Collective Wisdom

An interesting point is the distinction between singular human behaviour, and collective behaviour.

I believe that as singular humans we like to think. The successful results thereof give us our much needed sense of achievement, and purpose in life. It is often said that what distinguishes human kind from animals is our ability to fashion our environment to our own needs. The first farmers noticed that it would be a good idea to deliberately cultivate corn rather than the uncertain activities of gathering wild plant material, or hunting. The invention of farming was the catapult for civilisation, for it was only once human kind was freed of the time consuming need to concern itself worrying about subsistence that there was time to spare for art and other intellectually developing activities. As individuals we do like to think, we use our spare time reading, doing cross-words, playing chess, or other puzzle solving activities.

Still, if we like to think, why as individuals do we make mistakes, or fail to think? Humans are fallible, we are not machines, it comes with being born and drawing breath. We make mistakes because of insufficient intellectual ability, insufficient or inaccurate information, misunderstanding the information, personal prejudice, pre-conceived ideas, or just plain ego such refusing to admit that a previous decision was erroneous in the light of new information. For failure to think we have to add plain laziness as a good cause, also fatigue, and peer pressure both direct and indirect. Clearly, despite our innate tendency to think, an ability to make mistakes comes along with it.

Collectively, I contend that over the centuries the human species has displayed a particularly consistent ability to not think, and to not learn from our mistakes. One might think that after the very first War in human history we would have learned to settle our differences by other means. History repeats itself, they say, and I do not need to list the wars in the history of human conflict.

Indeed economic crises are a manifestation of our collective behaviour. Since the days of the modern era economic scientists have noted the existence of the stop-go cycle. During boom times people in developed countries live as if in paradise, it seems as if anything and everything is possible. However the cyclic crashes can be catastrophic with many individual and personal consequences. There are world organisations whose aim is the smooth out the economic growth, encouraging a more steady and in the longer term productive economy than the stop-go economics of the present.

The problem is collective behaviour. In the boom times people want to make as much money as possible, greed. In itself it is this rapid growth which ensures an inevitable crash. I see the contrary in the country where I live. Germany has a set of consistent economic policies trying to ensure slow but consistent growth. Living here constrained by these levels of conservatism I sometimes feel that I would like to shake the country into life, and really drive it in a higher gear. But that's not what the mentality here is about. Slowly, slowly wins the race said the tortoise to the hare.

Globally, we still suffer economic crises because collectively there is little consensus as to the best course of action. Countries and the International conglomerates still mostly act in their own interests rather than for the collective long term good.

Here's a thought: assuming slow but steady global economic growth could be achieved, would that be a good thing? Economic growth seems to be the holy grail after which all seek, but on what is it based? Could slow growth be achieved indefinitely? Or would that in itself only lead to the largest crash ever, casting human kind back into a sort of stone age?
Perhaps long term economic stability, zero growth, might be a better aim, than slow sustainable growth? Now that's a surprisingly Green thought from someone who does not consider himself as Green.
But there we get into a whole other area of world eco-politics: the utilisation of sustainable resources along with population control. Populations in affluent countries tend to be self moderating, so all we need to do is achieve a more even global distribution of wealth. The Western countries fear that there is not enough wealth go around, and sacrificing their wealth would only lead to global discontent, and western hardship, rather than global happiness.
Perhaps an economist could explain why in a global capatalist economy the aim of zero growth would be a bad thing? It seems to me that if we continue to deleat this planets resources then our next generations will be be faced with exruciating hardship.
Who is right and who is wrong?
Sadly, I have no answer, I am failing a couple of brain cells :-(