Eli Reshef, MD

The Website of Eli Reshef, MD

  • Home
  • About
    • Dr. Reshef’s Bio
    • Why Choose Reshef?
  • FAQ
  • Educate Me!
    • Ectopic Pregnancy
    • Endometriosis
    • Egg Donation
    • Fibroids
    • Infertility
    • Insemination (Artificial)
    • In Vitro Fertilization
      • The IVF Journey
    • Male Factor Infertility
    • Menopause
    • Menstrual Disorders
    • Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (POCS)
    • Recurrent Pregnancy Losses
    • Unexplained Infertility
  • Contact
    • Directions
  • Links
You are here: Home / Science and Research / Of Course the World Is Better Now Than It Was in 1900. Even with war and pollution and population increases.

Of Course the World Is Better Now Than It Was in 1900. Even with war and pollution and population increases.

October 21, 2013 By Eli Reshef

http://www.slate.com/authors.bjrn_lomborg.html

By Bjorn Lomborg, Slate (Project Syndicate) October 2013

For centuries, optimists and pessimists have argued over the state of the world. Pessimists see a world where more people means less food, where rising demand for resources means depletion and war, and, in recent decades, where boosting production capacity means more pollution and global warming. One of the current generation of pessimists’ sacred texts, The Limits to Growth, influences the environmental movement to this day.

The optimists, by contrast, cheerfully claim that everything—human health, living standards, environmental quality, and so on—is getting better. Their opponents think of them as  “cornucopian” economists, placing their faith in the market to fix any and all problems.

But, rather than picking facts and stories to fit some grand narrative of decline or progress, we should try to compare across all areas of human existence to see if the world really is doing better or worse. Together with 21 of the world’s top economists, I have tried to do just that, developing a scorecard spanning 150 years. Across 10 areas—including health, education, war, gender, air pollution, climate change, and biodiversity—the economists all answered the same question: What was the relative cost of this problem in every year since 1900, all the way to 2013, with predictions to 2050.
Using classic economic valuations of everything from lost lives, bad health, and illiteracy to wetlands destruction and increased hurricane damage from global warming, the economists show how much each problem costs. To estimate the magnitude of the problem, it is compared to the total resources available to fix it. This gives us the problem’s size as a share of GDP. And the trends since 1900 are sometimes surprising.

Consider gender inequality. Essentially, we were excluding almost half the world’s population from production. In 1900, only 15 percent of the global workforce was female. What is the loss from lower female workforce participation? Even taking into account that someone has to do unpaid housework and the increased costs of female education, the loss was at least 17 percent of global GDP in 1900. Today, with higher female participation and lower wage differentials, the loss is 7 percent—and projected to fall to 4 percent by 2050.

It will probably come as a big surprise that climate change from 1900 to 2025 has mostly been a net benefit, increasing welfare by about 1.5 percent of GDP per year. This is because global warming has mixed effects; for moderate warming, the benefits prevail.

On one hand, because CO2 works as a fertilizer, higher levels have been a boon for agriculture, which comprises the biggest positive impact, at 0.8 percent of GDP. Likewise, moderate warming prevents more cold deaths than the number of extra heat deaths that it causes. It also reduces demand for heating more than it increases the costs of cooling, implying a gain of about 0.4 percent of GDP. On the other hand, warming increases water stress, costing about 0.2 percent of GDP, and negatively affects ecosystems like wetlands, at a cost of about 0.1 percent.

As temperatures rise, however, the costs will rise and the benefits will decline, leading to a dramatic reduction in net benefits. After the year 2070, global warming will become a net cost to the world, justifying cost-effective climate action now and in the decades to come.

Yet, to put matters in perspective, the scorecard also shows us that the world’s biggest environmental problem by far is indoor air pollution. Today, indoor pollution from cooking and heating with bad fuels kills more than 3 million people annually, or the equivalent of a loss of 3 percent of global GDP. But in 1900, the cost was 19 percent of GDP, and it is expected to drop to 1 percent of GDP by 2050.

Health indicators worldwide have shown some of the largest improvements. Human life expectancy barely changed before the late 18th century. Yet it is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the gain since 1900: In that year, life expectancy worldwide was 32 years, compared to 69 now (and a projection of 76 years in 2050).
The biggest factor was the fall in infant mortality. For example, even as late as 1970, only around 5 percent of infants were vaccinated against measles, tetanus, whooping cough, diphtheria, and polio. By 2000, it was 85 percent, saving about 3 million lives annually—more, each year, than world peace would have saved in the 20th century.

This success has many parents. The Gates Foundation and the GAVI Alliance have spent more than $2.5 billion and promised another $10 billion for vaccines. Efforts by the Rotary Club, the World Health Organization, and many others have reduced polio by 99 percent worldwide since 1979.
In economic terms, the cost of poor health at the outset of the 20th century was an astounding 32 percent of global GDP. Today, it is down to about 11 percent, and by 2050 it will be half that.

While the optimists are not entirely right (loss of biodiversity in the 20th century probably cost about 1 percent of GDP per year, with some places losing much more), the overall picture is clear. Most of the topics in the scorecard show improvements of 5 percent to 20 percent of GDP. And the overall trend is even clearer. Global problems have declined dramatically relative to the resources available to tackle them.

Of course, this does not mean that there are no more problems. Although much smaller, problems in health, education, malnutrition, air pollution, gender inequality, and trade remain large.
But realists should now embrace the view that the world is doing much better. Moreover, the scorecard shows us where the substantial challenges remain for a better 2050. We should guide our future attention not on the basis of the scariest stories or loudest pressure groups, but on objective assessments of where we can do the most good.

Related

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Meet Dr. Eli Reshef

The other day, another physician asked me if I had to start all over again, would I still become a physician and would I still choose Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility as my sub-specialty. I answered with a resounding “yes”. I feel very fortunate to get up every morning looking forward to going to work. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to help people every day, that is every day, including weekends and holidays. Read More About Me Here-

Dr. Reshef's Most Popular Posts

  • Latest
  • Popular
  • Point of View: Big downside to premature return to “normal”
  • Thousands of eggs, embryos possibly damaged at Ohio hospital
  • YOUR EMBRYOS ARE SAFE!
  • Employers Who Wish to Retain Staff Should Consider Having Infertility Benefit
  • Older Men’s Sperm: Worse for the Wear?
  • Today Week Month All
  • OKC Doctor: Planned Parenthood defunding would curtail reproductive care options
  • There is no "baby deadline" test!
  • What You Really Need to Know About Egg Freezing
  • Vitamin D Deficiency- Is There Really a Pandemic?
  • Older Men’s Sperm: Worse for the Wear?
Ajax spinner

Post Archive

  • May 2020
  • March 2018
  • October 2017
  • August 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • February 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012

Contact Dr. Eli Reshef

  • We love people, not bots. Please select "Yes, I am Human" from the drop down below.

Recent Posts

  • Point of View: Big downside to premature return to “normal”
  • Thousands of eggs, embryos possibly damaged at Ohio hospital
  • YOUR EMBRYOS ARE SAFE!
  • Employers Who Wish to Retain Staff Should Consider Having Infertility Benefit
  • Older Men’s Sperm: Worse for the Wear?
  • Subfertility May be Harbinger of Disease Later in Life
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Eli Reshef, MD

3433 NW 56th Street, Suite 210-B
Oklahoma CIty , OK 73112
Phone: (405) 945-4701

Post Calendar

February 2021
M T W T F S S
« May    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Copyright © 2021 · Eli Reshef, MD. All Rights Reserved.