Politics? In a very wide sense-yes.
Facebook
Carrick Ryan
Anthropologists have long since thought they understood why Eurasia, and Europe in particular, developed faster than the rest of the world.
But less is understood about why, decades after the end of colonialism, the colonised aren't anywhere close to catching up. This lack of understanding is fuelling a significant amount of the "great replacement" style racism which has become disturbingly normalised. So let's unpack it.
Obviously, a lot is said about the continued exploitation of developing nations by Western powers through unfair trade practices and political interference. This undeniably is a factor, but its influence is often overstated, and they do donate more than $250 billion in official development aid every year, and that's on top of more than $25 billion in humanitarian aid.
Yes, there are plenty of examples of western governments, or more commonly western corporations, engaging unethically and exploitatively, but for the most part, the richest nations on earth consistently demonstrate sincere attempts to help poorer nations escape poverty, even if only to ensure a more stable neighbourhood (and to limit the flow of refugees).
Some of the narrative portraying the West as a malevolent force is understandably embraced because it provides a palatable rebuttal to the racist deductions of the far right which point to the continued failure of the post-colonial world to attain prosperity and stability as evidence of their inherent inferiority.But it's propagation fuels resentment against the very institutions that are crucial to the fight against it.
The most reasonable explanation for the persistent gap in living conditions between the richest and poorest countries is simple - development takes time.
The advantages the Eurasian continent had in food security enabled civilisations to form that were capable of developing significantly more advanced technology. By the time this technology allowed Europeans to "discover" the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and South East Asia, the "West" was centuries ahead in the sophistication of its society.
Not because the people were smarter, but because geography and the availability of food plants& anaimals that were easily domesticated meant generations upon generations obtained highly developed education in increasingly specific fields.
Colonialism brought the industrial revolution to the world, but it did so almost exclusively for the benefit of the colonisers. The British brought railways to the world, but they didn't train the local population to be engineers, administrators, or even train drivers. The locals were usually out in the sun laying the track.
When the keys of these modern states were handed to native populations, there were rarely more than a fraction that had been provided the education needed to understand how a modern state functioned.
Expecting entire populations to transform from being a subjugated workforce, excluded from authority and responsibility, to being tasked with administering modern nations containing millions of people within around 50 years is ludicrous.
Just think of the amount of specialised experts you need to run a power grid, to build and maintain a road system, to run a health system, and most importantly, to run an education system. It takes generations to build that workforce, and billions in strategic investment, and that's before we even consider the fact that almost all available academic literature is likely to be written in a foreign language.
65% of Canadians have some kind of tertiary education, in Niger it's less than 1%. Think about the ramifications for how their government functions, how successful industry can be when competing against a global market, and think about how the education level of one generation impacts the prosperity of the next.
Compared to the average child born into a wealthy country, the opportunity to fulfil one's potential is staggeringly minuscule.
Babies don't get the nutrition they need, they don't receive expert medical care since birth, they don't get a complete education from adequately educated teachers, they don't have the same access to knowledge and government programs, they don't have parents with the privilege of understanding and implementing developmental goals, and they don't have an efficient system of identifying naturally gifted children to allow them to reach their collective potential.
On an individual level, these variables do not necessarily condemn a child to struggle, we hear amazing stories of these obstacles being overcome from time to time, but when applied to the overwhelming majority of children in a country, the struggle is endemic, and socially suffocating.
It's not that the minds of children in developing nations aren't just as capable as those in the West, we can always see a small fraction that are afforded the opportunity to receive a comparable education to the average Westerner, through privilege, patronage, or charity, and they succeed.
But in a cruel twist, many of those that do become highly educated are understandably inclined to use that education as a means to get themselves and everyone they love out of a their impoverished and unstable country, thus inducing a persistent and punishing brain drain to wealthier countries. So they're not just unable to educate enough of their population, but the smartest people they do educate tend to leave (just as I think any of us would do in the same position if we're honest).
Compounding these inescapable consequences of poverty is the ubiquity of political instability which deprives so many of opportunity. As brilliantly articulated in the seminal work "Why Nations Fail", the strength of democracy and related institutions are among the biggest determiner of prosperity.
Yet, most of the post-colonial world rely on a "shared national identity" that was invented by colonial administrators, are beset by ethnic tension that was usually intentionally inflamed by colonisers, and have no long-standing cultural relationship with, or trust in, democracy.
Think about how much easier it is to keep the peace when peace means prosperity, not oppression. If alienation and lack of opportunity attracts voters to populists selling grievance in the West, imagine how strong that political pull would be if the poverty was intolerable and the historical grievance was justified?
As a result, developing countries are far more likely to be led by charlatans and warlords promising radical change rather than incremental advances, and governments become riddled with corruption, a cyclical curse of poverty.
Does this mean the developing world is condemned to destitution?
No. Progress is being made.
The number of people living under extreme poverty has dropped by 25% (and that's not including China).
Life expectancy in low-income countries has risen by more than 20 years since 1960.
The global under-5 mortality rate has fallen by nearly 60% since 1990, with the steepest declines in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
Adult literacy in the developed world has improved from 56% in 1970 to 80% today.
Deaths from famines have fallen by more than 90%
It is going to take time, and a lot more investment, but we mustn't give up. Anyone with a conscience must feel the moral compulsion to aspire for a world where as few humans as possible are subjected to the intolerable hardships we now see within the slums of the "third world".
We need to accept that we may not absolve ourselves of this shame during our lifetime, but the commitments we make now will determine the world future generations inhabit.
...and I think we all agree that we can do better than this one.
(Image: regions via their Human Development Index score, a composite measure that ranks countries based on life expectancy (health), years of schooling (education), and income per person, capturing overall human wellbeing rather than economic output alone.)
