In reflecting on R. R. Reno’s book Return of the Strong Gods, I found myself acknowledging Reno’s adeptness at passing what is known as the Display Test. This concept was articulated well in Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke’s book Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk, which defines it as follows:
Almost every policy proposal comes with potential downsides—some even significant. If a politician openly recognizes these drawbacks while still advocating for the policy, it suggests a genuine belief in the overall benefits. Conversely, if a politician chooses to ignore or obscure these negatives, it raises questions about their honesty or awareness. As Pincione and Teson describe, such a politician is merely a “posturer.”
While it’s commendable to appreciate the Display Test and its utility, merely discussing it might come off as, well, a form of grandstanding. I believe it’s prudent for individuals to routinely apply this test to their own beliefs. With that in mind, I will engage in this exercise myself. Previously, I examined the drawbacks associated with my support for a free press. Now, I’ll explore the potential downsides tied to something I generally view positively: the market’s inherent tendency to enhance efficiency.
To illustrate, I once commented on HarperCollins’s lengthy endeavor to alter font formats and print layouts, aiming to reduce the number of pages and ink used in their books. The outcome was a format nearly indistinguishable from its predecessors, yet when applied to printing Bibles, these changes led to a reduction of 350 pages per Bible. In 2017 alone, this resulted in over 100 million fewer pages—an amount four times the height of the Empire State Building.
Overall, I remarked that this exemplified the market’s powerful drive to maximize output while conserving resources:
The market incentivizes the discovery and implementation of every conceivable option to minimize resource use in production. If there’s any method to reduce resource consumption, someone is out there searching for it and will find a way to make it work. By contrast, can you envision a government agency expending similar energy to ensure minimal resource utilization?
However, this pursuit of efficiency can also lead to troubling consequences, reminiscent of a quip from comedian Lewis Black regarding the election of Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota: “He exemplifies the beauty of democracy—anyone can be elected. But he also underscores the downside—anyone can be elected.”
I’ve publicly acknowledged that a debate between Michael Huemer and Bryan Caplan convinced me to eliminate animal products from my diet. Huemer’s argument about the moral atrocity of cruelty in the meat, egg, and dairy industries resonated with me, overshadowing the allure of personal taste. Much of this cruelty occurs under the guise of maximizing output and minimizing costs, and it turns out that even the most extreme practices don’t lead to significant savings.
Take chick culling in egg production as a case in point. Male chicks, deemed unprofitable, are culled en masse shortly after birth, often fed into grinding machines or gassed. Approximately seven billion baby chicks meet this fate annually. Although technology exists that can identify which eggs will hatch male or female chicks—ensuring only females are raised—this method comes with its own costs, such as increased energy consumption and space requirements. The financial implications of this culling process are staggering, with estimates suggesting that the industry spends around $7 billion annually on this practice. Interestingly, countries like Germany and Austria that have banned chick culling report only a slight increase in egg prices—about two cents per egg—when transitioning to screening technology.
In this light, the market’s drive for efficiency reflects Black’s quip. Producers will exploit every opportunity to shave costs, even if it means inflicting profound suffering on billions of animals. If a method that significantly escalates animal suffering results in minor price reductions, producers will readily adopt it. This pattern is evident not only in chick culling but across the spectrum of inhumane practices within the meat and dairy sectors.
Rather than ignite a debate in the comments about the ethics of animal cruelty, I propose a more constructive approach. Fellow EconLog readers, can you offer your own example related to the Display Test? What policy do you advocate, and what negative repercussions do you foresee arising from it?
