Why the world cannot afford the rich
nature.com
nature.com
You could look at Daron acemoglu's book "The Narrow Corridor" for much more likely to be necessary conditions for a more productive and resilient society. I would add a deep and wide capital market to provide the funding engine to new ideas to the strong state kept in check by strong society (which in itself is kept in check by being multipolar) because how junk Canada's capital market is has personally very negatively affected multiple business ventures I've been involed in to the point I don't fund stuff in Canada anymore no matter how good it looks on paper.
If climate is anything to go by, science has had made precious little ground against the forces of greed and denial.
But I am interested to see the concept of trust brought in here.
We know that high-trust societies have larger GDP, better life expectancy, and more [0].
Last week I spoke with some people about "zero trust" and the menace of the "cashless society" in a programme on Disappearing Worlds [1] - how technology is making things like trust and human contact disappear. Whereas the Nature article places the blame at the feet of the "The Rich" I think more nuance is needed.
The crisis is not caused by concentration of capital, but by who has it. We have always had wealth imbalance, rich industrialists and so on. We have not had "techno-elites" and suffered the combination of super-wealthy sociopaths with small world-views getting control of the means of communication, payment and education to such a dangerous degree before.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-trust_and_low-trust_socie...
Sounds like an ideological view but tell me I’m wrong
It genuinely feels like you know you're assuming the worst when the article doesn't go that far.
“ The evidence gathered by social epidemiologists, including us, shows that large differences in income are a powerful social stressor that is increasingly rendering societies dysfunctional”
“ Even affluent people would enjoy a better quality of life if they lived in a country with a more equal distribution of wealth”
“ Greater equality will reduce unhealthy and excess consumption, and will increase the solidarity and cohesion that are needed to make societies more adaptable in the face of climate and other emergencies”
It does go that far
Interesting reference, good one!
Yes, the phrases "For your own good" or "Making the world a better place" often precede tyranny and carnage,
Lots of modern technology that is ruinous to human life is built by people who deeply, sincerely believe they're "bringing value and progress" to the world. I never doubt their heartfelt intentions. That's what makes it a genuine tragedy.
So, as I age, I revert to more fundamental thoughts about love rather than merely being "less wrong" or "effectively altruistic" or "making the world better". Whose world?