All the water that will ever be is, right now.
National Geographic, October 1993
It used to be that most people believed the bounty of the Earth was limitless and put at our disposition by one or more divine entity(ies), some people still believe that; however, it is crystal clear in the present that this is not the case. The resources I use in my confortable everyday life, are resources other won't be able to use. This has always been true since a lot of things we use are not renewable or regenerate at paces infinitely slower than that at which we consume it (prime example: minerals), but until recently these resources were so plentiful that we just saw them as infinite. We have reached a point where opportunity cost is rising much faster than in the past and will continue to rise if productivity does not catch up while the population continues to grow. I'm sure not many people worried about the amount of water they used just a couple of decades ago... now the water I let run while doing my dishes is water I take away from someone else. Therefore we cannot afford an idiosyncratic approach to development, and here I do not refer to development of poor countries but to global development. We cannot see cultures as sacrosanct anymore and as a source of division, we have to see them as an element of our greater community. Just like in a small community each individual has something in common that ties him or her to the community, he/she still retains the unique traits that differentiates humans. Similarly in a global community each culture should be seen as an differentiating element, not a dividing one. we need this commonness among humans in order to work efficiently for our global and long term well being.
Until recently international financial institutions have used an approach that ignores completely individual factors. They ignored cultural backgrounds, ethnic divisions, physical context etc... Jeffrey Sachs argues against that and advocates for a “clinical” approach to development economics where problems are addressed after an in depth diagnosis of all the circumstances that characterizes a particular country (In his book “The End of Poverty”). This is definitely taking a step forward but the package is not complete. Countries should be treated individually, but, at the same time should be seen in the gloval context. I believe it is necessary to create institutions that create international and transborder norms that override unique aspects of a community if it is detrimental to the global community and th ehumans comprising it. This might sound extreme but are we not one people, the humans, before we are Americans or Amajors? This, I think, actually benefits small communities and cultures; because common norms are imposed does not mean that cultures are eradicated to be replaced by a phantasmal culture.
Can this really work? Isn't it yet another form of central planning reminiscent of communism or the present IFI? Not at all, or at least, it does not need to be. National governments have basic functions that even Adam Smith did not deny. They provide security, financial stability, education and infrastructures to name the most obvious. Now are there people who would not benefit from these or does everyone need these basic amenities? I believe it is the latter and that these functions can be provided at a global level. Then who decides what, is there a universal education, language, money, etc? Maybe not quite, but if we divide the governance into three layers, global, national and regional, each over-riding the following and with an increasing particularity with the decreasing size. What I mean is that the global institutions can set basic rules and programs arrived at by consensus among national leaders (preferably independent of their government and devoid of religious affiliation though), these rules would have to be followed by national states and built upon to fit their unique circumstances. Likewise national states have their basic rules, much like present states, but leave enough leeway for regions to work with a fair level of sovereignty and autonomy. Wouldn't that exacerbate divisions? People are different, we can witness that everywhere, in Iraq to point at a very actual and sad example, and it is therefore crucial to leave room for these distinct cells to strive and develop as they see fit as long as people inside of it are aware of the alternatives outside of it and free to leave at any time.
My first paragraph might have seemed a little alarmist, but I do not believe the world is headed towards a catastrophe, I have faith in the capacity of humans to adapt to adverse situations (though I do not rule our some very dreadful and bleak occurrences in the future). I just wish that we would realize how much of these foreseeable disasters could be avoided with a little sacrifice and tolerance.
