Humanity as a whole has more wealth today than at any other time in its history. We face, however, problems ranging from the challenge of new pandemics to the existential threat of global warming, and there is a general feeling that things are very bad. This is how things are, and although there is occasion for hope, Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to talk about pessimism?
To answer that question we must consider our current situation in a broader context. For the first 10,000 years since the invention of agriculture, humanity had no chance of approaching ‘utopia’, no matter how we would define that term.
Then, during the lives of our parents and grandparents, we caught a glimpse of something that resembled that ideal. However, we were repeatedly unable to achieve it. As my late friend Max Singer used to say, we won’t have “a (truly) human world” at our fingertips until we have sorted out the politics of wealth distribution.
Until a few generations ago, humanity marched to the beat of a Malthusian drum. Due to the slow advancement of technology and extremely high mortality, everything depends on the size of the population. In a world where nearly a third of older women will have no living children or grandchildren (and therefore lacked social power), the pressure to have more children during childbearing years was immense.
The resulting population growth (with growth commensurate with farm size) compensated for any increase in productivity and income derived from technological improvements, and the typical standard of living appears low and stagnant.
(It may interest you: The government has only delivered 24% of the promised Mi Casa Ya subsidies for 2023)
The best option for Malthusian society to achieve relative happiness was to foster a culture that delayed marriage and thus reduced the birth rate. Faced with the problem of unsustainable population growth, this practice represented a social rather than a biological solution (which took the form of malnutrition). At the same time, the elites’ best chance for happiness was to establish a seamless process for extracting wealth from farmers and artisans.
a huge leap
We are in the third decade of the 21st century and humanity has almost passed what scientists call the demographic transition: the passage from high to low birth and death rates due to economic development and technological advances. Malthusian population pressure no longer keeps us poor, our productivity exceeds that of all previous generations and continues to grow.
In the next two generations we will achieve an increase in technological capacity equal to what our ancestors achieved between 1870 and the great migration from Africa 50,000 years before.
In many parts of the world there is already enough wealth to ensure that no one goes hungry, homeless or vulnerable to many of the health threats that used to cut short most lives. There is enough information and entertainment so that nobody gets bored. We have enough resources so that everyone can create or seek their calling, whatever it may be.
(Suggested reading: Crisis in the housing sector in Colombia: these are the problems that continue to haunt)
True, there will never be enough prestige to satisfy everyone, but—if we are willing to settle for basic universal dignity—there are no longer any material motives that compel us to have a society where people do not feel respected.
The causes of the problem
Why then do things seem to be going so badly? First, the world will not change creating governance institutions that can manage global problems like climate change. That challenge could have been handled cheaply a generation ago.
Now to avoid a disaster and adapt to the change that will already occur we will have to face much higher initial costs. And for what? Just to keep the wealth of thieving fossil fuel tycoons for a few more years?
Second, the world’s unprecedented wealth is lousy, absurd, and criminally distributed. The poorest billion people may have smartphones and some access to health care, but in some ways, they’re not much better off than our pre-industrial Malthusian ancestors.
It’s been 75 years since US President Harry Truman wisely added global economic development to the agenda of the countries of the North. Although he would like to see that the countries of the South are much richer now than in 1945, he would be terribly disappointed to discover that the proportional gap between rich and poor states has not narrowed.
Even developed countries like the United States are apparently unable to adequately distribute the enormous wealth that modern post-industrial economies have created. The last four decades turned their backs on the sustained neoliberal claim that a more unequal society would generate immense entrepreneurial energy and improve the situation for everyone. However, the policies to grant well-being, utility and dignity to all people were systematically blocked.
(In addition: Government pays Ecopetrol more than $8 billion for gasoline and diesel subsidies)
A big obstacle is the idea that some of the less wealthy members of society do not deserve more, but less. This idea has long applied to Hispanics and African-Americans in the United States, to Muslims in India, to Turks in Britain, and to all who have ever come into conflict with the nationalism of blood and soil.
Many now seem to believe that the Enlightenment view of human equality was wrong and should be replaced with the Aristotelian principle that it is unfair to treat those who are not our equals fairly.
Another obstacle is financial. For a long time it was assumed that technology, capital and labor would always be complementary, because every machine and task to process information required human supervision anyway. But our information processing technologies outpaced our educational system, and the hope of harmonious complementarity became a pipe dream.
(We recommend: Colombia, among the least peaceful countries in the world)
Climate change, nationalism and the challenges associated with new technologies are just a few of the great problems that humanity will face in the post-pandemic decades. In his first inaugural address, Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to Proverbs 29:18: “When there is no prophetic vision, the people run wild (…).” Unless we find a vision for our own age, and until then, people will only see a bleak future.
AUTHOR: J. BRADFORD DELONG
© Project Syndicate
BERKELEY
Professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton administration, where he was heavily involved in budget and trade negotiations. His role in designing Mexico’s bailout during the 1994 peso crisis placed him at the forefront of Latin America’s transformation into a region of open economies and cemented his stature as a leading voice in economic policy debates. More news A Background
