Tyler Cowen -- economics professor, author, and ür-econoblogger at Marginal Revolution -- has a new book out this week. The title, Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World, refers to our increasing ability to order our lives any way we see fit, and to escape the monetary economy of the real world for the nonmonetary economy of the Web. It is, at heart, a how-to guide for living in our information-glutted 21st-century world, and a convincing defense of our ever-connected, just-Google-it culture, which many say is dumbing down the species. It also makes a bold call for greater acceptance of "neurodiversity," arguing that those with autism, Asperger's, and other neurological "disorders" are in some ways better suited to the emerging information environment.

After reading a review copy, which was delightful and provocative throughout, I asked Cowen a few follow-up questions by e-mail: 

A large part of your book is a call for greater acceptance of neurodiversity, and in particular the autistic and those exhibiting autistic traits. I know it's still early, but have you received any response from the autistic community? Are they pleased by the attention and in agreement with your conclusions?

Writings from the autistic community, and conversations with autistics, have been a major influence on this book from the very beginning. I view my book as tapping into a source of wisdom that so far has been largely ignored by mainstream intellectual culture. On many questions, such as the very real presence of empathy among autistics, popular autistic discourse remains ahead of much of the scientific literature and also ahead of the mainstream popular understanding. There is a saying in the autistic community: “Nothing about us, without us.” I should add that many autistics are especially likely to have unique or insightful perspectives on the nonautistic world.

It’s not the case that autistics have a monolithic point of view on autism or other matters; far from it. But so far the response has been very enthusiastic.

As you note, buying a $2 banana contributes to GDP, but having a $20 experience on the Web (via Twitter or IM or blogging or whatever) doesn't, and there's no solution to this measurement problem in sight. As Web activities grow in importance, will this issue have real consequences for how we think about economic development and resource allocation?

The wealthier we get, the more we are seeing people give up income for personal freedom or for a more interesting job. There’s plenty of talk of “wage stagnation,” but maybe the work experience is getting better over time in a lot of ways. Human welfare is becoming less attached to wealth than it used to be. It’s quite plausible, for instance, that an upper-middle-class person can be happier than Bill Gates or some other billionaire. You wouldn’t have said the same back in the days of Carnegie and Rockefeller.

The widespread presence of free fun on the Internet has made it very easy for a lot of consumers to limit or postpone their spending. Just stay at home and cruise the Web. That’s made the current downturn steeper, but in the longer run there will be a huge dividend from all these new opportunities.

You write that "the fundamental currency of the Web is not money but rather squibs of pleasure and disappointment." As more of our culture is produced and viewed online, what does that mean for the culture makers? Are you more of an Andersonian ("Everything should be free!") or Gladwellian ("No, it shouldn't!")?

I don’t think everything should be “free,” but it’s clear that lots and lots of things will be free, whether we like it or not. We used to have a culture in which too few things were free. Now we are moving toward a culture in which too many things will be free. Technology does not always allow us to find a happy medium.

This will mean a lot more amateur culture, a lot more participatory culture, and an even stronger falling away of the idea of a commonly understood “artistic canon.” There will be some obvious benefits to all this, including an unprecedented unleashing of individual creativity. Mankind will more than survive the associated problems, which do not rank very high on my list of major worries. Fewer music groups will get contracts with big advances. Get on Internet radio or go back to Bach, if need be.

There are a several big, seemingly intractable problems affecting the U.S. right now, significantly in the financial, health-care, and energy sectors. Does Create Your Own Economy hold any lessons for how to solve these problems, or, to get meta, for how to think about solving these problems?

The Internet is allowing us to process and organize information far more efficiently than was ever the case before. It’s also mobilizing many more human talents (including autistics, but not just), who flourish in the new medium. This will lead to breakthroughs in all the areas you mention. We’re just beginning to realize how big a development this will be.

At the micro scale of everyday life, one lesson is that we should be much nicer to people who are “different” or who, at young ages, behave differently or in a “weird” manner. Such people, due to their specialized cognitive skills, are a very precious resource, and they will become more important with time. We should support them, and be open to their unique perspectives, rather than writing them off.

It is incredible to think back to 10 years ago and see how far we've come, especially technologically. In 1999 there was no Twitter or Facebook, and while Google was around, its heyday was still well in the future. Obviously no one can predict the future, but in what areas or sectors of the economy do you think we'll see the most surprises in the next 10 years?

It’s interesting that you give the example of Twitter, or, for that matter, Google. The fundamental advance was not one of new technology but rather of a new idea or new set of ideas.

I think we’ll see big advances in (a) getting people to behave in healthier ways, (b) merging face-to-face and online education, and (c) fundamental physics and chemistry advances that eventually will lead to cost-effective green energy. Biomedicine may be a tougher nut to crack than people had been thinking 10 years ago -- plus, it may get hit by cost squeezes. Which of these are surprises depends on who you are talking to.

Extra-credit question: why do you blog?

I blog to learn. If you have to blog substantive material every day, you can’t get intellectually lazy. I also feel I have about the very best readers in the whole world. I’m not willing to give that up, even if blogging offers zero dollars in return.