Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Why Would Anyone Choose Twitter Over Indoor Toilets?
Why Would Anyone Choose Twitter Over Indoor Toilets?
Jan 7, 2026 12:32 AM

Do most people value electricity and indoor plumbing more than cell phones and the Internet? In his article, Is U.S. Economic Growth Over?, economist Robert Gordon argues that they obviously do, and offers this thought experiment to prove his point:

A thought experiment helps to illustrate the fundamental importance of the inventions of [the second industrial pared to the subset of [computer age] inventions that have occurred since 2002. You are required to make a choice between option A and option B. With option A you are allowed to keep 2002 electronic technology, including your Windows 98 laptop accessing Amazon, and you can keep running water and indoor toilets; but you can’t use anything invented since 2002.

Option B is that you get everything invented in the past decade right up to Facebook, Twitter, and the iPad, but you have to give up running water and indoor toilets. You have to haul the water into your dwelling and carry out the waste. Even at 3 am on a rainy night, your only toilet option is a wet and perhaps muddy walk to the outhouse. Which option do you choose?

I have posed this imaginary choice to several audiences in speeches, and the usual reaction is a guffaw, a chuckle, because the preference for Option A is so obvious. The audience realizes that it has been trapped into recognition that just one of the many late 19th century inventions is more important than the portable electronic devices of the past decade on which they have e so dependent.

Option A does seem rather obvious, even to those who may have to consider the relative merits of Win98 versus an outhouse. But as Kevin Kelly explains, Option A is not obvious at all—at least not to non-Westerners:

The farmers in rural China have chosen cell phones and twitter over toilets and running water. To them, this is not a hypothetical choice at all, but a real one—and they have made their decision in massive numbers. Tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, if not billions of people in the rest of Asia, Africa and South America have chosen Option B. You can go to almost any African village to see this. And it is not because they are too poor to afford a toilet. As you can see from these farmers’ homes in Yunnan, they definitely could have at least built an outhouse if they found it valuable. (I know they don’t have a toilet because I’ve stayed in many of their homes.) But instead they found the intangible benefits of connection to be greater than the forts of running water.

Most of the poor of the world don’t have such access to resources as these Yunnan farmers, but even in their poorer environment they still choose to use their meager cash to purchase the benefits of the 3rd revolution over the benefits of the 2nd revolution. Connection before plumbing. It is an almost universal choice.

This choice may seem difficult for someone who has little experience in the developing world, but in the places were most of the world lives we can plainly see that the fruits of the 3rd generation of automation are at least as, and perhaps more, valuable than some fruits of the 2nd wave of industrialization.

This reveals one of the reasons why economic freedom is absolutely essential, both for Westerners and citizens of developing nations: Human flourishing requires that individuals have the liberty to make their own choices about alternatively worthy goods.

Not all goods are equally worthy, of course, so not all choices are equally worthy. As Jesus once asked, “What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?” Serpents and scorpions are not adequate substitutes for fish and eggs. Similarly, a person who would choose heroin over a hamburger is making an undeniably wrong choice.

But when choosing between goods that can lead to flourishing—such as cell phones and toilets—the person who is able to best determine their relative value is the individual who will use them. For a family in Sudan, a porcelain toilet may be a wonderful luxury. However, if given the choice of a toilet or a cell phone, that same family may make a different choice than most Americans would make. A cell phone may, for instance, open up opportunities for entrepreneurship that outweigh the benefits of indoor plumbing.

