Some time ago Thomas
Sowell wrote a book entitled A
Conflict of Visions in which he contrasts, in broad strokes, two
fundamentally opposed conceptual frameworks for viewing the world – a utopian
social engineer’s view in which human nature and the world can be designed and
molded to achieve a type of perfection; and a “constrained” view in which we
are constrained by our limitations as fallible human beings, doing the best we
can to cultivate our social, political and natural environments to achieve, not
perfection, but progress and improvement.
I thought of this while
perusing this month’s New York Review of Books,
my reliable guide to what the left-wing intellectual establishment is thinking.
I was struck particularly by two articles. The first, by Robert Kutner, is a
Krugmanesque analysis of the public debt (“The
Debt We Shouldn’t Pay”). I reproduce
here just one sentence. Reading this was like receiving a slap in the face. Here
is an example of how conflicting visions produce perceptions in direct
opposition, totally exclusive of one another.
Public debt was not implicated in the collapse of 2008, nor is
it retarding the recovery today. Enlarged government deficits were the
consequence of the financial crash, not the cause.
This was written by a respected public
intellectual. In order to believe what he does, you have to see no connection
between central bank interest rate policy, the funding of Barney Frank’s
vigorous push to expand home ownership in America, the buildup of the public
debt and the final arrival of crisis. You also have to be able to quickly
dismiss any concerns about the burden of the debt on future generations – which
he does by arguing that to reduce the debt and the deficit would destroy the
economy, which would be worse for our children than saddling them with the debt-burden.
It is truly mind-boggling.
The second article is by Marcia Angell,
on the subject of a good life, from the vantage point of someone, like her and
like myself, in our later years (“What
Is a Good Life?” ). The final paragraph in the article reads:
Nearly everyone over a certain age
observes that time seems to pass much more quickly, and I am no exception. So
extreme is the acceleration that I wonder whether it isn’t a result of some
physical law, not just a perception. Maybe it’s akin to Einstein’s discovery
that as speed increases, time slows. Perhaps this is the reverse—as our bodies
slow, time speeds up. In any case, the rush of my days is in stark contrast to
the magically endless days of my girlhood. I also find it hard to remember that
I’m no longer young, despite the physical signs, since I’m the same person and
in many ways have the same feelings. It’s particularly disquieting to recall
that many people and places I knew no longer exist, except in my memories.
Still, although I dislike the fact that my days are going so quickly, that’s
the way it is, and I’ve had a good run.
Exactly. I can relate. She and I are on
the same page. Well-written, poignant. Makes me sad and contemplative. Yet, the
paragraph immediately preceding this reads:
But even though my microcosm is in
pretty good shape, I have become much more pessimistic about the macrocosm—the
state of the world. We face unsustainable population growth, potentially
disastrous climate change, depletion of natural resources, pollution of the
oceans, increasing inequality, both within and across countries, and violent
tribalism of all forms, national and religious. Dealing with these problems
will take a lot more than marginal reforms, and I don’t see that coming.
Particularly in the United States, but also in the rest of the world, big money
calls the shots, and it is most concerned with the next quarter’s profits.
Although I’ve spent much of my life writing and speaking in opposition to the
corrupting influence of money on medicine, I find doing so increasingly
pointless because it seems futile. Worrying about the world my daughters and
grandsons will inhabit is what I like least about aging.
Reading this made me angry, frustrated. The conflict of visions again.
Astounding. Every one of the concerns she so passionately nurses is wrong, is
based on a flawed understanding of the world, every one. The world’s population
is not unsustainable. That is not what poverty is about. And, in any case,
population growth has dramatically slowed, to the point that many societies now
face a worrying “fertility crisis.”I wanted to yell, “where the hell have you
been?” Our natural resources are not being depleted – quite the opposite, we
are, every day, discovering new, cheaper ways to produce energy and other things –
that is what humans do in market economies. Increasing inequality is not a
problem – lingering poverty is the problem. And there are more people living
out of poverty now than ever before, and there are signs that parts of the
developing world may finally have turned the corner toward development. Violent
tribalism is not new and it is not any more of a problem than it has ever been –
she also seems confused when she refers to tribalism as religious and national.
At best this is a metaphorical extension of tribalism to non-tribal contexts. Religious
and national identities are distinct rivals to tribal identities in important
and subtle ways. Not to understand this is not to understand much of the social
dynamics of our world. But, to be fair, perhaps she meant by “tribalism” only
to point to implacable divisions. And finally, there is that tired, old complaint about money and profits ruling the world - if only we could force people to be less greedy and more compassionate and generous.
How does someone like me even begin to have a conversation with these
people? That is what bothers me in my later years as time speeds up.
