5 ms·
For at least 100,000 years, we've lived in a desperately poor world in which (to rip off Our Lady Peace) "every calorie's a war". We still live in one, if you t
by michaelochurch 15y ago
For at least 100,000 years, we've lived in a desperately poor world in which (to rip off Our Lady Peace) "every calorie's a war". We still live in one, if you take a global perspective, but we're moving out of such a state.
What do I mean by "desperately poor"? (I'm making a tall assertion since there's no economic comparison, at least none that we know of, to human history.) I mean that we're biologically programmed to rapidly exceed any carrying capacity. Economic growth throughout most of human history has been so slow as to be absorbed entirely in population growth, which has been great for priests and kings but terrible for subjects. Per-capita well-being almost hadn't changed (on a global scale; there were local ups and downs) between 10,000 BC and about 1840 AD. Technological advances were absorbed entirely into the task of supporting larger populations.
In a desperately poor world, you need to force everyone to work. People who aren't working are "lazy" and need to be punished. What most dictators actually want is to mechanize work: to replace these complex, difficult organisms (that sometimes break down and stop working) with mechanical ones without family ties, without belief in gods except the ones favorable to "the state", and without creativity or self-awareness or any desire for autonomy. That applies to ancient, semi-fictional dictators like Gilgamesh and it applies to modern, faceless dictatorships like 20th-century authoritarian communism. We're finally finding our way to the compromise, which is to use technology to create those mechanical workers (robots)-- because humans despise being treated as machines, and we're also really bad at the work they do well. Early computers were actually slower than human "computers", but had a lot more in the way of endurance.
Now we're moving toward a rich world and we're totally unprepared for it. We have millennia-old assumptions about peoples' relationships with work (that there will always be useful work for people to do, making it fair and reasonable to structure a society where everyone who can work must) that are about to become invalid, and none of our social structures are prepared for this change even on a national scale, much less a world one.
I'm starting to think we should just give stuff away. Instead of the IMF and World Bank putting these African countries into debt, let's just tax rich people a little more and pay people to build safe water systems. For free. There's plenty of infrastructural and environmental that the world needs, and if there aren't market incentives for people to do the right thing, then that's a perfect place for government to get involved: tax the rich, and pay underemployed Americans to do things that are good for the country and for the world.
For the record, world poverty is a complex problem and most of what we call "aid" isn't what we need to heal the world. Giving money to poor countries just makes their elites richer. We should be giving away water, medicine, technological access, and (most importantly) education.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- patrickgzill 15y agoSorry, I don't think your comment is very well thought-out. How about Roman and Byzantine (Costantinople) cities, where bread was distributed for free each day to every one in the city? And both Rome and Byzantium suffered large population declines during some of their history. Other counter-examples include medieval Europe, where average life expectancy was 60+ and they worked less hours than present-day Americans.
- michaelochurch 15y agoSure, and today middle-class Americans don't have to worry about food on a daily basis, but worldwide conditions have been dismal for most, if not all, of humanity's history, and are just now getting better. For example, these rich cities frequently had to defend themselves against the poor and hungry. Being sacked was a common occurrence. It's a recent convenience (over the past few hundred years) that cities aren't surrounded by walls.
- theprodigy 15y agoYou can thank slave labor for the good life during these times. I am not talking about sweat shops, I'm talking about real slavery. It wasn't uncommon for the military to enslave people and take their land. If you had a problem making bread for 15 hrs a day or having the empire use your land to grow wheat without paying you, then you can just be killed. Most of the time it was done publicly. Production of products back then wasn't too advanced. Many of the slaves had the experience and skills to contribute to a specific value chain of these empires. Using bread as an example, in their culture the slaves had experience baking and farming. The only difference is they aregoing to do it for free and the stuff they produce will go to their rulers. Any problems with that, you can get murdered.
- sien 15y agoAverage life Expectancy in Medieval Europe was about 30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy...