18 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Thor, the percentage of people in poverty and hunger across the world has been going down steadily for decades. Even with the current conflicts occurring around the world, the level of violence has never been lower. see here and and here. The common theme is that free trade, traditional liberalism (freedom), and market economies are what has lifted such a large number of people so high so fast. South America, East Asia, and even a few parts of Africa, are benefiting from capitalism. The point is, it is not as bad as it seems. So much of humanity lives in so much peace and prosperity that every conflict, every death, every disaster, gets amplified (by our increasingly connected global communication network). The past was horrible compared to the present day. Every data point makes this crystal clear.

OK, sorry to hijack the thread. The MIT solar power breakthrough, it seems, would work with any periodic alternative energy. It is really a breakthrough in the efficiency of electrolysis. Good all around. Interesting that you wrote about all the good news. I found a few other stories as well and wrote about it here.

[lightowl]

Thor, the percentage of people in poverty and hunger across the world has been going down steadily for decades. Even with the current conflicts occurring around the world, the level of violence has never been lower. see here and and here. The common theme is that free trade, traditional liberalism (freedom), and market economies are what has lifted such a large number of people so high so fast. South America, East Asia, and even a few parts of Africa, are benefiting from capitalism. The point is, it is not as bad as it seems. So much of humanity lives in so much peace and prosperity that every conflict, every death, every disaster, gets amplified (by our increasingly connected global communication network). The past was horrible compared to the present day. Every data point makes this crystal clear.

While it is true that poverty is being lowered, I find it to be a limited comfort. Poverty is a major problem in the world. 3 billion people still live on less than $2 per day, and that's a conservative figure from the world bank. In no way can this horror be excused by the little progress that has been made. Fx. 23.000 children die of poverty related disease every day. It is simply unacceptable. It may be true that capitalism is helping to lower poverty, but it is also a fact that capitalism is deepening the poverty of poorest. It is in the name of capitalism that natural resources are being taken away from people that at least could live of the land previously. Combine that with an explosive population growth, capitalism can not be the answer alone.

It concerns me that people from rich countries point to improvement in deep poverty, while ignoring that 10% of the worlds people consume 90% of the worlds resources. The first world should be ashamed to point out improvement without highlighting the massive problems that persists. No offence. Its simply a way to make the people of rich countries feel better about their abuse of worlds resources. These new technologies where not needed if the 1'st world where willing to sacrifice a little bit of our luxuries.

OK, sorry to hijack the thread. The MIT solar power breakthrough, it seems, would work with any periodic alternative energy. It is really a breakthrough in the efficiency of electrolysis.

Yes. I think they focus on Solar because it is the most promising technology environmentally and in ease of implementation. Many of the other renewable sources of energy (Wind, Wave, etc) have adverse effects on the environment.

[Mind]

People of Zimbabwe are not poor because people of the UK sip expensive lattes. The people of North Korea are not destitute because an American is watching CNN on a big screen TV. The people of Burma did not suffer after the typhoon because people in Canada enjoy a nice snowboarding vacation in Whistler.

These problems are due to the form of government in their countries employ - namely dictatorships. I could name a few other countries as well.

Free trade, the rule of law, and education (the big three), have done more to lift the world out of poverty than anything else ever devised in human history. In order to keep the percentage of people living in poverty and hunger declining we would do best to continue promoting the big three. There is hope that more people can be educated in the ways of free trade and the rule of law through increased communication (cell phones and internet).

Have you ever heard of the saying "you give a person a fish and you feed him for a day, you teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"? We need to do more teaching and less giving. I could give all my assets away tomorrow (and so could everyone in the entire developed world) and it would do nothing except provide short term relief to the world's poor. In the end, we would all be poor. If I teach people about free trade and the rule of law I can lift vastly more out of poverty for their entire lifetime.

[lightowl]

There are plenty of ways to give that improves trade and education. It is easy to say that "The people of North Korea are not destitute because an American is watching CNN on a big screen TV", but if rich countries where to expand their foreign aid, it would make a big difference. The fact is that most people in rich countries don't care that most people in the world are poor in comparison. I didn't realize what it means to be poor before I moved to the Philippines and started meeting really poor people. It is devastating to not be able to feed and house your children. Being forced to go through garbage to find food to survive. If you have to do that, education and trade becomes an unreachable luxury. It is easy to sit in comfort and security and argue idealistic visions. The reality is that a small minority is ignoring a global tragedy.

We need to do more teaching and less giving.

We need to do more teaching AND more giving.

These problems are due to the form of government in their countries employ - namely dictatorships. I could name a few other countries as well.

Dictatorships are a small minority in the world today. If the world where serious about solving poverty, it could, but it is not. Thus the need for paradigm changing technology.

have done more to lift the world out of poverty

The world has not been lifted out of poverty. If you had the same resources as 80% of the worlds people, you would probably be considered poor in the eyes of your peers. Does that seem fair to you? If it does not, here is a good way to help, and it doesn't even require giving anything.

http://www.kiva.org/

Still, it does not help the poorest of the poor. It does not help those who can not help themselves. Those who die from drinking water they need to survive. Those who die from diseases we consider ancient problems.

Edited by lightowl, 01 August 2008 - 10:02 PM.

[Mind]

2.3 trillion in aid has been given to poor nations over the last 5 decades (that is just public funds). Private donations to poor nations from U.S. citizens is over 20 billion every year. Clearly the "just give more" paradigm is not sufficient. Political reform is needed. Education is needed. Economic reform is needed. Without these, most of the effort is wasted.

I am glad we agree that more teaching is needed. In this regard the distribution of cell phones, one laptop per child, and cheap solar power (as you started off with), are key.

[lightowl]

2.3 trillion in aid has been given to poor nations over the last 5 decades (that is just public funds).

That is less than 10% of US+EU GDP in a single year, over the span of 50 years. (Granted, GDP has grown overall, but its still a very small amount)

Clearly the "just give more" paradigm is not sufficient. Political reform is needed. Education is needed. Economic reform is needed. Without these, most of the effort is wasted.

I agree, but I dont think enough is being spent on active aid for it to be sufficiently effective. The amount of aid given in monetary equivalent is embarrassing.

I am glad we agree that more teaching is needed. In this regard the distribution of cell phones, one laptop per child, and cheap solar power (as you started off with), are key.

Yep, we definitely agree on that. The OLPC project is one of the things I am following closely. I hope the price of a single unit drops significantly soon. The more of these machines are out there, the more powerful each unit will be. I have yet to see a single unit in the field. Perhaps its because Philippines is a relatively "rich" country compared to many others. (50% of Philippines GDP ($3,400/capita) comes from people working abroad)

http://www.globaliss...lated/Facts.asp

World GDP/capita
http://en.wikipedia......P)_per_capita

[lightowl]

http://www.gartner.c..._55323_1176.jsp

Plummer:
I don't see a rush by anyone to help the third world catch up to the first world's standard of living. What do you think is the answer?

Kamen:
I don't have a good answer. I just can tell you that it is a real problem. We can't live anymore in a world which is based on stuff and not ideas. If you want to live with the world of stuff, we're all doomed. As we move towards 8 or 10 billion people on the planet, there's a little less gold per capita. Each one of us will continue to be fighting over an ever smaller percentage of total resources, except it won't be just gold we're fighting over. It will be water and air. This is not a happy thought.

Now look at a different world. You have a good idea. He has a good idea. You give him your idea, and he gives you his idea. Now you have a world where a lot has changed. Each one of you had one idea. Now each one of you has two ideas. I know how to cure cancer. He knows a way to make an engine that doesn't pollute. She knows a way to grow food in sand. You put all the good ideas together, and everybody wins because everybody has more ideas.

This world is going to get uglier. We are not going to stop terrorists by taking away nail clippers from grandma at Hartsfield Airport. There are a few billion people out there looking through the window from the outside in, seeing what we have, and they have nothing to lose. We're not going to solve this problem by trying to keep them out. That's nonsense. The solution to this problem is to give people hope. Everybody has to be able to participate in a future that they want to live for. That's what technology can do.

