What are the limits of free speech?
7 scholars and legal experts dissect what you can and can't say in America.
NADINE STROSSEN: There is absolutely no doubt that speech can do an infinite amount of harm as well as an infinite amount of good. The reason why censorship is bad is precisely because speech is so powerful. And with that power, we, human beings can exert it, either to great good or to great ill. Now, the question is, what does more harm: Trusting our fellow citizens on the whole to minimize the adverse impact, adverse potential impact of speech or trusting government to pick and choose which potentially dangerous harmful speech should be censored? What we've seen throughout history and around the world, not surprisingly, is whoever exercises censorship power does it in a way to perpetuate their own power and to disproportionately silence the voice of their critics. Freedom of speech really is the bedrock of every other right and really, almost everything positive in our society could not be achieved without that essential bedrock.
NICHOLAS CHRISTAKIS: There's a difference between defending an important principle and advocating for the implications of that principle. Let me give you a couple of examples. One example is defending the freedom of expression, even though you disagree with what someone might say when they exercise that freedom. So for example, I might defend your right to speak. I might defend your right to express yourself without fear of losing your job, for example. But I might still not agree with whatever it is that you're going to say. So, you say something I don't like. I don't like it, I respond to it. That's the proper way to handle it. That is to say, we defend the right of people to express themselves even though we acknowledge that the outcome of that might not be what we agree with. So the famous saying of course, is I don't agree with what it is that you want to say but I will defend your right to say it to the death. You test your ideas by arguing with people who disagree with you. And actually, if you're good at it, you even learn to enjoy it.
JOSH LIEB: I think legally, you should be able to say anything you want. Then again, and I think if you're seeing that someone is booked on a TV show that you don't agree with, I think it's not against free speech. You're not violating anyone's free speech to say, I don't wanna be in a program with that person. Or if you're a publishing house that's publishing a book by someone you don't like. There's no violation of free speech, you're not impinging on anyone to say, I don't care to be associated with that person. That's fine. I don't like hate speech laws, I'm vehemently against them. I think they are as anti-American and anti-Democratic as anything can be. And I don't like the idea of criminalizing thought no matter how hateful or stupid the thought is. It sounds like something from 1984. I don't think we make the hate go away by not saying it. You know, I'm basically I'm Lenny Bruce in "Harry Potter," I will say Voldemort's name. It doesn't make Voldemort go away to not say that fucking word. I always curse too much on these things, I'm sorry. You know, the road to hell is paved with great intentions. Like I get it, but it's a bad path for us. And the problem is things are so chaotic now. Things are at such a high tenor. People are so filled with vitriol that it's very possible that, just to get everyone to cool down, this is when this kind of stuff can get through, but that would not be American.
FLOYD ABRAMS: There've always been boundaries on freedom of speech and of the press. At different times they've been interpreted more or less strictly. We've always had libel law, for example. People have always been able to sue when false things were said about them, which harmed them. However, in 1964, the Supreme Court, in one of its greatest opinions, New York Times against Sullivan basically decided that there was, in the interest of protecting freedom of speech, a need to expand beyond old law. Like when I was in law school, for example, we were taught libelous material isn't protected by the First Amendment. Well, that's still true, but what the court said in 1964 was in defining what's libelous, we have to take into account the First Amendment. And in particular, when you speak about a public person, a public figure, a public official, there can't be a winning libel suit against you, unless you basically lied, said something you knew was false or you suspected it wasn't true. That's just one example. In the area of National Security, we have some statutes which make it a crime to publish details about building atomic weapons and in the area of National Security the government has sought to, and I would say has established the proposition that if they can get to court with respect to material which would really, really cripple the country in the sense of making it impossible for the country and its people to be safe from imminent harm caused as a result of the speech itself. Why then the Supreme Court has said that there can be a prior restraint, an injunction against the speech. But not much. I mean, America has always been the country in the world with more protection for speech, more protection for religion. Those two areas in particular. More protection for freedom of the press, which together with freedom of speech have a sort of a common body of law than any country in the history of the world. That's not to say we haven't had real and real big First Amendment problems sometimes. And First Amendment deprivations sometimes. But taken as a whole, it's been really an astonishing, a breathtaking degree of personal freedom for people, for organizations, for institutions to have their say.
STROSSEN: Most people falsely assume one of two things which are opposite from each other and yet they are equally wrong. On the one hand, many people assume that freedom of speech is absolute, that there can be no restrictions or limitations whatsoever. On the other hand, too many people think that there's no protection for certain kinds of unpopular speech, such as so-called "hate speech" or "pornography" or terrorism speech, to name a few that are constantly attacked. The First Amendment, Freedom of Expression, rests upon two fundamental principles. One prescribes when government may not suppress speech and the other explains when government may restrict speech, in appropriately limited circumstances.
