As we have seen, globalization – the process whereby the
world is coming together culturally and economically – entails certain risks,
large-scale risks. Democracy can
suffer. So can local and regional
cultures, as well as local and regional systems of agriculture and
production. Even the Earth’s
life-support system can be threatened by the short-sighted economic interests
of players far, far away from the zones of impact. Still, there is reason for optimism. As more and more understand the process, as
more and more scrutinize the process, as more and more become conscious of the
process (hence these posts), the more transparent the transactions will be, the
more accountable the process will be to an informed global market, the more the
poorest of the poor will be taken care of, the more knowledgeable investors
will realize that the welfare of people anywhere depends on the welfare of
people everywhere. And globalization
will fulfill its promise of a world coming together as one.
And all of this is economically doable. If there’s a will to do it. A 1998 survey found that the world’s 225
richest people have (or had then) a combined wealth of over $1 trillion. It is estimated that 4% of that would achieve
and maintain access to basic education, basic health care, adequate food, and
safe water and sanitation for all those still without these things.1 I’m
not suggesting – horror of horrors – redistribution here; I’m simply noting the
very manageable scale of the problem. This
is beyond question doable. The challenge
then is moral. It’s spiritual. And this would be no surprise to Adam Smith
who seventeen years before writing The Wealth of Nations wrote The
Theory of Moral Sentiments. In
that book of 1759 Adam Smith observed that for the invisible hand of the free
market to work its magic it would take moral sentiments – specifically, it
would take sympathy, the ability of economic players to identify with the
emotions of others and to care about the general welfare.
But from where do we
derive, from where do we inspire, such sympathy? Whose voices must be heard and in what
settings would they best be heard?
I LOVE this. I want to contribute to the answer so I can help. All of us.....what do we do.
ReplyDeleteTechnology adds a challenge to Smith's observation about the need for sympathy and identification with the emotions of others. Research shows that the more a child interacts with a screen rather than interacting with real people, the lower the child's empathy for others. Our connected, tuned-in, digitalized generations may struggle to identify with the emotions and needs of the global community.
ReplyDelete