IHS8811+Weekly+Assignments

WEEK 1

**//What is the basis of Matt Ridley's view that our present generation is perhaps the most fortunate in all human history and future generations are likely to continue with this fortune?//**

Not without controversy, Ridley’s assertions that we are better off than ever, are largely predicated on his belief that the trigger for rapid human advance was the invention of exchange. That is, swapping one thing for another. This concept was spurred by the growing realisation that people are usually better at one thing than another, and that specialisation increases the value of exchange. Working for each other in turn, raises standards of living for all parties.

He refers too, to the power of collective brains in the advancement of the ideas which technology draws together, where they meet, mate and spawn new ideas.

His thesis on human advance is compelling. And there are merits in his optimistic views. However, there are some glaring omissions. At the very least insensitive, some could be considered downright dangerous.

Presenting the case for our present day good fortune, Ridley argues that we live today with an income six times greater than that of our grandparents. There is no doubt that a combination of technology and increased earning capacity have improved my outlook for comfort and longevity over that of my grandparents. No doubt I have many more options on ways to generate an income and a far broader landscape of goods and services to purchase. But his analysis sugar coats the fact that cost of living has advanced - as has the plethora of ‘essentials’ which contribute to burgeoning household budgets. In 1901, an average weekly wage for an Australian male was $217 1.(indexed to inflation). But rent on a 3 bedroom house was $65 per week (also indexed).

Today, we have expenses that were minimal or did not exist in my grandparent’s day. Transport by car or plane, telephones (land and mobile), computers, energy supply to power new technologies such as air conditioning, and insurances - seen by many as mandatory, are a relatively new expenses. Judging by the phenomenal levels of household debt seen today, there is a case for re-evaluating Ridley’s perceptions.2.

Another contentious point Ridley makes, is that poverty is in decline (this will comes as good news for the 1 billion children worldwide currently living in poverty).3. Regardless of the source of his statistic, it is likely based on averages. Such data does not take into account the rapidly growing disparity in income, evident for more than 80% of the world’s population living in countries where this is taking place. And while great changes are taking place in many nations, slow progress in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia noted in the United Nations Human Development Report in 2007, means that malnutrition statistics in countries such as India have not improved in 15 years.4.

Ridley also pursues an optimistic angle when he announces that the world is becoming greener. He controversially cites Keeling, whose milestone Co2 research on Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory in the early 60’s is considered to have delivered the first alarm bell on anthropogenic global warming.5,6. In his article for Wall Street Journal (republished on The Global Warming Policy Foundation website), Ridley seems to suggest that the increased presence of green vegetation on planet earth is cause for celebration. More green equals more carbon dioxide which in turn, generates more green. There is no mention however, of the fact that satellite imaging picking up “more green” would commensurately record “less white”.7. And less white is not something to cheer about. Less white/more green would appear as frozen organic matter thaws: The thawing of large stores of this matter in permafrost, releases formerly stored methane (a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) into our atmosphere which in turn amplifies the warming of our planet.8.

Unfortunately, for the upside of ‘more green’, there is also an eventual downside. As climate change researcher Ramakrishna Nemani pointed out in his 2003 report on vegetation’s response to climate change, “The problem is that eventually the positive effect of global climate change on vegetation production is likely to reverse.”9.

Certainly there is great merit in viewing our generation and our future with great optimism. But if we gloss over statistics or interpret them to deny the vast and serious pools of human suffering from which developed countries such as Australia and Ridley’s United Kingdom are largely immune, we are not just ignoring the elephant in the room: We are ensuring its extinction.

REFERENCES

1. ABS “Prices in Australia at the Beginning and End of the 20th Century”. Available at [] 2. ABS. “Household debt”. Available at [] 3. Global Issues “Poverty Facts and Stats”. Available at [] 4. United Nations Human Development Report, 2007. Available at [] 5. Earth System Research Laboratory Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Available at [] 6. Wikipedia, Charles David Keeling. Available at [] 7. Natural Resources Defense Council, “Global Warming Puts the Arctic on thin Ice.” Available at [] 8. United Nations Environment Programme report ‘Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost”. Available at [] 9. Roach J. National Geographic News, “Climate Change Upped Earth's Vegetation, Study Finds” June 5, 2003. Available at []