Carrick Ryan
Anthropologists have long since thought they understood why Eurasia, and Europe in particular, developed faster than the rest of the world.
But less is understood about why, decades after the end of colonialism, the colonised aren't anywhere close to catching up. This lack of understanding is fuelling a significant amount of the "great replacement" style racism which has become disturbingly normalised. So let's unpack it.
Obviously, a lot is said about the continued exploitation of developing nations by Western powers through unfair trade practices and political interference. This undeniably is a factor, but its influence is often overstated, and they do donate more than $250 billion in official development aid every year, and that's on top of more than $25 billion in humanitarian aid.
Yes, there are plenty of examples of western governments, or more commonly western corporations, engaging unethically and exploitatively, but for the most part, the richest nations on earth consistently demonstrate sincere attempts to help poorer nations escape poverty, even if only to ensure a more stable neighbourhood (and to limit the flow of refugees).
Some of the narrative portraying the West as a malevolent force is understandably embraced because it provides a palatable rebuttal to the racist deductions of the far right which point to the continued failure of the post-colonial world to attain prosperity and stability as evidence of their inherent inferiority.But it's propagation fuels resentment against the very institutions that are crucial to the fight against it.
The most reasonable explanation for the persistent gap in living conditions between the richest and poorest countries is simple - development takes time.
The advantages the Eurasian continent had in food security enabled civilisations to form that were capable of developing significantly more advanced technology. By the time this technology allowed Europeans to "discover" the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and South East Asia, the "West" was centuries ahead in the sophistication of its society.
Not because the people were smarter, but because geography and the availability of food plants& anaimals that were easily domesticated meant generations upon generations obtained highly developed education in increasingly specific fields.
Colonialism brought the industrial revolution to the world, but it did so almost exclusively for the benefit of the colonisers. The British brought railways to the world, but they didn't train the local population to be engineers, administrators, or even train drivers. The locals were usually out in the sun laying the track.
When the keys of these modern states were handed to native populations, there were rarely more than a fraction that had been provided the education needed to understand how a modern state functioned.
Expecting entire populations to transform from being a subjugated workforce, excluded from authority and responsibility, to being tasked with administering modern nations containing millions of people within around 50 years is ludicrous.
Just think of the amount of specialised experts you need to run a power grid, to build and maintain a road system, to run a health system, and most importantly, to run an education system. It takes generations to build that workforce, and billions in strategic investment, and that's before we even consider the fact that almost all available academic literature is likely to be written in a foreign language.
65% of Canadians have some kind of tertiary education, in Niger it's less than 1%. Think about the ramifications for how their government functions, how successful industry can be when competing against a global market, and think about how the education level of one generation impacts the prosperity of the next.
Compared to the average child born into a wealthy country, the opportunity to fulfil one's potential is staggeringly minuscule.
Babies don't get the nutrition they need, they don't receive expert medical care since birth, they don't get a complete education from adequately educated teachers, they don't have the same access to knowledge and government programs, they don't have parents with the privilege of understanding and implementing developmental goals, and they don't have an efficient system of identifying naturally gifted children to allow them to reach their collective potential.
On an individual level, these variables do not necessarily condemn a child to struggle, we hear amazing stories of these obstacles being overcome from time to time, but when applied to the overwhelming majority of children in a country, the struggle is endemic, and socially suffocating.
It's not that the minds of children in developing nations aren't just as capable as those in the West, we can always see a small fraction that are afforded the opportunity to receive a comparable education to the average Westerner, through privilege, patronage, or charity, and they succeed.
But in a cruel twist, many of those that do become highly educated are understandably inclined to use that education as a means to get themselves and everyone they love out of a their impoverished and unstable country, thus inducing a persistent and punishing brain drain to wealthier countries. So they're not just unable to educate enough of their population, but the smartest people they do educate tend to leave (just as I think any of us would do in the same position if we're honest).
Compounding these inescapable consequences of poverty is the ubiquity of political instability which deprives so many of opportunity. As brilliantly articulated in the seminal work "Why Nations Fail", the strength of democracy and related institutions are among the biggest determiner of prosperity.
Yet, most of the post-colonial world rely on a "shared national identity" that was invented by colonial administrators, are beset by ethnic tension that was usually intentionally inflamed by colonisers, and have no long-standing cultural relationship with, or trust in, democracy.
Think about how much easier it is to keep the peace when peace means prosperity, not oppression. If alienation and lack of opportunity attracts voters to populists selling grievance in the West, imagine how strong that political pull would be if the poverty was intolerable and the historical grievance was justified?
As a result, developing countries are far more likely to be led by charlatans and warlords promising radical change rather than incremental advances, and governments become riddled with corruption, a cyclical curse of poverty.
Does this mean the developing world is condemned to destitution?
No. Progress is being made.
The number of people living under extreme poverty has dropped by 25% (and that's not including China).
Life expectancy in low-income countries has risen by more than 20 years since 1960.
The global under-5 mortality rate has fallen by nearly 60% since 1990, with the steepest declines in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
Adult literacy in the developed world has improved from 56% in 1970 to 80% today.
Deaths from famines have fallen by more than 90%
It is going to take time, and a lot more investment, but we mustn't give up. Anyone with a conscience must feel the moral compulsion to aspire for a world where as few humans as possible are subjected to the intolerable hardships we now see within the slums of the "third world".
We need to accept that we may not absolve ourselves of this shame during our lifetime, but the commitments we make now will determine the world future generations inhabit.
...and I think we all agree that we can do better than this one.
(Image: regions via their Human Development Index score, a composite measure that ranks countries based on life expectancy (health), years of schooling (education), and income per person, capturing overall human wellbeing rather than economic output alone.)