I think that summed it up quite well. The first time I read this interview I got goosebumps from this passage. Its so accurate and so true in such few words.

[lightowl]

Private donations to poor nations from U.S. citizens is over 20 billion every year.

That's the equivalent of $20/year per person of those 1 billion people living of $1/day. That's about 5 cents/day per person. Such numbers needs to be put into perspective.

[lunarsolarpower]

Free trade, the rule of law, and education (the big three), have done more to lift the world out of poverty than anything else ever devised in human history.

(emphasis added)

That is the absolutely huge one to me. It is the dividing line between a country that is tolerable to live in and one that is not. If rule of law is not in place and the laws don't respect basic human rights, little meaningful change is possible. Anything that someone manages to accomplish can be undone on a whim. I don't disagree with the other two but free trade seems to be more of a euphemism these days than a meaningful term. Trade certainly has improved the economies of many poor countries as they entered the global system. However third-world farmers have been devastated at the same time as American manufacturing was largely eliminated.

Economically we need to get our act together and begin preparing for an era where no one HAS to work to survive because within 100 years there won't be a whole lot of necessary work for humans to do unless technological progress falls off the tracks somehow. I like the Australia project proposed in Manna by Marshall Brain but it needs to be refined to allow ownership of property or it won't work very well.

Thirty years from now open-source self-replicating technology in the vein of the current RepRap project should begin making significant contributions to people's way of life the world over.

Edited by lunarsolarpower, 02 August 2008 - 04:27 AM.

[lightowl]

Thirty years from now open-source self-replicating technology in the vein of the current RepRap project should be making significant contributions to people's way of life the world over.

Hopefully this will be true. One big stumbling block could be that they are not efficient enough to compete with large scale mass production installations. If that is the case, those who own those installations would eventually own the entire global competitive production capacity. In the long run though, there seems to be plenty of resources to go around, when molecular nanofactories are fully developed. Hopefully people will share this technology openly, but it could also happen that a few power hungry nations seek to control it. One never knows with politics. Its one of the most unpredictable factors in human society.

If rule of law is not in place and the laws don't respect basic human rights, little meaningful change is possible.

This is true, but it is also obvious that rule of law is not sufficient. There needs to be social responsibility on the parts of government too, if we are to eliminate poverty completely in the near term.


The main problem with capitalism, as I see it, is that it assumes everybody have equal opportunity to prosper. This is not the case at all. In fact there is a tendency for the rich to become richer and the poor to remain poor in unregulated capitalism. I also think nationalism is a big problem because every country hold their own interests highest, to the detriment of universal prosperity. Its an economic war, fighting to attract human resources. Those who are left behind are those who can not offer anything of value to the winning countries.

[advancedatheist]

3 billion people still live on less than $2 per day, and that's a conservative figure from the world bank.

We should praise these people for "living lightly upon the earth"! ; )

[advancedatheist]

These problems are due to the form of government in their countries employ - namely dictatorships. I could name a few other countries as well.

Free market economists in the 1970's and 1980's had a crush on Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for the way he cut taxes, stomped on labor unions and reduced regulations on business. Chile under Pinochet showed that capitalism can exist under a dictatorship.

[niner]

http://www.gartner.c..._55323_1176.jsp

Plummer:
I don't see a rush by anyone to help the third world catch up to the first world's standard of living. What do you think is the answer?

Kamen:
I don't have a good answer. I just can tell you that it is a real problem. We can't live anymore in a world which is based on stuff and not ideas. If you want to live with the world of stuff, we're all doomed. As we move towards 8 or 10 billion people on the planet, there's a little less gold per capita. Each one of us will continue to be fighting over an ever smaller percentage of total resources, except it won't be just gold we're fighting over. It will be water and air. This is not a happy thought.

Now look at a different world. You have a good idea. He has a good idea. You give him your idea, and he gives you his idea. Now you have a world where a lot has changed. Each one of you had one idea. Now each one of you has two ideas. I know how to cure cancer. He knows a way to make an engine that doesn't pollute. She knows a way to grow food in sand. You put all the good ideas together, and everybody wins because everybody has more ideas.

This world is going to get uglier. We are not going to stop terrorists by taking away nail clippers from grandma at Hartsfield Airport. There are a few billion people out there looking through the window from the outside in, seeing what we have, and they have nothing to lose. We're not going to solve this problem by trying to keep them out. That's nonsense. The solution to this problem is to give people hope. Everybody has to be able to participate in a future that they want to live for. That's what technology can do.

I think that summed it up quite well. The first time I read this interview I got goosebumps from this passage. Its so accurate and so true in such few words.

I read it and came to a quite different conclusion. Each paragraph strikes me as wrong. He says that we will be fighting over substances, but that doesn't have to be the case. We will not fight over "water" and "air", we might have a problem with clean air and pure water in the right place, but both of those can be dealt with through improved technology. I find his ideas about free exchange of intellectual property to be particularly naive. First of all, almost no one has great ideas. Random poor people are no more likely to "cure cancer" or "make an engine that doesn't pollute" than I am to date Angelina Jolie. The good ideas that do occur need a lot of resources to be developed. More importantly, each good idea needs to be sifted from thousands of bad ones, refined, and changed until it is truly of value. This isn't going to happen without incentive structures, so a bunch of hippies sitting around the commune are unlikely to come up with any revolutionary new technology. In the third paragraph, at least he is right about grandma's nail clippers, but he seems to be suggesting that terrorism is due to the fact that we are rich and the terrorists are not. That is a pretty simplistic analysis that is far from correct.

I'm afraid that even though I'm considered by some to be ImmInst's "resident moonbat", I have to agree with Mind and LSP. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do some things to help the poor. One thing we might consider is allowing true free trade in agricultural commodities that can be produced cheaply in some parts of the third world. That means we need to drop some protective trade barriers and stop subsidizing our agribusinessmen who like to masquerade as Tom Joad.

[niner]

These problems are due to the form of government in their countries employ - namely dictatorships. I could name a few other countries as well.

Free market economists in the 1970's and 1980's had a crush on Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for the way he cut taxes, stomped on labor unions and reduced regulations on business. Chile under Pinochet showed that capitalism can exist under a dictatorship.

Good point; look at China. In both these cases, while there may not be the kinds of freedoms or civil liberties that we have, would it be safe to say that the rule of law existed, or exists? My sense is that it does, to a reasonable extent, Chilean "disappearances" notwithstanding, but I'd be interested in hearing from those who have more intimate knowledge of these two cultures. As LSP mentioned, I suspect that rule of law and property rights substantially trumps the political system, and even the economic system, within limits, (Communism isn't going to work, but a semi-socialist state might) in terms of impact on overall economic development.

[mike250]

I'm afraid that even though I'm considered by some to be ImmInst's "resident moonbat", I have to agree with Mind and LSP. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do some things to help the poor. One thing we might consider is allowing true free trade in agricultural commodities that can be produced cheaply in some parts of the third world. That means we need to drop some protective trade barriers and stop subsidizing our agribusinessmen who like to masquerade as Tom Joad

this is a good point. China and India called for increases in agricultural protectionism. They ironically have been seeking higher cuts in subsidies and protection from the EU and the US, whilst not wanting to reciprocate in opening up their own markets for agricultural or manufactured goods sufficiently.

Meanwhile, the French, Italian and Irish farmers, piggies supping at the trough of the EU Common Agricultural Policy are objecting to the modest compromise proposals.

Edited by mike250, 02 August 2008 - 04:37 AM.

[Brafarality]

Free trade, the rule of law, and education (the big three), have done more to lift the world out of poverty than anything else ever devised in human history.

Very true. Still a long way to go before everyone is enlightened, safe, and sated, but it is questionable whether tinkering with what works is the answer:
'works' being a qualified word here. Some would argue that free trade is not working that well. I disagree. It is definitely improving the world.

Any radical plan to fracture free trade and compel those with resources to arbitrarily give them away to destitute peoples is bound to fail and cause 1000x times more human misery than ever could occur from free trade. I deeply admire Bono's intentions and how garbage can lids would be rattled the world over if something big isn't done about poverty, AIDS, etc., and how King Billy might then pitch bomb balls in till the town lies beaten flat, etc., but it is Bill Gates who is on the right path, imho. If and when I donate sensibly, which may be never, since I usually give charitably in an unfocused and scatterbrained fashion, it will be to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is based, above all, on accountability.

OK, that was quite a meandering blurt, but I am too weary to edit and terse-ify, therefore, stet!

[lightowl]

He says that we will be fighting over substances, but that doesn't have to be the case.

True, it doesn't have to be the case if the poor had access to the right technology, but unfortunately it is the case that people are fighting over clean water, even in some of the largest cities in the world. Her in Manila for example, 15 million people live and work. There is a reason that water is being transported through the slums in armored and guarded trucks. If they didn't, they would be stopped and looted. This is not because water is expensive. It is because it is vital to survival, and many people in the slums cant afford to buy it even though its cheap compared to so many non-vital goods.

We will not fight over "water" and "air", we might have a problem with clean air and pure water in the right place, but both of those can be dealt with through improved technology.

The technology is there. It is a matter of making it available to the people who need it.

This isn't going to happen without incentive structures, so a bunch of hippies sitting around the commune are unlikely to come up with any revolutionary new technology.

Fortunately there are many people who don't need capital incentives to be motivated (I assume capital incentives are your point). Regardless of those condescending remarks to compassionate cultures, many scientists, inventors and entrepreneurs are driven by curiosity and a wish to make a better world. In fact it is rare to find these people driven purely by financial incentives.

I have to agree with Mind and LSP. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do some things to help the poor. One thing we might consider is allowing true free trade in agricultural commodities that can be produced cheaply in some parts of the third world. That means we need to drop some protective trade barriers and stop subsidizing our agribusinessmen who like to masquerade as Tom Joad.

Sure, its good to promote free trade, but there are plenty of people who have no access to production resources, much less access to capital to start any form of business. Those people need help to overcome everyday problems such as lack of food, water, shelter and security before they can even begin to consider starting any form of business. In many cases the lack of food and water makes it virtually impossible to take on simple work. Its quite naive to think the world can solve all these problems by simply freeing up markets.

the percentage of people in poverty and hunger across the world has been going down steadily for decades.

While this is true there is evidence that points to the rate of progress slowing down in the last 2 decades of the previous century. In some cases progress has even reversed to a negative trend.

The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000; 20 Years of Diminished Progress

Most measures of social progress generally follow patterns in the growth of per capita
GDP, at least over long enough time periods. So it should not be surprising that the much slower
growth in the period of globalization was also accompanied by considerably less progress in
health outcomes for most countries. Looking at measures of infant mortality, child and adult
mortality, and life expectancy, the rate of progress was generally greater for countries during the
first period (1960-1980) than during the period of globalization.

...

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to explain the cause of the growth slowdown, it
is at least worth noting one commonly accepted explanation that does not fit the evidence. While
some economists have acknowledged the relatively strong growth of countries during the period
in which they pursued more inward-oriented growth, they have argued that this growth reached
its limits for a number of reasons inherent to these development strategies (e.g. import
substitution). In other words, they argue that there is some inherent limit to the growth potential
of these strategies; and after reaching this point, further development along these lines would be
severely constrained.

If this were true, then we would expect to find that while some groups of countries
experienced slower growth as a result of reaching the limits of these inward-oriented strategies
and moved into higher income groupings, poorer countries should have continued to experience
strong growth, since they had not yet reached the limits of this kind of economic development.
But the data show that slower growth is a clear pattern for countries at all income levels in the
second period. This rules out the possibility that the slowdown is due to countries reaching the
limits of development strategies pursued during the first period. The slower growth in the period
of globalization cannot be attributed to constraints created by the economic growth between
1960 and 1980. This indicates that the cause of the sharp decline in growth was a result of
structural and policy changes that have affected the vast majority of countries over the last 20
years.

Edited by lightowl, 04 August 2008 - 10:51 PM.

[lightowl]

I could give all my assets away tomorrow (and so could everyone in the entire developed world) and it would do nothing except provide short term relief to the world's poor.

How can you be so sure of that? Assuming everyone gave EVERYTHING away (which would be a bad thing, because then the developed world would grind to a halt), most poor people would have enough resources to sustain their lives without having to fight every day to survive. That in turn would free up time to pursue luxuries such as education and sustainable work. I suspect it would do a lot of good for poor countries economies in general, even if it is a bad idea just based on the extremeness of it.

But going to these extremes suggests some defensiveness in the argument. We wouldn't need to give EVERYTHING away. Currently the developed world is giving less than 0.5% of GDP in aid. We could easily double or triple that amount without noticing it in any significant way on our economies.

I personally pay about 35% of my income in taxes, and I still can afford to give away 20-30% of what I have left in personal aid. My annual income is about $30.000, so its not as if I'm very rich compared to many people in the west. I have one of the lowest incomes in my country (Denmark). Granted, I don't live in great luxury, but I can afford to eat and waste time posting in these forums. Obviously I am not motivated by cash incentives anymore (I was a few years ago). I can help a lot of people by simply giving money away. It is amazing how a little break from the fight to survive can give hope to a person. Simply having the opportunity to be cured of minor health issues is making a big difference for some of the people I help. If you haven't experienced these things for your self, then I'm sorry to say your arguments that it wont work are quite irrelevant or even damaging. Not that it matters a great deal in these forums anyway.

Edited by lightowl, 05 August 2008 - 12:00 AM.

[lightowl]

http://www.unmillenn...fastfacts_e.htm

More than one billion people in the world live on less than one dollar a day. In total, 2.7 billion struggle to survive on less than two dollars per day. Poverty in the developing world, however, goes far beyond income poverty. It means having to walk more than one mile everyday simply to collect water and firewood; it means suffering diseases that were eradicated from rich countries decades ago. Every year eleven million children die-most under the age of five and more than six million from completely preventable causes like malaria, diarrhea and pneumonia.

..

More than 2.6 billion people-over 40 per cent of the world's population-do not have basic sanitation, and more than one billion people still use unsafe sources of drinking water.

http://www.unmillenn...rg/press/07.htm

0.7 refers to the repeated commitment of the world's governments to commit 0.7% of rich-countries' gross national product (GNP) to Official Development Assistance.

If every developed country set and followed through on a timetable to reach 0.7% by 2015, the world could make dramatic progress in the fight against poverty and start on a path to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and end extreme poverty within a generation.

I find it disturbing that its so hard to reach such a small goal. It makes me wonder if technological progress really is enough. It seems we would need a situation without scarcity to solve these problems. I truly hope technology can do that. The greed of the rich is simply too dominating at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia....Development_aid

Over the last 20 years, annual official development assistance (ODA) has been between US$ 50bn and US$60bn but has reached over $100bn in 2005.[2] The United States is the world's largest contributor of ODA in absolute terms ($15.7 billion, 2003), but the smallest among developed countries as a percentage of its GDP (0.14% in 2003). The UN target for development aid is 0.7% of GDP; currently only five countries (with Norway in the lead with 0.92%) achieve this.

Among developed and developing nations, Saudi Arabia’s ODA volume is second only to the USA.[3] As percentage of GDP, Arab states of the Persian Gulf are the most generous, with Kuwait contributing 8.2% of its gross national product and Saudi Arabia contributing 4% in 2002.[4]

Some Arab nations give 5-10 times more than the millennium goals. Granted, they have a significant advantage with the current oil prices, but this seems to have been a long term trend. Why are western countries so slow to follow?

Edited by lightowl, 05 August 2008 - 12:12 AM.