Is there enough to go around?

Factual Questions
1

At some point throught the Living Wage thread, I asked this question which went (understandably) unanswered. Here I go again:

Is the world’s economy sufficient to bring every human being on this planet to a Reasonable Standard of Living?

A RSoL would vary greatly from place to place, I am sure. In most of the US it would have to include a car while in less privileged places it would mean drinking water, but let’s agree to some basic things all people need:

Shelter. Built to local customs and providing privacy, safety from the elements for the person and their belongings.

Food. 2000 calories a day (or whatever is best) adequately balanced among the basic food groups. Clean water for all uses.

Medicine. Appropriate preventive care to the region and emergency assistance. Medical treatment of other medical conditions would be optimal but I understand that the argument could get out of hand easily. Let’s not focus too much on this.

Education. Let’s say High School level.
Then there is the opportunity to thrive (employment and recreation with their accompanying need for transportation and all that) but that is also very open to debate.

I understand that, as we are now, this would mean some regions providing for others. Let’s keep aside the justice of it all.

I also understand that as you bring up all regions to this standard, the productivity should increase. Let’s keep that out for the moment, too.

I also understand that there are logistical barriers to implement this, if it were possible and we chose to do it.

The question I am asking is mostly mathematical (hence why I posted here and not in GD). Is the current world economy enough to support us all?

As I ask this, I am coming to realize that the question could be answered in two ways: first in a purely monetary fashion. Assign a cost per person and see if we can afford it. Also in a resource fashion: Is there enough food, water, materials, etc. Either way is welcome.

2

Asking this question ignores the dynamic nature of the economy. Much of the wealth is created by producing and distributing items that in your estimation would be luxury items. If you were to reduce that wealth by producing items of a subsistence nature for many who could not even pay for it (much less provide a profit), the economy would tank, so, no, we couldn’t afford it. The only way it would be even theoretically possible would be to switch to a centrally planned economy, and those aren’t really planned that well.

I suppose if we could wave a magic wand and redistribute wealth, the answer would be different (I don’t see the point in answering it, though). The very nature of wealth (in my opinion) depends on the ability of those who accumulate it to spend or invest it as they see fit .

3

It’s a reasonable mathematical question. It doesn’t need to take economic dynamics into account.

I’m sure there is enough. At one point I would have said, back when the Population Bomb was the buzzword.
But China has shown that downward spirals can be reversed.

I’m not sure about highschool education, nor medical aid to the extent it’s delivered in major cities, but the rest seems like things that could be evenly distributed and nobody would starve any more, or live out in the open.

4

True, I understand that there is no real way to implement anything of the sort. If you start supporting the unproductive, then you lose the incentive to be productive. As you well said, there is no way to arbitrarily redistribute wealth in a self sustaining manner. That doesn’t mean that there is no other mechanism to help it happen in the future, though.

The spirit of the question was trying to determine if we are really stuck with having poverty around us to support our well being because the resources do not allow that everyone does well or if it is just a consequence of historical circumstances and something that could somehow, someday change.

I realize that some poverty is chosen and that if everyone had the MEANS to be productive and self sufficient there would still be people who chose to remain poor or that remains poor by accident. I believe, though, that if that were the case, the amount of poverty would be much less than what we see now.

The question comes from someone’s post stating that we would need six Earht’s to support everyone and my own post saying that our living standard relies on the missery of others. I sincerely hope that both of these are wrong and I am just hoping for a way to have a reasoned answer to it.

5

I think one way to judge is to look at the poorest nations. If you divide their GNP by the population it is in excess of the mean income. So the 5% at the top are hogging it all.
I’ve been in some pretty poor nations, like Lesoto and Swaziland, and there are haves and have nots, but it’s a lot more uniform distribution than countries with mineral wealth like Angola and Zaire, where the gaps are wide.

6

Well, I am sure there is a big jump from GNP per capita to mean income. There are bills to pay after all. right?

7

When the national wealth consists of personal houses, handmade goods, and small gardens it’s hard to concentrate. But whoever controls the mine can buy a personal army and treat the mine workers as slaves.

8

You are talking about ecological footprint.

Try this calculator http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp# to see how everyone would have to live in order to use only 1 earth:

Living in a space less than 500 sq. feet.
Vegan.
Don’t drive anywhere.
Don’t fly anywhere.
Get your food locally only.

etc. etc.

Most people in the U.S. would find this unacceptable, don’t you think?

9

You do realize that most people in the US have less than 500 sqft of living space, don’t you?
Check the average apartment sizes on Rent.com and divide by the average number of tenants for that unit.
And there are far more people who never got a passport than those who did.

But the OP was asking about the world. While those in the US find the distinction abstract, those in the poor nations get it right away.

10

Great link, Rusalka.

I am at 5.1. Going ultra radical would get me to 1.9

A great tool for making people just give up on the whole thing and write conservationism off as an impossible dream. :slight_smile: