Half Full

February 7, 2008

 

If Christmas is the season to be jolly that election year must be the interval requiring us to be despondent.  Politicians thrive on the need to make the morose commonplace and public attitude, along with biased media, walks in lock step. (Note – by bias media I am not stirring up the insipid debate regarding the press’s “liberal” or “conservative” bend but rather their inarguable commitment to “if it bleeds, it leads.”)

 

Having been sucked into this melancholy vortex is probably the reason I reacted as much as I did to an article that appeared in a recent edition of The Economist magazine (Jan 26^th – Feb 1^st, page 27) titled Somewhere Over the Rainbow.  The article took a step back from the proverbial trees of our terrene to look at the forest, and used data to support its presentation.  It was a refreshing look at how the world is significantly improving and I would like to summarize the article’s main points for you.  However, I urge you to buy the magazine and read it yourself (Or better yet, plunk down the c-note for a yearly subscription.  Expensive, but the best value in news on earth.)

 

The article states that there are three pieces of evidence that support the fact that our planet has significantly improved as a place to live during the last several decades and there is cause to be optimistic about the future. Their three legged stool of optimism is supported by data on the improvements in the underlying social conditions in poor countries, poverty alleviation over the past decade, and the reduction in the incidence of wars and political violence

 

In China 25 years ago over 600 million people (2/3 of the population) were living in extreme poverty.  Today, the number there is below 180 million. In the entire world between 1999 and 2004 135 million people escaped dire poverty. This is a faster rate than at any time in our history.

 

With the reduction in poverty there have been great improvements in basic services. The number of people without clean water has been cut in half since 1990.  As a result of this and other public health provisions, the rate at which people die from infectious diseases has fallen, Africa the exception. In 2007 UNICEF reported that for the first time in modern history fewer than 10 million were dying before the age of 5.  I know that this number is staggering, but consider it represents a 25% reduction since 1990.  The efforts for world-wide literacy has resulted in 90% of the people between the ages of 15 and 25 being literate while that number in 1975 was 75%.

 

The article states that the most significant change affecting people’s lives is that people in poor countries are now able to exert more control over their own fertility and, hence, the size of their families. At one point in time the biggest worry about poor countries was over-population. But since the time when the books “The Population Bomb”(1968) and “The Limits to Growth”(1970) were published the average fertility rate in low and middle income countries has crashed. In East Asia and the Pacific, the rate was 5.4 in 1970 and is now 2.1. In the world as a whole the fertility rate has fallen from 4.8 to 2.6 in just 25 years.

 

The most significant reductions in the fertility rate were in countries involved with globalization.  Globalization, it appears, leads to a shift in the direction of the “replacement fertility.” “In closed agrarian societies, families need a lot of children as insurance against disaster. But in countries that have opened themselves up, families can rely on other sorts of protection such as urban jobs or trade.” It should be noted that all countries that have fertility rates higher than 5 are in Africa (with one exception which is Yemen).

 

(Note – for more on the issue of shifting demographics two books with significantly different perspectives are “Immigrants – Your Country Needs Them by Philippe Legrain and American Alone by Mark Steyn. Both are very interesting)

 

The state of the world economy is also a major reason for the reduction in poverty as supported by a World Bank study of 19 poor countries that concluded for every 1% increase in national income per head translates to a 1.3 point reduction in extreme poverty.  In 2007 the world’s economy grew 4% for its 5^th straight year.  In addition, growth was spread around fairly evenly. The EU rose slightly more than the States but growth in East Asia was 10% and in South Asia was 8% and even Eastern Europe was 7%.  Africa showed a 6% increase thanks to the commodity boom.  “Almost half of humanity, spread over more than 40 nations, lives in countries growing at 7% a year or more, a rate that doubles the size of an economy in a decade. This is twice the number of fast growers that existed in the years between 1980 and 2000.” Emerging markets are experiencing the lion’s share of this growth over the industrialized nations.

