Daniel Ben-Ami on pessimist puritans
Daniel Ben-Ami’s new book `Ferraris For All’, published by the Policy Press, is a great read. Ben-Ami’s point is to defend the idea of economic development against the `growth sceptics’ who have emerged in various blue, green and red guises recently.
What he does especially well is to point out how conservative, how elitist and anti-aspirational, so many of the critics of economic growth are. In a fascinating chapter he explores the way in which the Left has abandoned the idea of progress, and turned conservative:
Nowadays it has reached the stage where what passes for radical thinking is typically imbued with deep social pessimism and hostility to economic growth. Paradoxically, to the extent that any current is associated with advocating prosperity, it is often the free market Right.
Ben-Ami’s chapter on happiness research is especially enlightening. He points out that not only are its basic empirical assumptions deeply flawed -- most people are happy, happiness does correlate with prosperity and the paradox of mental illness engendered by affluence is merely an artefact of steadily widening definitions of mental illness – but its aims are reactionary and misanthropic:
The underlying message of the happiness movement is deeply conservative: be happy with what you have got. Such an outlook is entirely consistent with elitist defence of privilege that characterises growth scepticism more generally.
(I have always liked Gregg Easterbrook’s comment on happiness research:
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.)
Ben-Ami ends with a powerful call to rehabilitate growth as a goal for humanity:
Growth scepticism is in many respects the opposite to what most of its supporters assume it to be. They typically see it as humane, egalitarian, radical, respectful of the environment and scornful of the obsession with consumption in western societies. But it is inhumane, elitist, conservative, misanthropic and more preoccupied with consumption than anything else. If our great grandparents were alive today they would be astonished by our lack of gratitude...
This is an important and original book.
Comments (18)
This attitude pervades the Left even in the arts. A great example is poetry, where postmodern verse is promoted. They claim, of course, that it's democratic and formalism is elitist, when in fact nobody but academic elites can understand (or even stand) postmodern poetry. In the meantime, rock, country, and raps songs -- whcih are all rhythmical and rhyme -- are widely popular. Further, such postmodern Leftist elites claim it's all been done, that there's nothing new, and all needs and should be recycled. In the meantime, the New Formalist poets (of which I consider myself one, though I'm really just starting out) sell the most books of poetry. The postmodern Leftists also claim that the Canon is elitist, but I suggest in a paper where I apply spontaneous order theory to understanding the evolution of the arts ( http://www.studiesinemergentorder.com/PDF/SIEO%20Vol%203%20(2010)%20Camplin.pdf ) that it is much more likely that the canon emerges naturally, in a bottom-up fashion. Not surprisingly, it is the elites who are elitists, while everything they proclaim "elite" is in fact popular. They get much else wrong -- such as free markets -- as well (and for the same reasons: they can't stand that they aren't in charge, dictating to everyone what they should do, like, think, etc.).
"Paradoxically, to the extent that any current is associated with advocating prosperity, it is often the free market Right."
Why is this paradoxical? What the hell is the free market about if it isn't prosperity? From the few snippets here it seems he has imbibed the "conservative equals baby eater" BBC zeitgeist. If something is bad he HAS to call it conservative - even if it's largely a phenomenon of the progressive left.
Two book recommendations in one blog entry! Thanks.
It's worth mentioning that the anti-growth sentiment is not universal: you won't find many people in India and China who are against growth. The Western (liberal?) elite notion that growth is a bad thing is the worst sort of condescension to those who don't enjoy the privileges and comforts we take for granted.
You could also make the case that the hysterical focus on climate change is a sign that having achieved a comfortable standard of living, we've gone from worrying about things that matter in an immediate sense to stuff that may not matter at all.
What you and Ben-Ami (and, judging only by the quotes) forget is the fact, that those natural resources that currently fuel or economic growth are limited. Additionally, industrial production continues to cause environmental and health problems.
People who say "be happy with what you have" or "economic growth is not what's important" etc., of course imply, that with less severe consequences, more goods etc. would be less of a problem as it is now.
The accusation of elitism and conservationism can be handed right back, to those who advocate that we continue to live as we do now. Regardless of the wealth, health and happiness this form of capitalism has brought us, it will not bring us much further. Not even taking the fact into consideration, that the rich-poor gap is ever increasing, which has been linked to all kinds of hazards for a humane, democratic society.
I want to add, that believing in systems and believing in people are two different things. I would consider myself to be rationally optimistic about people and their potential to change the system for the better. About the current system of economy, society and government in "western democracies" I am quite pessimistic. It's running itself over by not being able to respond to the problems it's facing. Of course we are quite well off, but at incredible high costs.
It will be wrong for some people to argue for policies that are meant to ensure a "humane and democratic society", because foolishness is a consequence of not taken seriously (and a consequence of ungratefulness and misunderstanding). There is an obsession with the increasing rich-poor gap that distracts people from undertaking any sort of change for the better (you know what that mean, do they?).
It is important to answer the two questions:
1) How come such an obsession that ultimately limits people's ability to tackle issues affecting social and economic development, environmental conservation & protection, public governance & safety, energy, communications and transportation, and many more?; and
2) Why are the misanthropes threatening to convince people to promote a propaganda of "change for the better" by exploiting the situation while ignoring those who are able and willing to tackle issues mentioned above?
More questions will come soon...
Humans have always come up with alternatives to replace what they are running out of. This does not mean they always will, but it seems irrational to believe that what has always happened in the past won't happen in the future.
I believe in complex adaptive systems -- of which humans are a species.
LifeScienTology says: "What you and Ben-Ami (and, judging only by the quotes) forget is the fact, that those natural resources that currently fuel or{sic} economic growth are limited. Additionally, industrial production continues to cause environmental and health problems."
Hmmm - LifeScienTology would appear to encompass exactly the kind of thinking Ben-Ami is talking about. In just that one paragraph alone we have (a) deep pessimism about continued use of "natural resources" which are "limited" and, by implication, "economic growth" will stop when it reaches the end of those resources (the "oil-peak" argument), and (b) that what progress there has been and will be inevitably, almost by definition, leads to "environmental and health problems".
I have not had the chance to read Ben-Ami's book (though on Matt's recommendation, I soon shall), but I would guess his arguments against just those two arguments would be:
(a) yes, without careful husbanding (which humans have shown themselves to be more than capable of, and without which we would not be where we are today) natural resources can run out to devastating effect (look at what we think probably happened on Easter Island). But those natural resources we rely now (by which I guess LifeScienTology means coal, oil and gas) don't look like running out any time soon, and at the same time, we are developing other forms of cheap energy using resources we don't currently use to any great extent (tar sands), and those which we know about but don't yet know how to harness safely and efficiently (nuclear fusion). And we should not forget the role of serendipity in the history of progress (though not rely on it to any Micawberesque extent) - something totally unexpected might well turn up.
(b) yes, industrial production can lead to health and environmental problems, but the same optimistic drive to progress which led to that industrial production can also solve those problems. A simple, and classic, example of this happening is the lethal pea-soupers which afflicted urban Britain up until the 1950s. The development of smokeless coal, along with intelligent legislation (yes, I know this sounds like an oxymoron, but it is correct in this instance), solved both the environmental and health problems. (OK, I also know the Clean Air Acts also played a major part in fuelling the Left's belief it could legislate health problems away, but in this case they were targeting a single, identifiable cause and effect, not attempting to fight a dubious miasmatic dragon like "passive smoking" or "the obesity epidemic").
At the heart of Ben-Ami's argument, I would guess, lies the deeply misanthropic seam which runs through Leftist thought, despite (or maybe because of) Marx's supposedly utopian dream of a worker's paradise. And it has led to the semantic wonderland that Orwell foretold, where black means white, freedom means enslavement and "progressive" means not only conservative but even - particularly in the case of "green" extremists - reactionary.
Restless rush for economical growth in a society driven by profit making means that all the improvement considered as universally good (life expectancy, right to education) are just collateral effects. Nothing proves that tomorrow such a system will not reject these features because they slow down its growth. The idea is to recenter these values and make them aims. Most of left people are not against growth as a concept. Looking at Guevara's work in Cuba in the 60s, he pushed hard to develop technology,and still today, Havana hosts one of the most active department of computer science of South America.
Who can claim that these universal goods are being redefined as aims in our society?
Sometimes you need to break down before taking a turn. You will be free and safe to accelerate as you wish after it. I guess being optimistic means that today we can still take it full speed...
A "restless rush for economical growth in a society driven by profit making" must be balanced with "all the improvement considered as universally good".
Be careful with the comments please, yoel, as it will arouse misunderstanding between both sides over such issues affecting social and economic development. Better get to it - SLOWLY.
And finally, it is appropriate to understand a broader phenomenon that affects economic and social development, environmental conservation & protection, public governance & safety, energy, communications and transportation improvements, and many more.
Make a balanced debate meaningful, non-confrontational, and well cooperative.
Thank you, yoel.
P.S. to Matt Ridley: Think carefully - and tell the truth about what to do with the debate itself over a balance between economic growth and social development. And please determine about what someone calls "Irrational Optimism".
Thanks, too, Ridley. I owe you one.
To LifeScientology - you seem to forget that our abilities, eventhough curtailed by sertain circumstances, are badically good and infinite. And that what optimism means. We have problems, and we have not stopped confromting them, one way or another. And the "systems" are our creations, and they cannot be siyuated as factors compared to us: Human Beings, aspiring to expand, and succeeding in doing that, not by reaching absolutes, but by dreaming about them..
The underlying message of the happiness movement is deeply conservative: be happy with what you have got. Such an outlook is entirely consistent with elitist defence of privilege that characterises growth scepticism more generally.
t is appropriate to understand a broader phenomenon that affects economic and social development, environmental conservation & protection, public governance & safety, energy, communications and transportation improvements, and many more.
<a href=http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com/ >http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com/</a>
How come such an obsession that ultimately limits people's ability to tackle issues affecting social and economic development, environmental conservation & protection, public governance & safety, energy, communications and transportation, and many more? http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com
The time has now come for us ordinary people to reawaken the warning signs that the philosopical & ideological motives behind the growth skepticism are in motion. This calls for a brilliant detective work to be conducted by experts who are knowledgable about the origins of "growth skepticism" and "primitive economics".
The so-called "happiness movement" is in motion - therefore, it is important to investigate such a phenomenon before it happens in practice.
And finally, it is very appropriate to understand a broader phenomenon that affects economic & social development, environmental conservation & protection, public governance & safety, energy, communications & transportation improvements, and many more. Philosopical and ideological advocates of environmentalism, "primitive economics", etc. and growth skeptics, are you really listening?
For ordinary people like me, this is just a beginning of philosopical, ideological & cultural wars.
And do not forget about how we ordinary people can challenge those mistaken notions of environmentalism and other philosopical & ideological warning signs of growth skepticism. Let's get to it, shall we?
[...] new book, discussed and debated the world over, is a must. Ben-Ami’s is likewise a god-send for 3rd world [...]
[...] temporary happiness, and temporary happiness improves our quality of life, then it follows that economic progress matters. And since the level of economic progress depends on how free the market is, economic [...]