I’ve noticed that people start with different assumptions about what usually causes large, positive changes in the world. It is rare for us to directly address these differences in worldview, even though they may contribute to difficulties seeing eye-to-eye on how we can make things better.
For instance, I think some people believe that large, positive change usually comes about due to one or more of the following:
(1) Progress – technological and scientific advancement causing a rising tide that lifts most boats (e.g., futurists). Change is caused by our discoveries and creations.
(2) Capitalism – large numbers of individuals in pursuit of selfish desires create numerous mutually beneficial exchanges (e.g., objectivists). Change is caused by each of us looking out for ourselves.
(3) Culture – individuals choosing to be more selfless, pro-social, helpful, or loving through large-scale societal or cultural change (e.g., hippies). Change is caused by each of us changing.
(4) Heroes – the indomitable will of rare, heroic individuals who work tirelessly to cause a specific change (e.g., entrepreneurs). Change is caused by a single person.
(5) Education – thorough and proper education instilling appropriate skills, discipline, and values in the young. Change is caused by looking after the next generation.
(6) Communities – local groups discussing the problems in their communities and working as collectives to solve them (e.g., community leaders). Change is caused by groups acting locally.
(7) Government – democratically elected governments looking out for the interests of the people, thoughtfully enacting laws, and allocating tax dollars to solve social problems (e.g., liberals). Change is caused by the government acting intelligently for the good of society.
(8) Philanthropy – wealthy, altruistic donors and investors taking bold actions that are unencumbered by bureaucracy and politics in order to create and fund effective solutions that no one else will (e.g., philanthropists). Change is caused by innovative top-down strategizing and intelligent allocation of resources.
Of course, these ideas are not mutually exclusive and often work synergistically. Education can change culture, capitalism can lead to progress, and philanthropists can fund heroes. But who is ultimately more right about how the world usually gets substantially better? I think there is substantial truth in all of these ideas.
(1) Sometimes, technological and scientific progress really does make the world substantially better, for instance, through the discovery of antibiotics and the creation of technologies to produce and distribute them in large quantities.
(2) Sometimes, capitalism does stimulate rapid increases in wealth that help both the wealthy and the poor, for instance, arising in the wake of a poorly centrally planned economy that has recently become more open.
(3) Sometimes, culture does shift in a positive direction, such as when society becomes less tolerant of prejudice.
(4) Sometimes, individual heroic people do fight tirelessly for years and end up causing an important change much earlier than it would have otherwise occurred, such as when activists fight for human rights or entrepreneurs accelerate the creation of a new life-saving medical technology.
(5) Sometimes, better education can make a tremendous difference, for instance, when literacy rates start low and can be greatly improved, or when children do not have good role models at home but can find them at well-run schools.
(6) Sometimes, community members do collaborate effectively to solve their own problems, and if enough communities do the same, it can amount to widespread change.
(7) Sometimes, governments do solve major problems, such as when they ban dangerous but commonly-used substances or when they efficiently reallocate some money from those who have way more than they need to those who don’t have nearly enough.
(8) Sometimes, philanthropists do create ambitious plans for changing the world that actually work, for instance, strategies for eradicating a disease in a specific area.
While each of these approaches does contain some truth, that doesn’t mean that each approach is equally likely to be the cause of any particular potential improvement. I’d expect that the opposite is more likely: for any particular societal improvement, one or two of these approaches is much more likely to be the cause of it than the others. But I suspect that the most effective approach will vary substantially depending on the type of improvement.
So if you’re wedded to the idea that one of these is THE ANSWER to how the world will improve broadly, I think you’re going to be wrong a lot about what turns out to end up helping.
This essay was first written on February 24, 2018, and first appeared on this site on June 17, 2022.
Comments