 

The rate of growth has not been totally equitable.  The rich have done best.  But the article presents data that this is not a result of globalization but, rather, technological progress. The people best suited to make use of new technologies are already educated and with wealth.  But obviously, to stop or retard technological progress would be ridiculous as it is also the source of opportunity, even in the under developed nations.

 

It is also noted that while the distribution of the growth has not been ultimately equitable, the incomes of the poorest fifth have risen everywhere except, marginally, in Latin America (impacted by their debt crisis). In Asia the poorest fifth’s income rose 4% per year and in Africa, 2% per year. This is faster than the rise of other income groups. The bottom line is that in 1990 those living on a $1 per day were 25% of developing countries and by 2015 it is expected that this number will be reduced to 10%.

 

While economic growth improves lives, “the most dramatic explanation for the improved living standards is the decline in the number of wars and in deaths from violence and genocide.”

 

Most people believe there are more and deadlier wars and more acts of genocide but the data does not support this. Civil and international conflicts have fallen from 50 at the beginning of the 1990’s to over 30 in 2005. The definitions for these conflicts were developed by scholars at the universities of Uppsala and British Columbia for a project called “Human Security Report.”). Based on their definitions, 1970 was the peak year for international wars and has fallen slowly since.  1990 was the peak for civil wars and then fell dramatically. “In total, the death toll in battle fell from over 200,000 a year in the mid-1980’s to below 20,000 in the mid-2000’s.”

 

Deaths from genocide has also been reduced.  While Dafur is ever-present, the late 1980’s and early 1990’s were far worse with 10 cases of mass slaughters of civilians including Bosnia, Rwanda, and Burundi.

 

During the recent years there has also been a dramatic reduction in the number of conflicts resolved or restrained including Aceh, Angola, Burundi, Congo, Liberia, Nepel, Timor-Leste and Sierra Leone.

 

To be balanced the number of international terrorist incidents has increased since 9/11/2001 after a decade of decline.  And the number of terrorist deaths has climbed everywhere.  However, this can be misleading.  While more attacks have occurred in Europe, Asia, and Latin America more fatalities and violence has occurred in the Middle East then the World put together.

 

This does not mean all is well.  It does not mean that any progress we have made the past several decades could not be easily derailed. And despite the title of my summary, I don’t believe the article’s intent was to encourage us to look at the world with the bias towards the “half-full” perspective.

 

I believe its intent was to show that we have made great progress and to use data to assist our observations of the world. I think it wants to show us that there are no magic pills and no quick solutions but that when people are free to pursue their own interests and when the fruits of their progress are not siphoned off by corrupt governments, the world can slowly and steadily become a better place for all of us. And finally, rather then make us complacent based on the results presented, I think it is trying to encourage us to continue the journey.

 

Scott

Comments

[Thom Disch]

Scott, great comments and thoughts. I wonder why the press believes that bad news sells. Could it be that times have changed and since almost all news follows this strategy that following a strategy of positive and honest might actually sell more papers than that of following the strategy of the pack?

I actually avoid most news outlets for that very reason. I'd love to hear more positive and honest reports.

Thom

[Becky]

Dad,
I totally understand the appeal of the article, and had the same response to reading your summary (and thoughtful comments) as it seems you had to reading the original article.

I think it's helpful to stop and remind myself every so often that almost all news media (certainly television, but also newspapers, periodicals, pretty much everything but not-for-profit, ad-free sources) are businesses. They need to sell ads, and sustain a reading audience, and those two factors are always going to influence the type of "news" such sources cover, and the manner in which they cover it.

SO here's my question, beyond The Economist, what other media sources do you (and all the other readers of this blog) look to for (mostly) unbiased coverage? I know I like to listen to the BBC radio news hour on NPR, for more comprehensive and less jingoistic coverage of international news (and very unflinching coverage of the war in Iraq).

And one more questions? Can we ever erase *all* bias in news reporting? How?