PBS: 'Rational Optimist' Matt Ridley Answers Your Questions
Editor's Note: Last week, Paul Solman talked to "rational optimist" Matt Ridley about why he believes that life on earth for humans is getting better and better. Ridley agreed to answer some of your questions — his replies are below. …
… Question:
Alan
Long an admirer of Mr. Ridley's science writing, I picked up the "Rational Optimist" tome. While well composed as writing, the arguments were not entirely persuasive. It would be enlightening to hear his thoughts on any or all of the following issues:
The Gini index showing increasing inequality, and is it a proxy for the degradation of social and political life.
The fact that neither the U.S. nor U.K. made it in the top 10 countries rankings of human development (UN Development) nor the WHO rankings pertaining to health. Why not? Seems like we're moving retrograde.
The fact that, say, the Economist Intelligence unit has put quality of life rankings in the U.S. and U.K. below the top 10. Why so if we're evolving toward prosperity?
If the Flynn effect pertaining to average intelligence increases is to be believed (it widely is), then why principally in the 'anglosphere' nations aren't people happier today than, say, in the 1950s? In other words if we're collectively smarter on average, more rational, if you will, then why aren't we on average happier?
Could one not also have been a fully credible 'rational optimist' in, say, spring and summer of 1914? How can one be optimistic without robustified institutions?
If there is one thing we have learned or should have learned from the 20th century, what is your best suggestions? Some rational and clear-eyed academics, e.g., the late Mr. Judt, asserted that it's as if the 20th century never happened in terms of our neo-Edwardian, rosy view toward globalisation.
Final thought: Isn't the hedonic treadmill of consumption a misleading proxy for well being, a veritable red queen phenomenon in itself–akways running, but only to stand still?
Regrets for the verbosity. Thanks for your time.
Matt Ridley:
This is not true globally. In the world as a whole, the Gini coefficient is falling. You can see the graph from Pinkovskiy and Sala-i-Martin in Figure 3 on this page.
Only relatively. In absolute terms, human development indicators are still improving in the U.S. and U.K.
Again this is a relative measure. The falling of the U.S. and the U.K. tells you that poorer countries are catching up, which is good news for them.
Short answer: We are! The latest research shows that happiness does improve with income both within and between countries and within individual lifespans. I discuss this in my book. The decline in happiness with wealth is a myth. Here's a link to the work of one researcher. Mind you, the very, very rich do seem to generally be unhappy, but this then makes the rest of us happy! (joke)
Sure, and I say in my book that all sorts of things will still go wrong. But remember by 1940 the average citizen of the world was much richer than in 1914, health outcomes were better, technology was more advanced etc etc. It had been a very bad three decades for many people, but nonetheless a steadily improving one for the average person.
Institutions matter, yes, and I discuss this in my book especially with respect to Africa – why Botswana is richer than Tanzania, for example.
The one thing I would learn from the twentieth century? Never give any government too much power. Democracy may be messy and imperfect and even inefficient at times. But it's better than Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim-il-Sung, Duvalier, Amin and Mugabe. Yes, we may find we are walking towards war as the Edwardians were. I hope not. Who knows if Edwardian globalization had had another ten years, it might have got to the point where war became less likely?
Yes! I do agree with this (I'd have to having written a whole book about the Red Queen effect!). To some extent. Just as today we moan about poor cell phone signals, so in 2100 we will moan about how useless the intergalactic internet is at dispatching dematerialized humans beyond 5,000 light years without delays, or something. We will take things for granted and forget how lucky we are. But, as I said above, despite this we DO get happier — a bit. Can you imagine facing the inevitable loss of some of your children and returning to happiness? Many fewer people now face that fate. Child mortality is down by two-thirds in my lifetime.
I like Gregg Easterbrook's line:
Researching this book, and thinking about the alternatives, has caused me to begin whispering a regular prayer of thanks. Thank you that I and five hundred million others are well-housed, well-supplied, over-fed, free and not content; because we might be starving, wretched, locked under tyranny, and equally not content. …
I'm not targeting Alan here (who asks legitimate questions), but it has always been fascinating how open and receptive people are to the slightest hint that things are getting worse and the idea that we are ever tiptoeing near the precipice of doom. Any discussion of the stunning improvements to human existence in recent generations must immediately be qualified by all the evil things happening … that utopia is not here (as though acknowledging significant improvement somehow is to be equated with being utopian.) Yet presentations of apocalyptic doom are let by with no mention of the remarkable positive developments. What is it in the human psyche that craves gloom and anxiety?
Leave a Reply