the tyranny of large numbers

By Dr. Jim Castagnera, Esq.

Partner, Portum Group International, LLC

Friedrich Engels observed, “[W]e have seen that, for the most part, the many individual wills active in history produce quite different results from those they intended --- results often, in fact, quite the opposite; so that in relation to the total result, their motives are also of only secondary significance.” (Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of German Classical Philosophy, 1886)

We humans fancy ourselves as having free will.  And, this may be so.  For example, my wife and I decided to have two children.  Others have decided upon larger families, perhaps to ensure the survival of an heir to their farm, or for their care and comfort in old age, or because their religion prescribes proliferation.  Who decided that the human population in 2020 should be 7.8 billion and still growing? (https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)  The answer: no one.  In 2023, we’re told, we’ve topped eight billion.  Again, no one decided on this.

Some national governments --- notably the People’s Republic of China--- have at times taken steps to slow population growth within their territorial boundaries.  Nonetheless, the United Nations predicts a population of 11.2 billion by 2100.  And what is that organization’s policy with regard to this prospect?  “The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) started operations in 1969 to assume a leading role within the UN system in promoting population programs, based on the human right of individuals and couples to freely determine the size of their families.” (https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/population/index.html)

In other words, something like 4 billion (8 / 2) individual acts of free will aggregated to produce an outcome in 2023 not planned, or even desired, by anyone.  It’s questionable whether we can do anything about this.  The reason is the tyranny of large numbers.

“In the field of statistical physics we talk about the tyranny of large numbers. For example: I flip a coin three times, I wouldn't be surprised to get three heads. In fact I will get three heads one out of eight times I try it. But if I flip a coin a million times, I'm virtually certain to get 50 percent heads and 50 percent tails. The larger the population, the more consistently average is its behavior. Large numbers hold us in an iron hand.” (John H. Lienhard, “The Tyranny of Large Numbers,” accessed at https://uh.edu/engines/epi1215.htm)

In other words, the aggregate of billions of individual decisions --- coin flips --- is an outcome that is beyond the control of those doing the flipping, even if it may be predictable.

Engels and Marx sought to discover the laws of history, which might be counted on to shape human destiny.  Building on the work of historians from Michelet to Hegal (especially Hegel) --- scholars who believed that the agglomeration of facts would reveal laws, analogous to the laws discovered by the “hard” sciences --- Marx and Engels labored to demonstrate that a dialectic would produce a predictable (and for them, desirable) outcome: the triumph of the proletariat.  Leaders might impede or accelerate the process.  But the tyranny of large numbers ensured that, sooner or later, the predicted end point would be reached by the human race.

Marx and Engels got that one wrong. Gathering massive amounts of data doesn’t always seem to result in an accurate prediction of the future. Maybe it’s that there are too many variables in human affairs.

But what about viruses? I’m no scientist. But let me offer a few thoughts anyway.

The Tyranny of Large Numbers and a Pandemic

Viruses are the most abundant biological entities on our planet.  How abundant?  Ten to the thirty-first power is a figure thrown around by cell biologists. (http://book.bionumbers.org/how-big-are-viruses/) If it’s fair to say that the speed of evolution is impacted by the number of individuals involved, then we have a working explanation for why, year after year, influenza infects millions of people, despite flu vaccines and natural immunities.  (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-questions-covid19-symptoms-deaths-spread)

Three years ago, some knowledgeable commentators asking, “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?” (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing.html) The argument ran like this:  Most cases of COVID-19 were relatively mild. Deaths were concentrated in the ranks of the aged and infirm.  Herd immunity was the best defense.  

Seven or eight weeks later, as 2020 dragged on, thousands of healthy young/middle-aged adults have succumbed to coronavirus in the U.S. {https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/young-people-coronavirus-deaths/)  A number of theories were afoot to explain this.  One was that “youthful immune systems can go into overdrive.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/young-people-coronavirus-deaths/)  Another was that the virus was mutating.  These theories aren’t mutually exclusive. 

Some experts argue that, if COVID-19 followed the pattern of predecessors, it would mutate into a less virulent form. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0690-4)  This seems to have been the case; we got lucky… this time.  However, this is not always the case.

The Spanish Flu

When the Spanish Flu first appeared in March 1918, “it had all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit a highly contagious and virulent strain.”  Hearing any ominous echoes in this statement?  Then, lean your head down into history and listen harder. “While the global pandemic lasted for two years, the vast majority of deaths were packed into three especially cruel months in the fall of 1918. Historians now believe that the fatal severity of the Spanish flu’s ‘second wave’ was caused by a mutated virus spread by wartime troop movements.” (https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence) 

 The tyranny of large numbers ensured that COVID-19 would evolve.  It had no choice.  It evolved in many places, under many conditions. What were the chances that in some places it would take the more virulent route, following in the footsteps of the Spanish Flu? We got lucky… this time.

Combine this possibility with memories of how deadly the autumn-1918 version of the Spanish Flu was:

“From September through November of 1918, the death rate from the Spanish flu skyrocketed. In the United States alone, 195,000 Americans died from the Spanish flu in just the month of October. And unlike a normal seasonal flu, which mostly claims victims among the very young and very old, the second wave of the Spanish flu exhibited what’s called a ‘W curve’—high numbers of deaths among the young and old, but also a huge spike in the middle composed of otherwise healthy 25- to 35-year-olds in the prime of their life.” (https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence)

Are We Helpless?

The tyranny of large numbers has contributed to climate change, as well as to pandemics.  We aren’t doing enough to combat climate change, and we probably aren’t doing enough to beat the next deadly pandemic.  We certainly aren’t doing enough to halt, much less reverse, population growth.  We humans have the ability to see and influence the future in ways the dinosaurs and countless other extinct species could not.  But we human animals aren’t immune from the tyranny of large numbers.  And this could be our undoing, no less than that of T-Rex.