This post is a follow-up for a previously announced discussion about global crisis that occured a few days ago on Toby Patke’s blog.
What do you think? Would creating a new life (i.e. having a child) mean adding or subtracting economic value to/from the rest of the World? Would raising a child mean better life for humanity in general, or would it just be worse?
Of course, the today’s answer depends on multiple factors, including the geographical ones: it’s different if you have a child in a less populated area where the new life could help resolving the needs of the local community, compared to doing it in an overpopulated country where a new person added to the community would probably mean less food for the others. Besides, the rich/poor factor needs to be considered, although generally overpopulated areas are poor, and less populated ones are richer (but this is not always true, look at some overpopulated and prospere cities, even within countries that are otherwise poor: it’s all about the considered area size).
However, now we can consider another thing to avoid such issues: globalization. With globalization in mind, the area is the largest possible, including all people from the whole World, and geographical factors do not apply anymore. In this case what is the answer to the original question? Have we reached the limit for global overpopulation or not?
I personally believe that no, we didn’t, and that we are far from that moment: I think there is plenty of room on Earth for more lives to be created and continue to generate value to the others’ lives in the process. But of course, in today’s practice we will still have geographical factors applying, and unfortunately humans do not have equal chances to benefit from adding a new life in their local community. As my friend, Toby Patke (who originated the global crisis related discussion) said, this inequity is called the Warren Buffet’s Ovarian Lottery.
But I’m an idealist, and therefore I think we could, if we really wanted that, to erradicate the Ovariant Lottery completely and by globalization to reach to a situation that has never occured before: all born people to have equal chances regarding their life benefits. Geography would be then history!🙂 But in order to do that in practice we cannot consider communism as the goal of the World because it has been proven to not work as expected. And that is just because people are animals at their baseline (whether we like it or not) and therefore sharing things isn’t a good thing for us (excepting online sharing, where copies of things are created, so that’s not actually sharing anyway :-)).
My brother, Ovidiu, came up with an idea a few time ago: instead of democracy or communism, we should implement a global technocracy. Each person would be measured on how much value he or she gaves to the community (by working, creating, sharing, etc.), and based on that value each person would receive benefits back from the community (salary, goods, etc.) Of course, sometimes leadership would be needed and then a voting system would come up: but the personal vote importance would be based on the computed value of the person (at least for a last past period): so people who give more value to others (and which are more interested in the community) would get higher importance when they vote (value proportional voting). Also, in the proposed theory, voting would be online (provided that all people have access to a global network) and therefore votes can be done a lot more often than now (because voting system costs would be lower), i.e. for any law (or other important things) people could vote just like on a referrendum today (and therefore leadership, such as Parliament, would mean less power, at least for important matters).
But isn’t this type of World Constitution proposition the same utopical like communism (or democracy)? Could it become more than theory (i.e. started in production mode)? Because nobody could actually measure precisely the value a person added to the others’ lives (a definition for that personal value concept is probably to difficult to provide, even in theory), nor a safe system for storing the personal values of all people could be created in order to be able to vote. This is so because somebody (that would probably mean a person – see the ciclic?) would need to take care of all these, being able to create backdoors to allow inappropriate access for bad intentioned minds to the system.
But hey, I’m sure these black things already happen now in democracy too (it’s demon-cracy, in fact)! We hear many times about corruption at very high political levels such as in the government of democratic countries, some even with a long and good reputation. And maybe now it’s even worse as the current law, voting, and related systems are pretty obscure: they’re complex and/or maybe too obfuscated for the average person to easily understand everything.
Until now, however, democracy proved better than communism. But maybe this type of technocracy, seen as an intermediary step between democracy and communism, using more transparent and more simple law, voting, and related systems would be better! What do you think?