So first, the non censorship principle is often called the content neutrality or viewpoint neutrality principle. Government may never suppress speech solely because of its content, its message, its viewpoint or ideas. No matter how feared or despised or hated or hateful that idea, that content may be perceived as, even as by the vast majority of the community that is never enough to justify censoring it. If we disagree with an idea, if we despise it, we should answer it back, not suppress it. If however you get beyond the content of the speech, its message, and look at its overall context, then government may restrict that speech consistent with what is usually called the emergency principle. If in a particular context, that speech directly causes certain serious, imminent, specific harm. And the only way to avert the harm is by suppressing the speech.
Now, the United States Supreme Court has created a recognized several categories of speech that satisfy that emergency principle. For example, intentional incitement of imminent violence, where the violence is likely to actually happen imminently. Or targeted bullying or harassment that is directly targeted at a particular individual or small group of individuals, and directly interferes with their freedom of movement. Another example that satisfies the emergency principle is what lawyers call a genuine threat or a true threat. If the speaker is directly targeting a small specific audience and intends to instill a reasonable fear on the part of that audience that they are gonna be subject to some kind of violence, then the speech can and should be punished.
MICHAEL SHERMER: I'll tell you how far I go in defending free speech. I would defend the free speech of Holocaust deniers. My example of this is David Irvine, who is the most prominent of the Holocaust deniers. I've known him a long time since the 1990s and he's definitely the smartest of the bunch. And I think he's absolutely wrong and I've confronted him with what I think why I think he's wrong. It's apparent in his trial, he's also pretty antisemitic or at least he lies for Hitler, but that's beside the point. The idea that he went to Austria to give a talk and was arrested at the airport. You know, they scan your passport and the name pops up and they come and arrest him. And he was tried and then convicted and put in jail and he didn't even give a speech, he was just thinking about giving a speech. So that is the very definition of a thought crime. Do we really wanna go down that road? I mean, that's what countries like North Korea do. That's what like the Soviet Union did under Stalin. You know, arrest people for thought crimes. This is a terrible way to go. And I even went so far as to write a letter to the judge in that case on behalf of David Irving, even though I completely disagree with him, because I just find this abhorrent.
STROSSEN: People will often say to me as somebody who is Jewish and the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, who barely survived the Buchenwald concentration camp, how can I of all people defend the Nazis? And I always say, I'm not defending the Nazis, I'm defending freedom of speech as an inviolable, indivisible principle that is only gonna remain strong if we continue to respect that bedrock viewpoint neutrality principle, denying government the power to suppress an idea merely because in one community that idea is deemed to be unpopular or hateful or hated. Because I know that in many communities in this country ideas that I cherish as a civil libertarian, as a human rights champion, those ideas are seen as dangerous and are subject to censorship. So I'm not defending the Nazis, I'm defending a principle that is especially important for those of us who want to have the freedom to raise our voices, to protest the Nazis and everything they stand for.
ALICE DREGER: What's happening on a lot of university campuses is the notion you come with your preexisting beliefs about your identity, about the world and no one's supposed to question that, and I think that's very problematic. You know, for example, people say, well, we don't want right-wing people on campus. I do, I want everybody on campus, I want everybody having the same educational opportunities and I want the opportunity to actually have real conversations about different points of view. Getting them out in the open, airing them, being able to have conversations, arguments, thinking about data, thinking about evidence, thinking about histories of justice. It allows us to have those conversations in a way that I think has integrity and honesty and gets us somewhere. So if people have the attitude, you know, some people are allowed on campus, some people are not, some people are allowed to speak, some people are not. That doesn't really get us forward. Certainly it is the case we should not allow people to openly abuse each other verbally in ways that are profound. So for example, using the N word, for example. But beyond that, I think we have to have a lot of generosity in terms of allowing people to air ideas and giving everybody time to do that, so that we can have meaningful education.
STROSSEN: Those who advocate censorship never examine whether censorship is going to be effective in addressing, redressing, reducing the harm. They never address whether censorship to the contrary is going to do more harm than good. And every situation that I'm aware of, censorship actually ends up being ineffective in addressing the harms at stake at best, or counterproductive at worst. So disinformation, well, are we going to say that empowering Mark Zuckerberg and the other titans of Silicon Valley to decide that certain speech is untrue, is that actually going to solve our political problems? I think to the contrary, that is as threatening to democracy as it is to individual freedom. Likewise, with respect to so-called "hate speech" that conveys discriminatory ideas against traditionally marginalized or excluded groups. Every hate speech law around the world to this day is disproportionally enforced consistently against the very minority groups who are hoped to be protected. And we shouldn't be surprised at that. Once you have these discretionary standards. What is hate speech? What is disinformation? No two individuals can agree on such inherently subjective concepts.
SHERMER: We are wrong about so much of what we believe, that the only way to find out if you're on the right track or you've gone off the rails is to actually talk to other people. Even if you're completely right, by listening to what somebody else says, you have an opportunity to strengthen your own position. As John Stuart Mill said in his foundational text, 1859 "On Liberty", "he who knows only his own position doesn't even know that." So for example, most of my students that I teach they're pretty liberal, they're pro-choice on the abortion issue. But when I asked them to articulate the pro-life position, which, you know, over half of Americans take, you know, they mostly can't do it. So I tell them that you don't really understand pro-choice arguments if you don't understand the pro-life arguments, you gotta have both sides, right? Even if the pro choice position is absolutely the right one you're still not really understanding it until you understand the other side. Then there's the fact that you might be wrong, partially wrong or completely wrong. And again, the only way to find out is by listening to what other people say. And then there's the right, not just of the speaker to speak, but of the listeners to listen. So when protesters shut down talks at say, colleges and universities when a conservative comes to speak, it's not just the right of the speaker to speak, or, you know, the administrators or deans who brought that person in, but the audience. There might be a lot of students that wanna hear what this person has to say. And even if they are completely liberal and totally opposed to this conservative's ideas, they still have a right to hear if they want to. And so when protestors get these speakers de-platformed, that is, they're not even allowed to speak, they don't even come to campus or if they do come and they try to speak and then they're shouted down, it's called heckler's veto. That's violating the rights of listeners, not just the speakers, right?
JON ZIMMERMAN: I am a Liberal Democrat, In fact, I'm almost a caricature of a Liberal Democratic. My father was in the Peace Corps, I was in the Peace Corps. I'm Jewish, I have a PhD, I'm like a cartoon, all right? But, part of my liberalism is an absolute commitment to free speech. And one of the things I find most upsetting, both at the partisan and at the intellectual level, is the way that free speech has now been cast as a kind of conservative value. I find this profoundly ahistorical, because all of the great warriors for social justice in the past, with names like Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Du Bois and Martin Luther King, they were absolutists on free speech, because they understood that it was the people at the bottom that needed free speech the most, 'cause it was all they had. So I had a really interesting experience that for me kind of crystallized this change and why it's so important. I've hosted Mary Beth Tinker in my class at Penn. Mary Beth Tinker was in middle school when she and other family members wore these black armbands to school in Des Moines to protest the Vietnam War. They were sent home from school and this eventually became a very important test case called Tinker v. Des Moines. Ultimately the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines upheld their right to do that. And it was in that case that Justice Fortas very famously wrote that "students and teachers don't shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." Well, Mary Beth Tinker is now a 65-year-old person and she came to my class to talk about this case and free speech. And the students said to her, they said, "Listen, Ms. Tinker, you were fighting the good fight, you were fighting the Vietnam War. Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro, they're not fighting the good fight, they're just hurting people. You know, they're anti-trans, they're anti-gay, they're anti-Black, they are just haters. They injure people. Why should they have the privilege of speaking?" Mary Beth Tinker wasn't having it. Here's what she said. She said, "Listen, in the school that I attended in Des Moines, there were kids who had fathers and brothers that were dying in Southeast Asia. Do you think they weren't hurt by this snot-nosed kid wearing the symbol saying that their dad or brother was dying for a lie? You don't think that hurt them? Wake up! It hurt them, speech hurts. But if that's gonna be your rubric, if that's gonna be your definition, forget my armband because I was hurting people too. That's what speech does." Then they went on to say, "Well, look, this free speech thing, this is just an abstraction, it's not really about rights, it's just about power, who has power, who has the power to talk?" She's not having that either. She says, "Listen, I was a 13-year-old kid. The only power I had was my speech. That was it. And speech over time has been a weapon of the powerless. If you go ahead and sensor it, eventually it's gonna be turned against the people with the least power, and it may be turned against you."
- The free speech debate typically happens at either end of a spectrum — people believe they should be able to say whatever they want, or they believe that certain things (e.g. hate speech) should be censored. Who is right, and who gets to decide?
- While they acknowledge that speech is a powerful weapon that can cause infinite good and infinite harm, former ACLU president Nadine Strossen, sociologist Nicholas Christakis, author and skeptic Michael Shermer, and others agree that the principle should be defended for everyone, not just for those who share our views. "I'm not defending the Nazis," says Strossen, "I'm defending a principle that is especially important for those of us who want to have the freedom to raise our voices, to protest the Nazis and everything they stand for."
- However, as Strossen and attorney Floyd Abrams point out, there have always been boundaries when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment. There are rules, established by the Supreme Court, meant to ensure that speech is not used to inflict "imminent, specific harm" on others.
- When can government restrict speech? - Big Think ›
- Should you defend the free speech of neo-Nazis? - Big Think ›
- Comedian Jim Gaffigan on Political Correctness, Freedom, and ... ›
- When should we call out harmful speech? - Big Think ›
- COVID mass hysteria exposed that free expression is deathly ill - Big Think ›
Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
A new study suggests that reports of the impending infertility of the human male are greatly exaggerated.
- A new review of a famous study on declining sperm counts finds several flaws.
- The old report makes unfounded assumptions, has faulty data, and tends toward panic.
- The new report does not rule out that sperm counts are going down, only that this could be quite normal.
Several years ago, a meta-analysis of studies on human fertility came out warning us about the declining sperm counts of Western men. It was widely shared, and its findings were featured on the covers of popular magazines. Indeed, its findings were alarming: a nearly 60 percent decline in sperm per milliliter since 1973 with no end in sight. It was only a matter of time, the authors argued, until men were firing blanks, literally.
Well… never mind.
