Email re: this week's column
Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 4:38AM Tom got this email in reply to this week's column:
I enjoyed your review of Messrs. Zakaria's and Kagan's new books, but as a population biologist and former professor of environmental sciences, I am dubious about your apparent conclusion that we seem to be moving into a new world of economic competition, stabilized by enlightened self-interest, both socially and (presumably) environmentally. I believe that perhaps the entire world (as opposed to a specific region) may never have confronted a threat similar to that posed by the young Russian and Chinese professional classes, and perhaps soon, the Indians, regarding their extremely profligate and highly energy consuming life styles, involving their transportation (all over the world), the regulation of their working and residential environments, their recreation, and their truly expensive (both for them and everyone else) tastes. Although I have not yet read Zakaria's and Kagan's books, I suspect they've not spent a great deal of time on this problem. If I am wrong, I would appreciate your apprising us of this in a future column - in fact, I would be absolutely delighted to be shown that my concern has no basis.
Tom writes:
We did the whole package here about 150 years ago and simply modulated as we advanced in response to costs realized and recognized. Same will happen globally, forcing ever more change. This willl happen amidst many calm predictions of gloom from many scientists--both hard and soft but almost always aging--who fundamentally mistrust and/or underestimate humanity, having seen enough of life to grow suspicious and being convinced that the next generation (unlike their own once was) won't be up to the challenges--never mind those nefarious businessmen and politicians!
Marx was just one of countless who once discounted the capacity for human systems to adapt for the better. But this is nothing new. Scientists of every age going back to the beginnings of science have consistently come to the conclusion, in their collective wisdom, that THIS time we're totally screwed and there's no chance that humanity, absent firm guidance from rational minds (such as their own), will manage to survive.
And life goes on because humans are infinitely clever, leaving behind one age's conventional wisdom and creating something better..
This emerging global system is no accident. It arises in the same way these states uniting once arose, largely because this is the global dynamic we set in motion.
So people will arise, as will new thinking and technology and rules once rose here and continue to do so.
And adaptation will prevail.
You will say, "But I am unconvinced!"
That's okay. It's not necessary that all be convinced, just enough.
The Russians, Chinese and Indians aren't just a new collections of fools. They will no more drive humanity off a cliff than we did. With 3 billion new capitalists come 3 billion new answers.
Many will only see needs and demands. Some will see innovation and vision.
One point history makes clear: when markets are allowed to operate, efficiencies emerge. When markets are prevented or perverted (like in the socialist bloc), disaster triumphs.
The demands unleashed cannot be fulfilled absent markets, where non-linear solutions will emerge.
Or we might assume that our journey, up to now, was uniquely favored and thus we're collectively doomed, having turned on "those people" to a system they'll never be able to master as we did, much less improve.
I just believe ingenuity is inexhaustible, as well as colorblind.
But I do expect doom-and-gloom predictions to explode in quantity in coming years. I receive them constantly from aging profs and professionals.
Never any youmg ones, though. I suppose they would consider such emails too fatalistic, thank God.
Reader Comments (6)
The Universe is a very harsh and unforgiving place. Also, we are right now at a point in Earth's biological evolution where the dominant species, us, is living in a way that is totally unsustainable. We really don't know where global warming's tipping point is, or whether our practice of force-feeding corn to cattle will result in a pandemic (read In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan). Our polluting ways could poison the oceans and sabotage the global ecosystem.
Then there are the technological risks: an advanced AI could enable unprecedented evil, genetic engineering could produce the ultimate plague.
Personally, I expect us to prevail, but we are in living an a time of high (and still increasing) risk. We have barely begun to make the changes we will have to make to live sustainably, in many ways we are still moving backwards. Though, I think if we can make it through the next 30-60 years we will likely be home-free due to exponential advances in technology (read Ray Kurzweil).
But do not forget: THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF OUR SURVIVAL.
But the old guys who really succeed are those who temper their "What If's" with "Why Not's" . .
The younger ones just haven't learned about the "What If's" yet . . But they will, and they must remember the "Why Not?"
Not a lot is possible if you're just standing still . . even less if you only look backward . .
Predictions are helpful only when they are accompanied by some measure of uncertainty and associated time-scales. And all predictions involving complex systems need to consider chaos theory: the so-called Butterfly Effect, where very small perturbations cause essentially unpredictable consequences. For these very simple reasons, predictions about the overall human condition are in fact, more speculation than prediction.
The speculation vs. prediction issue may be an important geo-political distinction, and not simply semantic nit-picking. In either case, keeping these ideas in mind when writing should be helpful.
I still find it odd that most Progressives I know claim not to believe in Progress. Especially since they are usually the richest, most privileged people I know.