Optimism and pessimism from an economic perspective
It is well known that man has only one mouth, one stomach, and one intestine, and that his energy consumption is limited, because he has only one body, one brain, and one idea, and this determines the possibility of satisfying human needs. Food, for more prosperity, let's push together the pain of hunger.
Is prosperity as much as tomorrow? Or are humans - and they've grown too much - going to starve? Are unemployment and chain-based work inevitable consequences of technical development? Will the world see an increase in visibility the current contradictions between rich and poor countries? Or that development and progress will contribute to solving contradictions and eliminating pain, in raising the level of human life, in shortening the duration of work, and in the production of consumables and the necessary equipment to bridge the gap that has widened between peoples?
These are some of the questions that people ask themselves during the 21st century.
The debate over the issue of "world hunger" demonstrates differing views and our contemporaries' uncertainty about the feasibility of technical progress.
Some economists, the proponents of pessimism, consider that the world has entered an era of excessive population condensation.
As for the claim of optimism, they acknowledge the current population inflation, but they believe that this inflation is on the way to a stop, as it has been said: "the table of the poor is unfruitful, and his bed is abundance", i.e., if the people are many peoples Offspring, only because they are poor, the richer they become, the less they offspring.
It is wrong to say that the land is limited, that the number of arable hectares cannot be increased, and that we can deduce from each hectare only a limited amount of food. This field has new horizons.
Jean Forstee says in his book "The History of Tomorrow":
Is a nation on our planet in a state of prosperity in the 2,000th year, mean., a nation that gives "everyone according to his needs"?
The dilemma is accurate solution, because the goal of technical progress is to be made possible, unless it is yesterday, and scientific progress is unexpected in large part of it.
Who could have expected for years the practical application of nuclear research?.
"Examining the economic development of rich countries shows that people in these countries are constantly discovering new techniques that contribute to their further release from misery," says Claude Vimon.
The technical progress that has been put into practice over the past years greatly increases production potential, thereby increasing consumption capacity not only in sectors where technical progress plays a role. Great, but also in sectors that have not progressed.
The endless race towards increasing consumption gives the contemporary economy greater endurance, and some of these needs are inspired by people's press, propaganda and false experience.
The humanities are still more necessary than the natural sciences of human progress, so it is necessary to maintain the increasing conditions of prosperity, this century must be the century of the humanities, as was the century. Past the age of natural sciences.
Please write: COMMENT in this box to verify that you are human