It turns out that the impending demise of humanity was greatly exaggerated. As the predicted infertility wave crashed upon us, there was neither a great rush of men to fertility clinics nor a sudden dearth of new babies. The only discussions about population decline focus on urbanization and the fact that people choose not to have kids rather than not being able to have them.
Now, a new analysis of the 2017 study says that lower sperm counts is nothing to be surprised by. Published in Human Fertility, its authors point to flaws in the original paper's data and interpretation. They suggest a better and smarter reanalysis.
Counting tiny things is difficult
The original 2017 report analyzed 185 studies on 43,000 men and their reproductive health. Its findings were clear: "a significant decline in sperm counts… between 1973 and 2011, driven by a 50-60 percent decline among men unselected by fertility from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand."
However, the new analysis points out flaws in the data. As many as a third of the men in the studies were of unknown age, an important factor in reproductive health. In 45 percent of cases, the year of the sample collection was unknown- a big detail to miss in a study measuring change over time. The quality controls and conditions for sample collection and analysis vary widely from study to study, which likely influenced the measured sperm counts in the samples.
Another study from 2013 also points out that the methods for determining sperm count were only standardized in the 1980s, which occurred after some of the data points were collected for the original study. It is entirely possible that the early studies gave inaccurately high sperm counts.
This is not to say that the 2017 paper is entirely useless; it had a much more rigorous methodology than previous studies on the subject, which also claimed to identify a decline in sperm counts. However, the original study had more problems.
Garbage in, garbage out
Predictable as always, the media went crazy. Discussions of the decline of masculinity took off, both in mainstream and less-than-reputable forums; concerns about the imagined feminizing traits of soy products continued to increase; and the authors of the original study were called upon to discuss the findings themselves in a number of articles.
However, as this new review points out, some of the findings of that meta-analysis are debatable at best. For example, the 2017 report suggests that "declining mean [sperm count] implies that an increasing proportion of men have sperm counts below any given threshold for sub-fertility or infertility," despite little empirical evidence that this is the case.
The WHO offers a large range for what it considers to be a healthy sperm count, from 15 to 250 million sperm per milliliter. The benefits to fertility above a count of 40 million are seen as minimal, and the original study found a mean sperm concentration of 47 million sperm per milliliter.
Healthy sperm, healthy man?
The claim that sperm count is evidence of larger health problems is also scrutinized in this new article. While it is true that many major health problems can impact reproductive health, there is little evidence that it is the "canary in the coal mine" for overall well-being. A number of studies suggest that any relation between lifestyle choices and this part of reproductive health is limited at best.
Lastly, ideas that environmental factors could be at play have been debunked since 2017. While the original paper considered the idea that pollutants, especially from plastics, could be at fault, it is now known that this kind of pollution is worse in the parts of the world that the original paper observed higher sperm counts in (i.e., non-Western nations).
There never was a male fertility crisis
The authors of the new review do not deny that some measurements are showing lower sperm counts, but they do question the claim that this is catastrophic or part of a larger pathological issue. They propose a new interpretation of the data. Dubbed the "Sperm Count Biovariability hypothesis," it is summarized as:
"Sperm count varies within a wide range, much of which can be considered non-pathological and species-typical. Above a critical threshold, more is not necessarily an indicator of better health or higher probability of fertility relative to less. Sperm count varies across bodies, ecologies, and time periods. Knowledge about the relationship between individual and population sperm count and life-historical and ecological factors is critical to interpreting trends in average sperm counts and their relationships to human health and fertility."
Still, the authors note that lower sperm counts "could decline due to negative environmental exposures, or that this may carry implications for men's health and fertility."
However, they disagree that the decline in absolute sperm count is necessarily a bad sign for men's health and fertility. We aren't at civilization ending catastrophe just yet.
A year of disruptions to work has contributed to mass burnout.
- Junior members of the workforce, including Generation Z, are facing digital burnout.
- 41 percent of workers globally are thinking about handing in their notice, according to a new Microsoft survey.
- A hybrid blend of in-person and remote work could help maintain a sense of balance – but bosses need to do more.
More than half of 18 to 25 year-olds in the workforce are considering quitting their job. And they're not the only ones.
In a report called The Next Great Disruption Is Hybrid Work – Are We Ready?, Microsoft found that as well as 54% of Generation Z workers, 41% of the entire global workforce could be considering handing in their resignation.
Similarly, a UK and Ireland survey found that 38% of employees were planning to leave their jobs in the next six months to a year, while a US survey reported that 42% of employees would quit if their company didn't offer remote working options long term.
New work trends
Based on surveys with over 30,000 workers in 31 countries, the Microsoft report – which is the latest in the company's annual Work Trend Index series – pulled in data from applications including Teams, Outlook and Office 365, to gauge productivity and activity levels. It highlighted seven major trends, which show the world of work has been profoundly reshaped by the pandemic:
- Flexible work is here to stay
- Leaders are out of touch with employees and need a wake-up call
- High productivity is masking an exhausted workforce
- Gen Z is at risk and will need to be re-energized
- Shrinking networks are endangering innovation
- Authenticity will spur productivity and wellbeing
- Talent is everywhere in a hybrid world
"Over the past year, no area has undergone more rapid transformation than the way we work," Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says in the report. "Employee expectations are changing, and we will need to define productivity much more broadly – inclusive of collaboration, learning and wellbeing to drive career advancement for every worker, including frontline and knowledge workers, as well as for new graduates and those who are in the workforce today. All this needs to be done with flexibility in, when, where and how people work."