Most of us will never run an NGO or government aid agency or make decisions about development for third world countries. But by being aware of how people in other countries use their economic freedom, we can better understand why it is worth defending here at home.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Christian freedom isn’t about choice
As supporters of economic freedom, we frequently find ourselves in vigorous defense of personal choice, whether in business, trade, consumer goods, education, or otherwise. But while the elevation of economic choice is based on plenty of principle, not to mention historical and empirical analysis, we ought to be careful that our views about freedom aren’t confused or conflated in the process. Given our cultural appetite for turning choice into an idol above all else, it’s a risk we’d do well...
Video: Globalization, Justice, and the Economy: The Jesuit Contribution
In the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, Catholic theologians, many of whom were members of the Society of Jesus, studied the intersection of morality and merce. Jesuits includingJuan de Mariana, Luis de Molina, and Leonardus Lessius explored the ethics of money, economics, and trade.In his famousHistory of Economic Analysis, the distinguished economist and historian of economic ideas, Joseph Schumpeter, described many of these Jesuits’ insights as anticipating similar ideas expressed by Adam Smith two centuries later. The Jesuits contributed greatly...
What would life be like without free enterprise?
The Fund for American Studies has a superb It’s a Wonderful Life-style video about life without capitalism. The video not only shows what life would be like if we banned free enterprise (i.e., a lot like Soviet Russia) but also makes the point that when you lose economic freedom you lose other freedoms too. As the angel says, “When you take away the carrot, all you’re left with is the stick. My favorite part of the video: Anti-capitalist activist: “I...
Do unions raise wages?
Note: This is post #59 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. Do unions raise wages for workers as a whole? If not, can unions raise the wages of some workers? The answer, says economist Alex Tabarrok, is . . . it depends. Unions have the ability to restrict the supply of labor to a job, which can increase wages for some workers. However, unions can also lower wages. For example, work stoppages and strikes supported by unions can...
When it comes to work-life balance, women know better than government
A series of governments across the West have crafted policies designed to help women achieve their goals. However, they failed to ask women what those goals might be. Economic interventions designed to nudge women into careers they don’t want, or to enter the workforce full-time even if they prefer to work in the home, uniquely disempower the women they are intended to help. Juan A. Soto, executive director of the Barcelona-based think tankFundación Arete, tackles the issue in a new...
Brexit: Leaving EUtopia
History’s worst tyrannies began as attempts to create utopia. This longing to inaugurate the heavenly kingdom on earth – to “immanentize the eschaton,” in William F. Buckley Jr.’s memorable phrase – empowers politicians who promise peace and prosperity in exchange for power. The Brexit vote shattered one such imitation kingdom, according to Stephen F. Copp in an insightful and scholarly new essay for the Religion & Liberty Transatlantic website. “Brexit has profound implications for those who care about religion and...
What you need to know about the world’s youngest ruler
Sebastian Kurz made history when Austrian voters elected him the world’s youngest leader on October 15 at the age of 31. His ascent has been met with jubilation or trepidation across the transatlantic space. Some European media say paint him as dangerously far-Right. For instance, the satirical Titanic magazine in neighboring Germany, has repeatedly called Kurz “Baby Hitler” and depicted his assassination. On the other hand, the Catholic Herald of London dubbed Kurz “Europe’s Christian Chancellor.” Where does the young...
No size or space in subsidiarity
When thinking and talking about principle of subsidiarity I’ve tended to resort to using metaphors of size and space (i.e.,nothing should be done by a higher orlargerorganization which can be done as well by a smalleror lower organization). But philosopher Brandon Watson explains why that is not really what subsidiarity is all about: The subsidiarity principle is often paired with the principle of solidarity, and there is a real connection between the two. Solidarity is the active sense of responsibility...
Rome conference on Jesuits, globalization reaps record attendance
On November 29 the Acton Institute filled the Pontifical Gregorian University’s aula magna to maximum capacity with at least 380 participants, a record attendance during Acton’s 17 years of academic programming in Rome. The international mix of students, professors, diplomats, journalists and lay professionals representing all continents came in droves for the afternoon conferenceGlobalization, Justice, and the Economy: The Jesuit Contribution which was co-sponsored by Acton and the Gregorian’s Faculty of History and Cultural Heritage of the Church. The discussion,...
Do we have rights we can’t give away?
If inalienable rights are, as many people seem to believe, rights which the government cannot take away, does it follow that government can then take away rights that are alienable? As James Rogers explains, it is no less wrong for the government to take away an “alienable” right than it is for the government to take away an “inalienable” right. The difference between the two isn’t that one can be taken away while the other cannot but that an inalienable...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved