I was listening to the BBC's Start The Week podcast with Jonathan Franzen and during a lively and interesting discussion of Franzen's new novel, Freedom, Andrew Marr asked Franzen about over population. Franzen and everyone on the panel agreed that this was one of those issues that "no one ever talks about" because basically its insoluble. This idea goes back a long way. "Let's help these two beggars," one of Jesus's disciples said. "Nah, forget it," Jesus told them, "the poor are always with us," - which is one of the most famous category mistakes in the history of philosophy. The Start The Week guests agreed that third world poverty and overpopulation was an issue politicians ignored because "nothing could be done".
The conversation amazed me because no one on the panel mentioned Hans Rosling. I thought everyone knew about Hans Rosling by now. Over the last three years at a series of TED conferences Rosling has been busting myths about overpopulation and third world poverty using the hard science of statistical analysis. Doom and gloom might sell books, but this is not the true story at all.
20 comments:
Might be funny if he put out a book called, "The Optimistic Swede," or something like that. It would probably be treated as 'ironic.'
John
Yeah he is optimistic, but with good reason.
Personally I'm beginning to think that this irony thing has gone too far. Stephen Colbert drives me up the wall.
I love that guy. So thanks for bringing him to my attention. And apparently that was filmed just down the coast from me. If anyone looks at this and thinks it's above them or they're going to be bored, trust me, you won't.
Did Rosling really say anything against the people who think the world is overpopulated, though? I don't believe in insoluble problems either, but he would say it's a problem to be solved, at least, wouldn't he? Or did I miss something?
I know you're saving it for a plane trip, but when exactly are you going to read Freedom so I can hear your take on it? I am very curious.
Seana
Funnily enough I'm heading out of town on Monday and I should be reading Freedom this week.
Rosling's other TED talks address some of those issues, if I remember correctly.
Good and double good.
I know you won't hold back in any case, but just for the record, I have found both the positive and negative criticism equally instructive, so it's not the verdict, it's the particulars that I'm interested in.
I would say in this discussion:
The first thing is that people need to have very accessible, and free or very low-cost birth control everywhere--and education. Where there is more education, family planning is much more probable, and governments need to help with this. (It can't just be NGO's doing this.)
Second, poor people have a right to have food, and by all measures, there is enough food for everyone. (It's the lack of even distribution of it, and poverty which means people can't afford it.) To me, it's immoral that anyone should die of hunger or malnutrition these days, yet
it happens every minute of every day.
Kathy
I think we'd all agree on that. The problem is figuring out what the best method is for achieving this. Rosling makes a pretty convincing case for education, vaccination and trade.
Rosling also makes a good case for government. Doesn't he call NGOs the missionaries of capitalism?
I sometimes think if we spent half as much time trying to make government work as we do trying to tearing it down we might actually get a little closer to democracy.
And yeah, the whole irony thing is pretty tiresome.
After our last election, I am pretty tired of people who want to bring down government but still aspire to the highest offices of the land.
I suppose that's ironic, but not really funny.
I agree with Seana, but also find it ironic that the same people who want to bring down government, yet wanted to run for office, will have government-paid salaries and government-paid health care, and also offices, staff,travel and a myriad of other things paid for by the government. Quite a bit of irony here.
What does Rosling mean by "vaccination"? Does he mean that everyone in the world should get measles, mumps, diptheria, tetanus, polio vaccinations? I'd agree with that (also Vit. A to prevent blindness; it's cheap, even, but people need it. And I'd add antibiotics. Children die from a lack of $15 worth of antibiotics in many countries, even less cost than that.)
Well, my daily mantra is that if this government didn't spend $850 billion (this fiscal year) on weapons and war, that there'd be enough money to feed a lot of people and pay for a heck of a lot of vaccinations, antibiotics, and nutritious food here and globally. But that's just me. I'm just morally opposed to suffering, especially when the resources are available.
My boss was just mentioning in passing the other day about some class she took where the question or case involved had to do with a proposition of Peter Singer's that any discretional spending we have should be used for those in need. She said it was one of the hardest periods in her life to try and come up with what her own position on that was.
I think it's basically an unanswerable question and the way we really answer it every day is to deny that the question has ever been put to us.
On my way to work this morning I was just thinking we were in no way overpopulated, as i was standing, jammed onto a train for an hour soaking wet with toothache cos i cant get a dentist- i was thinking i hope more people move here. Sweden has a high suicide rate so maybe this helps with optimistic ideas about overpopulation eh?
Kathy, it is interesting these days with France and the UK making moves to merge parts of their military to cut costs that the US still spends so much.
And every election seems to be about reducing government spending but does anyone ever suggest reducing the military (which it seems would reduce 'big government' and debt).
Maybe because I'm so used to hearing Americans on the news talking about the evils of government all the time it was startling to hear Rosling point out the importance of good government. We almost never hear that.
Big business rules the world. Not government. Not politicians. Big business doesn't care about global poverty or issues regarding overpopulation. Untill that changes there is nothing we can do about anything. That is the sole reason I don't vote in any election and never will do.
Frankie, I find it's a lifelong challenge to find the level of involvement in the world that makes a person happy.
I have been drawn to the idea of the Amish, or other "opt-out" groups," though the most recent ones don't seem to have fared as well. Have you read TC Boyle's, Drop City? I think it's a very good book.
Of course, I've also flirted with the idea of getting very involved and actually joining a political party.
John
The level of involvement in the world and happiness is definitely my biggest problem. Its a very tricky balance.
Opting out of society in one of these groups is very tempting but often the ideology of these people is harder to stomach than bumbling through life without much structure. Also I cant see that it could ever last as all the free thinkers of the 60's seemed to have forgotten about all their good ideas and fallen into line in the end.
Thanks, I'm going to pick up Drop City, it sounds really interesting.
In the U.S. at least, the right to vote it also the right not to vote. And of course I can't fault anyone for being cynical about the possibility of changing the behind the scenes powers in the world. But I've never really understood the no vote philosophy, though I've known a lot of people who subscribe to it. I'm not sure what you have to lose by voting, and certainly in modest ways at least our choices make a difference. It can be discouraging to see how little that difference really is sometimes, but that's not the same thing as no difference. And sometimes the direction matters more than the actual gain.
Yes, Seana, the direction can matter. In Canada with many parties but no coalitions (though more often thes days minority governments) I've never once voted for the winning side in an election, but we usually have a centrist government that leans left or right, so votes in those directions feel like they still count.
Still, you'd need to make the decisions based on the system you lived under.
Right, it's more winner take all here. But for instance, although the left didn't get the healthcare system of their dreams, they did in fact get modest gains, which translated to real numbers,will make a big difference to a lot of people. And the executive branch needed the legislative branch to do it. A branch that is no longer going to be so easy to work with. Which also is not nothing.
First of all, some of us from the 60s are still here and have not faded away nor given up nor opted out.
There are things to do here to try to move things ahead. And to try to stop backwards motion.
On voting, there are third parties here, although in no ways like in Europe and elsewhere.
On "overpopulation," maybe New York is crowded (although there are lots of new, unlived in condos in my neighborhood--if one has big bucks), but what about Idaho, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, etc. There's lots of room.
Seriously, people need birth control very available and low-cost, and education. That does help with family planning.
I agree that the changing of the legislature is going to make any progress harder. And I worry because many important programs are in serious danger, like Social Security and Medicare.
My advice is not to opt out, but opt in and try to help things move ahead. It's going to be a tough time and all help is needed.
Post a Comment