Organizations have become more siloed
While the report highlights the opportunities created by increased flexible and remote working patterns, it warns that some people are experiencing digital exhaustion and that remote working could foster siloed thinking. With the shift to remote working, much of the spontaneous sharing of ideas that can take place within a workplace was lost. In its place are scheduled calls, regular catch-ups and virtual hangouts. The loss of in-person interaction means individual team members are more likely to only interact with their closest coworkers.
"At the onset of the pandemic, our analysis shows interactions with our close networks at work increased while interactions with our distant network diminished," the report says. "This suggests that as we shifted into lockdown, we clung to our immediate teams for support and let our broader network fall to the wayside. Simply put, companies became more siloed than they were pre-pandemic."
Burnout or drop out
One of the other consequences of the shift to remote and the reliance on tech-based communications has been the phenomenon of digital burnout. And for those who have most recently joined the workforce, this has been a significant challenge.
The excitement of joining a new employer, maybe even securing a job for the first time, usually comes with meeting lots of new people, becoming familiar with a new environment and adapting to new situations. But for many, the pandemic turned that into a daily routine of working from home while isolated from co-workers.
"Our findings have shown that for Gen Z and people just starting in their careers, this has been a very disruptive time," says LinkedIn Senior Editor-at-Large, George Anders, quoted in the report. "It's very hard to find their footing since they're not experiencing the in-person onboarding, networking and training that they would have expected in a normal year."
But it is perhaps the data around quitting that is one of the starkest indications that change is now the new normal. Being able to work remotely has opened up new possibilities for many workers, the report found. If you no longer need to be physically present in an office, your employer could, theoretically, be located anywhere. Perhaps that's why the research found that "41% of employees are considering leaving their current employer this year".
In addition to that, 46% of the people surveyed for the Microsoft report said they might relocate their home because of the flexibility of remote working.
A hybrid future
In looking for ways to navigate their way through all this change, employers should hold fast to one word, the report says – hybrid. An inflexible, location-centred approach to work is likely to encourage those 41% of people to leave and find somewhere more to their tastes. Those who are thinking of going to live somewhere else, while maintaining their current job, might also find themselves thinking of quitting if their plans are scuppered.
But remote working is not a panacea for all workforce ills. "We can no longer rely solely on offices to collaborate, connect, and build social capital. But physical space will still be important," the report says. "We're social animals and we want to get together, bounce ideas off one another, and experience the energy of in-person events. Moving forward, office space needs to bridge the physical and digital worlds to meet the unique needs of every team – and even specific roles."
Bosses must meet challenges head on
Although the majority of business leaders have indicated they will incorporate elements of the hybrid working model, the report also found many are out of touch with workforce concerns more widely.
For, while many workers say they are struggling (Gen Z – 60%; new starters – 64%), and 54% of the general workforce feels overworked, business leaders are having a much better experience. Some 61% said they were 'thriving', which is in stark contrast to employees who are further down the chain of command.
Jared Spataro, corporate vice president at Microsoft 365, writes in the report: "Those impromptu encounters at the office help keep leaders honest. With remote work, there are fewer chances to ask employees, 'Hey, how are you?' and then pick up on important cues as they respond. But the data is clear: our people are struggling. And we need to find new ways to help them."
A cartogram makes it easy to compare regional and national GDPs at a glance.
- On these maps, each hexagon represents one-thousandth of the world's economy.
- That makes it easy to compare the GDP of regions and nations across the globe.
- There are versions for nominal GDP and GDP adjusted for purchasing power.
Shanghai's skyline at night. According to the GDP (PPP) map, China is the world's largest economy. But that oft-cited statistic says more about the problems of PPP as a yardstick than about the economic prominence of China per se.Credit: Adi Constantin, CC0 1.0
If you want to rank the regions and countries of the world, area and population are but crude predictors of their importance. A better yardstick is GDP, or gross domestic product, defined as the economic value produced in a given region or country over a year.
Who's hot and who's not
And these two maps are possibly the best instruments to show who's hot and who's not, economically speaking. They are in fact cartograms, meaning they abandon geographic accuracy in order to represent the values of another dataset, in this case GDP: the larger a region or country is shown relative to its actual size, the greater its GDP, and vice versa.
So far, so familiar. What's unique about these maps is how this is done. Both are composed of hexagons, exactly 1,000 each. And each of those hexagons represents 0.1 percent of global GDP. That makes it fascinatingly easy to assess and compare the economic weight of various regions and countries throughout the world.
Did we say easy? Scratch that. GDP comes in two main flavors: nominal and PPP-adjusted, with each map showing one.
