out oxygen and improve air quality. Let’s assume that the plant wants to live a healthy life (living an altruistic life for me) and that I am an external agent to help the plant get there. Ultimately, plants have to live for me to live.
Different plants are of different varieties and there are many variables here. They are plants with different natural growth rate, different needs in terms of nurture, different lifespans, etc.
Now, these are too many variables to compare them among themselves. And how can I compare them to the fertility rates of different countries, as is my intention?
Well, I think that they being different plants with many variables can in a way be compared to the different historical contest of different countries due to many reasons like their past experiences, their income levels, recent macroeconomic shocks like say a famine, etc.
Like for example the plant in the green pot, I saw, grows much slower than the plant in the red pot. But, if we assume that their historical contexts have engineered their genes to have the kind of growth and nutrition requirements that they have now, it will help us have a fair comparison in my opinion.
So, the fact that they are different species of plants can be compared to the fact that each country has a different historical context to their “nature”. The genetic nature of the plant, in essence, encapsulates the historic events of the country that has shaped the country’s current needs and behaviour.
Let’s also assume that I am taking adequate and optimal care of the plants. I am incentivised to so do as I need the oxygen they provide.
Looking at the plants now:
Red: Growing
Top: When they arrived, Bottom: Now
The plant in the red pot has seen the most growth in these two weeks. I also see a lot of new leaves coming up and many new leaves are about to spring up. But the amount of soil which is representative of the limited resources remains the same. So there is greater competition for the same scarce resource.
Can we compare it to a country? I pick India. India has among the highest fertility rates in the world with more than 50% of the population less than 35 years young.
Now, a scarce resource could be a natural resource in that country, the number of schools, the number of hospitals, infrastructure or the number of jobs. And let’s assume that the limited soil encompasses and signifies all these limited resources.
The younger leaves make more efficient use of the resources and make the most oxygen. While the older ones are less productive and make use of the same resource. Similar to us, humans. So the pot has to try and make the most oxygen when the plants are younger and have to be made available sufficient resources.
Similarly, countries with a growing younger population will ultimately age and their output will decrease when they get old. This is called the demographic window of opportunity: The time period when there are lesser old leaves and more younger leaves and so more oxygen is produced per resource used.
India is within the demographic window of opportunity right now, and it should be made sure that enough resources, within the scarce resources, have to be allocated to push the county to make it a high income before the population ages. Otherwise, India would remain a poor country but also become old and in its lifetime not improve the lives of its people (In the case of the plant, not enough oxygen produced during the lifetime of the plant). This demographic window of opportunity in India is expected to end within the next 20 odd years.
Yellow and Green:
Top: When they arrived, Bottom: Now
They have new younger shoots that coming up as the older leaves die. In a way, the old is making way for the young at a constant rate.
These can be compared to maybe the USA and the UK. And populations with a stable population are said to have a replacement fertility rate. The replacement fertility rate for humans is 2.1. Meaning 2.1 children per woman will help have a constant population rate. The USA currently has a total fertility rate of 2.08 while the UK is at 2.0.
Also, the dying leaves act as additional manure to the soil. Can dead leaves dying and becoming manure for the next generation be compared to inheritance? As is the case with the Baby Boomers having a lot of wealth in the USA.
In this case its the whole soil that’s getting fertile while in the real world it’s only the same branch that benefits. So, is taxing on inheritance a good idea so that the government can redistribute this wealth among the whole population of the country and reduce inequality? Food for thought.
Pink:
Top: When they arrived, Bottom: Now
Now the pink fellow is dying, and I don’t see any new shoots come up. The tips of all the leaves are dead it is spreading fast towards the branch.
Which country’s population does this remind you of? Maybe Japan. Japan has amongst the lowest fertility rates in the world at 1.4 and majority of its population is pretty old. The median Japanese age is about 48 years and has the 2nd lowest median age in the world. The government’s efforts to increase fertility has not bared any fruit (Pun intended). Without any major changes to the current situation, the plant will die soon and all its resources will go to waste.
One Giant Pot?
Can all the plants be planted in one giant pot so that the plants that need more growth get access to the unused resources of another plant? Hello globalisation!
The Red plant would love more soil (Indians form among the largest diaspore in the world). The Pink one would love more plants to come in and make use of the soil to give out more oxygen as the dying plant can’t sustain the pot (In recent years, Japan has tried to made immigration much easier to make up for the reduced human resource and to help it grow). We see increased rhetoric against immigration in countries like the USA and the UK (countries with replacement level fertility) as they believe the immigrants are using up scarce resources (Jobs) without leaving behind enough for its own population. Amazing what plants teach us about the complexities of a global economy.
This thought experiment also begs the question, can we grow infinitely with limited resources? Time for more responsible capitalism. Err.. a socialist state? Or a society whose conscience evolves?
Wait, I never spoke of the plant in the blue pot.
Blue:
Top: When they arrived, Bottom: Now
Blue is the utopian state where there are no new shoots nor are the old ones growing or dying. They don’t want to grow. This is at the state of tranquillity, peace and nirvana. The plant will live its life, without feeling the need to populate and after the resources expire, the plant just dies.
On a philosophical level, the plant sees no point in life, has accepted it and just lives its life, without growing and without getting new life to earth because it believes there is no point to life. Why use up resources to grow and why give birth to new leaves to use resources when in a few generations there will be no resource available anyway. Why not end it now? This kind of human philosophy is called Nihilism.
In terms of economic arguments, maybe the genes of this plant in the blue pot have been engineered by the classic economists who do not believe in any government intervention at all (Anti-Keynesians). A lot of classical economists argue that government intervention will only result in periods of booms and busts and an economy left to itself will have a more predictable and stable outlook for a longer-term. But then again, there is a fundamental difference here, plants unlike humans do not die in the long term! Plants just have a different long term than humans. So yes, the Blue one will live longer and have a slower death while the pink one will sizzle for a while (Japan in the 1970s) and die sooner like a Diwali flowerpot.
Regards,
Bheem
PS: Link to the Plants I got: https://nurserylive.com/products/plant-pack-for-healthy-home-office
The folks at nurserylive.com were kind enough to send me free seeds to help me grow leafy veggies at home. I just planted them today. Let’s see how they do!
The Duologue is an effort by Vivek and Bheem to have a dialogue about varying topics. If you liked what you read, you can subscribe to our newsletter. Share it around if you find any of this piqued your interest or might be interesting for your peers.
Also, Nurserylive isn’t paying me for this post.
Originally published at https://duologue.substack.com.
