...actually, that's not quite true. I think I know of one solution, I just don't talk about it much because it's unrealistic. But here goes: the real colonization of space.
I think that extreme poverty and conflict are symptoms of a deeper problem in human societies. Unfortunately, at this stage of our technological development, human economies must be continually and steadily growing in order to be "healthy" (low rates of unemployment, reasonable consumer price indexes, low homelessness, etc.).
Further, while it's theoretically possible that the planet could support vastly greater human populations, you must take into account human territorialism, cultural divides, and other social-psychological factors. So, in practice, it's hard to imagine the planet supporting, say, twice as many humans, in peaceful conditions, at our current moral and psychological development.
So, there's a kind of "rebound" effect in population growth: rather than trying to grow in the most efficient, compact manner possible, human populations tend instead to grow and explore as quickly as possible, until some barrier stops the growth. When that happens, two interesting effects seem to occur: the barrier area tends to develop denser populations, and the original population centers tend to decay.
Also, you have individuals (and groups of individuals) that tend to vastly out-produce the rest of their society. This is one of the parts of the engine that causes human population growth. However, it also has a tendency to create greater efficiency, which both takes advantage of the poor as well as creates more poor people. (There is a counter-argument that this also leads to better living conditions for the poor, and it's true, but that doesn't resolve the much greater economic divide between the various socio-economic classes.)
If these industrialists don't have some kind of frontier to grow into, then they inadvertently magnify the problems of barrier growth: they create lots of wealth for a small group, at the expense of a much larger group.
This is a very poor, hasty description, but the basic essence of it all is that at this point humans simply need some frontier to expand into in order to maintain reasonably healthy societies, and we don't have one.
I don't think we'll be getting one anytime soon, so I expect the human condition to get a little grim for the next century or so.
Why not colonize the ocean floor instead or as well?
I'd be as excited as anyone if we were colonizing space. If humanity survives long enough and manages to avoid too many dark ages, it is an inevitability, but at the present time, doing so would be terribly expensive.
I'm not sure if you could honestly classify spending trillions of dollars on space colonization is the best way to allocate resources for a poverty reduction program.
In some distant future where such things _are_ financial feasible or necessary, I would imagine that economic opportunities would be traded to the earlier pioneers who would suffer under what would surely be difficult and dangerous circumstances.
> I'm not sure if you could honestly classify spending trillions of dollars on space colonization is the best way to allocate resources for a poverty reduction program.
Historically, this has always been the case though, and the initial up-front expense has always benefited the society willing to fund the exploration. (Or, almost always; I think I recall a case where one civilization went exploring, bumped into a another much more warlike civilization, and was all but wiped out. I don't recall which specific example I'm thinking of though, and there are probably a few anyway.)
With all respect due him, I regard pg's essays as I do Malcolm Gladwell's books: they are often entertaining, occasionally insightful, and never something that I would cite in an argument. (And for all the same reasons.)
So, I predicted this response. In fact, I even said,
> There is a counter-argument that this also leads to better living conditions for the poor, and it's true, but that doesn't resolve the much greater economic divide between the various socio-economic classes.
I've been waiting almost all day for someone to come along and say, "but the poor are so much better off!" So, I apologize in advance ...
What do you think of slavery? I have a somewhat unconventional view of it. I think it was a necessary component of human progress for a long time, until technology could gradually supplant it. I don't think it was inherently evil (except of course in abusive conditions, which it usually was).
What was truly awful about slavery was that there was usually no way for a slave to have any chance at all of improving their class. There were exceptions, sure, but as a rule, once a slave, always a slave. That is where slavery is really bad, IMO.
Similarly, as the class divide becomes progressively wider in modern society, there are more and more people who will find it impossible to markedly improve their socio-economic status. As a rule of thumb, if you're homeless in the U.S. today, you're not likely to be sending your kids to college 20 years from now.
Part of the reason that I'm so passionate about the problem of poverty is because I've lived a small bit of it. I've made the transition from being quite poor to being -- at the moment -- less poor, and with a chance of being in pretty good shape in a few years. It takes a long time, and it takes vast amounts of energy. And, I had good luck on my side: I got to play with computers when I was very young, so I have useful skills.
While I gratefully concede that a poor person today has much better chances of being able to eat cooked food and enjoy the basic comforts of cheap entertainment and toys, I do not agree that having really really poor people and really really rich people is an indicator of a healthy society. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, and others have chosen to do good things with their amassed fortunes, but I'd still rather see larger numbers of people attending secondary schools and learning trades -- things which are much harder to do when they're extremely poor.
I regard pg's essays as I do Malcolm Gladwell's books: they are often entertaining, occasionally insightful, and never something that I would cite in an argument. (And for all the same reasons.)
I'm curious what your reasons are.
... but that doesn't resolve the much greater economic divide between the various socio-economic classes
Your statement implies that you believe an economic divide is bad in some way. Can you elaborate on what you believe is bad about it?
pg's essay postulates reasons why people think an economic divide is bad. Then he gives a logical argument why each reason is incorrect.
It's bad because wealth is finite.
No, wealth is not finite, you can create it. You can
build your own house for example and you've created wealth.
It's bad because you have to do something immoral to get rich
No, while true historically, it is now possible to get rich by creating wealth.
And he also suggests that while the gap in bank accounts is growing the gap in life-style is shrinking.
...actually, that's not quite true. I think I know of one solution, I just don't talk about it much because it's unrealistic. But here goes: the real colonization of space.
I think that extreme poverty and conflict are symptoms of a deeper problem in human societies. Unfortunately, at this stage of our technological development, human economies must be continually and steadily growing in order to be "healthy" (low rates of unemployment, reasonable consumer price indexes, low homelessness, etc.).
Further, while it's theoretically possible that the planet could support vastly greater human populations, you must take into account human territorialism, cultural divides, and other social-psychological factors. So, in practice, it's hard to imagine the planet supporting, say, twice as many humans, in peaceful conditions, at our current moral and psychological development.
So, there's a kind of "rebound" effect in population growth: rather than trying to grow in the most efficient, compact manner possible, human populations tend instead to grow and explore as quickly as possible, until some barrier stops the growth. When that happens, two interesting effects seem to occur: the barrier area tends to develop denser populations, and the original population centers tend to decay.
Also, you have individuals (and groups of individuals) that tend to vastly out-produce the rest of their society. This is one of the parts of the engine that causes human population growth. However, it also has a tendency to create greater efficiency, which both takes advantage of the poor as well as creates more poor people. (There is a counter-argument that this also leads to better living conditions for the poor, and it's true, but that doesn't resolve the much greater economic divide between the various socio-economic classes.)
If these industrialists don't have some kind of frontier to grow into, then they inadvertently magnify the problems of barrier growth: they create lots of wealth for a small group, at the expense of a much larger group.
This is a very poor, hasty description, but the basic essence of it all is that at this point humans simply need some frontier to expand into in order to maintain reasonably healthy societies, and we don't have one.
I don't think we'll be getting one anytime soon, so I expect the human condition to get a little grim for the next century or so.