Nominal GDP does not take into account differences in standard of living. It simply converts local GDP values into U.S. dollars based on foreign exchange rates. GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) takes into account living standards. $100 buys more stuff in poor countries than it does in rich countries. If you get more bang for your buck in country A, its PPP-adjusted GDP will be relatively higher than in country B.
Nominal GDP is a good way of comparing the crude economic size of various countries and regions, while GDP (PPP) is an attempt to measure the relative living standards between countries and regions. But this is also just an approximation, since it does not measure the distribution of personal income. For that, we have the Gini index, which measures the relative (in)equality of income distribution.
In other words, PPP factors in the high cost of living in mature markets as an economic disadvantage, while giving slightly more room to low-cost economies elsewhere. Think of it as the Peters projection of GDP models.
Who's number one: the U.S. or China?
The economy of the world, divided into a thousand hexagons.Credit: BerryBlue_BlueBerry, reproduced with kind permission
The difference is important, though, since the versions produce significantly different outcomes. The most salient one: on the nominal GDP map, the United States remains the world's largest economy. But on the PPP-adjusted GDP map, China takes the top spot. However, it is wrong to assume on this basis that China is the world's biggest economy.
As this article explains in some detail, PPP-adjusted GDP is not a good yardstick for comparing the size of economies – nominal GPD is the obvious measure for that. GDP (PPP) is an attempt to compare living standards; but even in that respect, it has its limitations. For example, $100 might buy you more in country B, but you might not be able to buy the stuff you can get in country A.
Both maps, shown below, are based on data from the IMF published in the first quarter of 2021. For the sake of brevity, we will have a closer look at the nominal GDP map and leave comparisons with the PPP map to you.
For the nominal map, global GDP is just over U.S. $93.86 trillion. That means each of the hexagons represents about U.S. $93.86 billion.
The worldwide overview clearly shows which three regions are the world's economic powerhouses. Despite the rise of East Asia (265 hexagons), North America (282) is still number one, with Europe (250) placing a close third. Added up, that's just three hexagons shy of 80 percent of the world's GDP. The remaining one-fifth of the world's economy is spread — rather thinly, by necessity — across Southeast Asia & Oceania (56), South Asia (41), the Middle East (38), South America (32), Africa (27), and North & Central Asia (9).
California über alles
California's economy is bigger than that of all of South America or Africa.Credit: BerryBlue_BlueBerry, reproduced with kind permission
Thanks to the hexagons, the maps get more interesting the closer you zoom in on them.
In North America, the United States (242) overshadows Canada (20) and Mexico (13); and within the U.S., California (37) outperforms not just all other states, but also most other countries — and a few continents — worldwide. To be fair, Texas (21), New York (20), Florida (13), and Illinois (10) also do better than many individual nations.
Interestingly, states that look the same on a "regular" map are way out of each others' leagues on this one. Missouri is four hexagons but Nebraska only one. Alabama has three but Mississippi only one.
The granularity of the map goes beyond the state level, showing (in red) the economic heft of certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), within or across state lines. The New York City-Newark-Jersey City one is 20 hexagons, that is, 2 percent of the world's GDP. The Greater Toronto Area is five hexagons, a quarter of all of Canada. And Greater Mexico City is three hexagons. That's the same as the entire state of Oregon.
By comparison, South America (32) and Africa (27) are small fry on the GDP world map. But each little pond has its own big fish. In the former, it's Brazil (16), in particular, the state of São Paulo (5), which on its own is bigger than any other country in South America. In Africa, there is one regional leader each in the north, center, and south: Egypt (4), Nigeria (5), and South Africa (3), respectively.
Economically, Italy is bigger than Russia
Europe's "Big Five" represent three-fifths of the continent's GDP. The Asian part of the former Soviet Union is an economic afterthought.Credit: BerryBlue_BlueBerry, reproduced with kind permission
Europe is bewilderingly diverse, so it helps to focus on the "Big Five" economies: Germany (46), UK (33), France (31), Italy (22), and Spain (16). They comprise three-fifths of Europe's GDP.
Each of these five has one or more regional economic engines. In Germany, it's the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, and in France, it's Île de France (both 10). In the UK, it's obviously London (8), in Italy Lombardy (5), and in Spain, it's a photo-finish between Madrid and Catalonia (both 3).
Interesting about Europe's economies are the small countries that punch well above their geographic and/or demographic weight, such as the Netherlands (11) and Switzerland (9).
Slide across to Eastern Europe and things get pretty mono-hexagonal. Poland (7) stands out positively and Russia (18) negatively. The former superpower, spread out over two continents, has an economy smaller than Italy's. Three individual German states have a GDP larger than that of the Moscow Metropolitan Area (5), the seat and bulk of Russia's economic power.
China, the biggest fish in a big pond
Australia and South Korea's GDPs are about equal, and each is about a third of Japan's. But even put together, these three add up to barely half of China's economic weight.Credit: BerryBlue_BlueBerry, reproduced with kind permission
In the 1980s, the United States was wary of Japan's rise to global prominence. But as this map shows, that fear was misguided — or rather, slightly misdirected. It's China (177) that now dominates the region economically, putting even the land of the Rising Sun (57) in the shade. South Korea (19) and Taiwan (8) look a lot larger than on a "regular" map, but it's clear who rules the roost here.
