State of the World

[drplokta]

So, disregarding the dodgy anecdotal evidence, how are the developing countries and the world's poor actually doing from globalisation? Karl Schroeder (an excellent SF author whose novels Ventus and Permanence you should all read) has posted some figures from the UN. And the answer is, they're doing very well indeed.

From 1982 to 2002:

• World infant mortality per 1000 live births dropped from 86.7 to 52.4
  
• Calories of food per capita in poor countries went from 2382 to 2740
  
• Percentage of households with access to safe water supplies went from 60.7% to 80.9% -- more households now have safe water than the total number of households in 1982, I should imagine
  
• Literacy rate in poor and middle income countries went from 64.7% to 78%
  
• World life expectancy went from 56.8 years to 63.8 years, despite the impact of AIDS

Apparently, the world is not going to hell in a handbasket, but rather in the other direction.

Comments

[drplokta]

$300 billion per year as the cost of global warming (not a one-off cost of $300 billion) comes from the United Nations Environment Program: http://www.solcomhouse.com/Impact.htm

As far as nuclear fission goes, once people start freezing, starving and dying of thirst because of power shortages, a rather different view of the risks will be taken.

[the-gardener.livejournal.com]

The idea that without nuclear power we shall be "freezing in the dark" is very 1970s. And even if it were true, the fact that it takes 10-15 years to bring a new nuclear power station into operation means that there'd ba an awful lot of freezing and stumbling around in the dark before it could make any difference -- whereas one can knock up a small-scale wind turbine for personal use in a day or so. (See, for example, The Guardian supplement referenced by frandownsofa earlier.)

I'm now slightly confused about your costings for global warming. You initially said that they would be "once only", but now refer to an annual cost. That makes more sense....but, like most UN stuff, probably understates the position. Approaching the question from an economic perspective means that the ecological tends to be overlooked -- and it's ecology that really matters here. Complex species such as ourselves rely on a biodiverse world to support us; without that biodiversity, we disappear. All the technology in the world can't compensate for the potential loss of the soil bacteria on which our food crops depend.

[drplokta]

The cost is annual. But it's like a one-off hit to global economic growth, because if you have growth that is 1% lower in one year, then every subsequent year for ever after is that much lower than it would have been otherwise, even though all the subsequent years have normal growth.

[drplokta]

What is your evidence for the inability of technology in 2050 to cope with reduced biodiversity in soil bacteria? There is a long history, going back at least as far as Malthus, of inaccurate predictions of doom based on looking at future problems but solutions based current technology.

[the-gardener.livejournal.com]

A long history going back as far as Malthus isn't quite as long as a geological record going back as far as the Permian extinction event, the signature of which can still be read in the rocks today.

But specifically, on soil bacteria (or biodiversity in general): the evidence for the potential effect of climate change has to be inferred, but is based on the fact that the majority of the world's organisms inhabit a very narrow temperature range, and have difficulty surviving outside the one to which they've adapated. An increase of 3-5 degrees in average temperature is thought to be sufficient to place an organism outside its normal range. Given that tropical soils are generally less fertile than temperate ones, it should be clear what drives the concern for the potential effect of climate change on temperate soils and their micro-organisms.