|
Suppose we solve these to hurdles:
1) Developing abundant renewable energy. 2) Figuring out how to combine material abundance with ecological living.
While that could be a tall order, I don't think there's much available middle ground: We do those things, or suffer a major collapse of civilization. I'm cautiously optimistic we'll figure it out (although maybe too late to fix a lot of global warming damage).
Suppose we do figure these things out. Then what? I don't see anything stopping us from reaching a level of technological sophistication where automation and robotics produce a vast quantity of material wealth and valued services. The world economy will largely become a self-perpetuating machine, needing minimal human supervision and guidance, a machine that takes inputs of energy and raw materials and turns those into goods and services.
The greatest challenge I see in the future (looking ahead maybe 25-50 years) is not being able to provide a decent standard of living for everyone on the planet, but how we avoid drowning in a sea of refuse from the material wealth we should be able to produce given abundant energy and just a little more improvement in automation.
And then, of course, there's the matter of figuring out how to fairly distribute such wealth. A big part of the problem is deciding what "fair" means. Even today, without imagining futuristic automated wealth production, it takes a whole lot less human effort and sweat to, say, build a house or bake a loaf of bread than it did a century ago, and it was even harder a century before that. We have to do less to make more.
At a certain point it gets crazy amplifying that while simultaneously believing the word "deserve" applies in a neat, clean, clear way to the relationship between the efforts people make and the material rewards they receive. That's already pretty distorted in today's economy, and unfortunately it's easy to imagine these distortions only growing worse in a time when everyone could easily have a comfortable standard of living without working at all, with plenty left over after that as rewards for effort (or just sheer dumb luck).
To get back to the OP's question and the hear-and-now, I don't think we're quite there yet, I don't think the effort of those willing to work would be enough to provide for all of those willing to settle for just getting by, but I think in the not-too-distant future, we'll get there and a bit beyond.
We'll always have poor people because poverty is, to some extent, a matter of relative not absolute wealth. If freely available medical care were good enough to keep most people alive and healthy to 100 years old, would it be seen as a tragedy and an unfairness if the poor die at 100 but the wealthy live to 200?
|