Interestingly, China's hubs are mainly but not exclusively coastal. Yes, there's Guangdong (19), Jiangsu (18), and Shandong (13), plus a few other provinces with access to the sea. But the inland provinces of Henan (10), Sichuan (9), and Hubei (8) are economically as important as any mid-sized European country. Tibet (1) and Xinjiang (2), huge on the "regular" map, are almost invisible here.
In the ASEAN countries (36), Thailand (6), Singapore (4), and the Indonesian island of Java (7) stand out. Economically, Oceania is virtually synonymous with Australia (17) — sorry, New Zealand (3).
As for South Asia and the Middle East, India (32) is clearly the dominant player, outperforming near neighbors Bangladesh (4) and Pakistan (3), as well as more distant ones like Saudi Arabia (9), Turkey (8), and Iran (7). But that's cold comfort for a country that sees itself as a challenger to China's dominance.
The PPP-adjusted GDP world map looks slightly different from the nominal GDP one. China is the #1 country and East Asia the #1 region.Credit: BerryBlue_BlueBerry, reproduced with kind permission
Strange Maps #1089
Got a strange map? Let me know at email@example.com.
Buildings don't have to be permanent — modular construction can make them modifiable and relocatable.
- Modular construction involves building the components of a habitable structure in a factory, and then assembling those components on-site.
- The history of modular construction stretches back centuries, and it became briefly popular in the U.S. after World War II, but it's never quite caught on.
- Construction firms like iMod Structures, which constructs buildings that can be modified and relocated, may soon change that.
Modular construction is on the rise. Once a marginal sector focused on building affordable homes, modular construction is now building an increasing share of structures used for commerce, healthcare, and education. By 2028, the modular construction market is projected to be worth $114 billion.
What is modular construction? It's like building with Legos but on an industrial scale: standardized block-shaped modules are constructed in a factory, transported to a building site, and assembled together to form a habitable structure.
What's most striking about modular buildings isn't appearance but the speed of construction. In 2015, for example, a Chinese construction company built a 57-story glass-and-concrete skyscraper made of 2,736 rectangular modules in a record-breaking 19 days. That's three stories per day.
In addition to speed, modular construction promises to be more modifiable, more transportable, and less wasteful than traditional construction methods. The method could transform construction, which, despite being one of the world's biggest sectors, is one of the slowest growing in terms of labor productivity and digitization.
One modular construction firm aiming to bring the sector into the 21st century is iMod Structures, which builds shipping container-sized modules that can be assembled into buildings. The modules can then be disassembled to modify the existing structure or transported to a different site to build a new one.
Freethink recently visited iMod Structures to get an up-close look at its unique spin on modular construction.
Do buildings have to be permanent? | Hard Reset by Freethink www.youtube.com
Techniques like this could help bring construction into the 21st century. But despite its futuristic and transformative appeal, modular construction is far from a new idea. In fact, the history of prefabrication — the broader category of construction to which modular belongs — goes back centuries.
Prefabrication: From 17th-century cottages to diners to skyscrapers
One of the earliest examples of prefabrication came in 1624, when a colonial American fisherman commissioned an English construction company to fabricate components of a building and ship them overseas to the fishing village of Cap Anne.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, English firms also shipped prefabricated structures — storehouses, cottages, and hospitals — to Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. In the U.S., prefabricated homes became popular during the Gold Rush when California towns had too many people but too few houses.
In the early 20th century, mass-production made modular construction more practical and, sometimes, more popular. From 1908 to 1940, Sears sold about 70,000 kit homes across the country; some of the cheapest models started around $160. (Kit homes were like IKEA products: the manufacturer builds and precuts the parts, and the buyer assembles them.)
Still, prefabricated homes weren't particularly popular in the first half of the 20th century; homebuyers generally viewed the structures — especially the metal and experimental ones — as strange and undesirable.
Pre fabricated house shipped via boxcarThe Aladdin Company via Wikipedia
But appearance wasn't a major concern during World War II. Facing huge demand for cheap and simple housing for soldiers in the early 1940s, the U.S. produced hundreds of thousands of Quonset huts — prefabricated, semi-cylindrical structures made of corrugated galvanized steel — which about six unskilled laborers could construct in a day.
A Quonset hut being put in place at the 598th Engineer Base Depot in Japan, post-World War IIUS Army Corps of Engineers via Wikipedia
After the war, millions of U.S. soldiers returned home, and the nation faced a housing shortage crisis. Hundreds of companies entered the prefabricated housing market, with several receiving support from the federal government. One of the most iconic models was the enameled-steel Lustron house, which cost $7,000 to $10,000, took two weeks to assemble, and promised to "defy weather, wear, and time."
By 1958, roughly 10 percent of all homes in the U.S. were prefabricated. In addition to homes, the prefabrication industry also built thousands of diners throughout the 20th century, especially after World War II when owning a prefabricated diner was a decent small-business opportunity. Popular in New Jersey, the narrow diners could easily be shipped to buyers by rail.
Interior of a 1938 Sterling manufactured diner, with curved ceiling, in Wellsboro, PennsylvaniaI, Ruhrfisch via Wikipedia
Despite the post-war boom, modular construction never really caught on in most parts of the world, though many architects and builders have long been attracted to the method. Some of the reasons include consumer perception that modular homes are unattractive, technological constraints, and the high costs of researching and developing new building techniques.
These challenges can be prohibitive, especially for large-scale projects.
"Building anything over 10 stories in modular is something no one has wanted to do because you have to invest in research and development," Susi Yu, executive vice president of residential development for the Forest City Ratner Corporation, told Fast Company. "There's science behind it that you need to figure out."
But attitudes on modular buildings may be shifting.
"Today, modular construction is experiencing a new wave of attention and investment, and several factors suggest it may have renewed staying power," noted a 2019 report from the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. "The maturing of digital tools has radically changed the modular-construction proposition — for instance, by facilitating the design of modules and optimizing delivery logistics. Consumer perceptions of prefab housing are beginning to change, particularly as new, more varied material choices improve the visual appeal of prefab buildings."
The report goes on: "Perhaps most important, we see a change in mind-set among construction-sector CEOs, as many leaders see technology-based disruptors entering the scene — and realizing it may be time to reposition themselves."
In recent decades, construction firms around the world have built all kinds of modular buildings, including modular skyscrapers in the U.K., U.S., and China; containerized homes in Mexico; and classrooms in rural South Africa.
"In many countries, modular construction is still very much an outlier," McKinsey noted. "But there are strong signs of what could be a genuine broad-scale disruption in the making. It is already drawing in new competitors — and it will most likely create new winners and losers across the entire construction ecosystem."
The benefits of modular construction
Modular construction has the potential to deliver $22 billion in annual savings to U.S. and European markets, mainly because of the inherent benefits of building components in a controlled factory setting. The Modular Building Institute lists a few examples:
- Shorter construction schedule. Because construction of modular buildings can occur simultaneously with the site and foundation work, projects can be completed 30 percent to 50 percent sooner than traditional construction.
- Elimination of weather delays. 60 to 90 percent of the construction is completed inside a factory, which mitigates the risk of weather delays. Buildings are occupied sooner, creating a faster return on investment.
- Improved air quality. Because the modular structure is substantially completed in a factory controlled setting using dry materials, there's virtually no potential for high levels of moisture (which can cause mold growth) to get trapped in the new construction.
- Less material waste. When building in a factory, waste is eliminated by recycling materials, controlling inventory, and protecting building materials.
- Safer construction. The indoor construction environment reduces the risks of accidents and related liabilities for workers.
But perhaps the biggest benefit of modular construction is relocatability and modifiability.
Future-proofing buildings and cities
Buildings are hard to modify and practically impossible to move. That's a problem for many organizations, including the Los Angeles Unified School District. The district currently maintains thousands of decades-old trailers it built to accommodate a fast-growing student population.
Seeking to replace those trailers with structures, the district partnered with iMod Structures to build "future proof" modular classrooms that can be reconfigured and relocated, depending on fluctuating enrollment levels.
"If you have one of our classrooms in a particular location and 5, 10, or 20 years later, you need them across town at another campus within the school district, you simply disassemble, relocate, and reassemble them where they are needed," Craig Severance, Principal with iMod Structures, said in a statement. "And it can be done within a few days, minimizing school [downtime] and disruption of our children's education."
iMod Structures classroomiMod Structures
Founded in 2009 by former real estate investors John Diserens and Craig Severance, iMod Structures takes a hyper-efficient approach to modular construction. Instead of making many types of prefabricated components, the firm makes only one standardized block-shaped frame, each roughly the size of a shipping container. The firm builds the frames in factories and then outfits them with walls, windows, and other custom features the client wants.
Because the frames have the dimensions of a standard shipping container, they can be easily transported to the building site by truck or rail. On site, the frames are connected together or stacked on top of each other. Once the structure is intact, workers finish the job by adding plumbing, electricity, and other final touches.
The process saves a lot of time.
"Typically, it would take nine to 15 months to manufacture a classroom out in the field," said Mike McKibbin, the head of operations for iMod. "We're doing that in twelve days."
Today, iMod Structures is focusing on future-proofing classrooms in California. But it's not hard to imagine how this kind of modular construction could transform not only the ways we build buildings but also organize cities. For example, if a company wants to set up offices in a new part of town, it could build an office park out of iMod Structures frames.
But what if the company needs to expand? It could attach more modules to its existing structure. If it needs to shut down? Instead of demolishing the office park, the structure could be modified and converted into, say, a hospital or apartment building. Alternatively, the modules could be removed from the site, and reused elsewhere, so the city could construct a park.
Under this kind of framework, cities could become far more flexible and dynamic, able to quickly adapt to changing needs. And with no need to demolish buildings, modular construction could prove far more sustainable than any method the industry uses today.
"We don't want our buildings to ever end up in a landfill. Ever," said Reed Walker, head of production and design at iMod Structures. "We want to take that system and use it again and again and again."