The left needs to abandon its miserable, irrational pessimism | Aaron Bastani

At the start of the millennium it was widely presumed each successive generation would achieve a higher level of prosperity than the last. Today that is no longer the case. Just 19% of Americans expect their children’s lives to be better than their own, while two-thirds believe their country will be economically weaker by 2050.

So our zeitgeist is increasingly one of pessimism, from anxiety about the climate crisis to concern over rising inequality. According to the historian Adam Tooze, we are living through a “polycrisis” – where such challenges are not only simultaneous but mutually reinforcing.

Yet there is one sliver of society where optimism still reigns supreme: Silicon Valley.

For a long time technological utopianism was a leftwing idea. Its patron saint was Edward Bellamy whose 19th-century novel, Looking Backward, was more influential among the American left than Marx and Engels. In Britain this perspective was best represented by Fabian socialism. Its rationale was alluringly simple: human progress was a corollary of technological development, with both needing scientific management. Over time, more complex technologies would require a larger state. And a larger state would require socialism.

Today such thinking has been inverted, with supporters of market capitalism, and a minimal state, most optimistic about the future. Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the venture capital fund Andreessen Horowitz, even penned a “techno-optimist manifesto” last year – in part to counter the prevailing winds of despair. If nothing else it reveals how Silicon Valley thinks, with Andreesen expressing this with particular clarity when he writes how “there is no material problem   … that cannot be solved with more technology”.

As the magazine Current Affairs observed, no evidence is forthcoming alongside such bombastic claims. For instance, when Andreessen writes how “central planning is a doom loop”, he conveniently omits how the development of the internet, solar cells, lithium batteries, the jet engine and nuclear power all relied on state-backed R&D. But while his screed is bizarre, uninformed and in parts even dangerous, he is right about one thing: our instinctive miserabilism, increasingly pervasive on the left, is unwarranted.

Take recurrent arguments against having children. Choosing to have kids is a personal matter. Yet in recent years I’ve repeatedly encountered the claim that having descendants is immoral because of climate change. Even if you agree that ours is an age of polycrisis, this is absurd.

After all, 100 years ago the average person, in one of the the world’s wealthiest societies, could expect to live until 40. Today global life expectancy is 73. In 19th-century England, between 40 and 60 women died in childbirth for every thousand births. Today that figure is seven for every 100,000. As Ezra Klein has noted, no serious climate models suggest a return to the world of 1950, let alone 1150. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, nobody should have had children before our grandparents – in which case humanity should have long been extinct.

Such irrational pessimism inflects how we view technology too. Yes, there are moral questions surrounding innovations like gene-editing and Crispr, but these same tools could eliminate thousands of inherited conditions – from sickle cell to Huntington’s disease. The 2030s may well be a decade of inflationary shocks and extreme weather events, but it could also herald the arrival of real-time language translation and cancer vaccines used by billions.

In their defence many pessimists acknowledge such developments – they are simply aware that any benefits will be unequally shared. This is particularly relevant for machine learning and the world of work. AI could add as much as $13tn to the global economy between 2017 and 2030. Given recent technological changes have, according to the World Bank, meant that “advanced economies face increasingly polarized labour markets and rising inequality”, concerns around who benefits from an innovation as potentially disruptive as the steam engine make sense. While some will get rich from its commercial applications, many more will lose jobs or see their wages squeezed. Ignoring that, and maintaining technology as somehow neutral, is a covert form of class war.

The philosopher Alfred Whitehead once declared that the greatest invention of the Victorian age was the idea of invention itself. Yet as humanity mastered how to innovate, we progressively lost touch with why we should. This now seems to have reached its apogee with “effective accelerationists”, whose answer to every challenge is simply more technology. I can think of no idea more ill-suited for a world of polycrisis.

So what is the alternative from the left if mindless tech optimism will only deepen problems heading our way?

As with the right it should be a project of individual freedom. But such freedom should be understood as meaningless, or even destructive, if it generates unfreedom elsewhere. The economist Amartya Sen defined unfreedom as constraints beyond our control which undermine our ability to pursue lives of meaning. Inadequate access to food is a source of unfreedom, as is being homeless or not having an education. Franklin Roosevelt put it best when he said that “necessitous men are not free men”.

If eliminating unfreedom is the end, then the creation of Universal Basic Services (UBS), is the means. These UBS comprise housing, healthcare, transport and education, should be free at the point of use, and funded by progressive taxation. Accessing them should be viewed as necessary for any citizen to fully participate in economic life. Indeed they are just as fundamental to a life of freedom as legal and political rights.

Markets would still exist for things like cars, or silk ties, but the logic of profit wouldn’t apply to UBS. So rather than machine learning creating the conditions for the world’s first trillionaire, as gleefully predicted by Mark Cuban, it could provide the basis for a post-carbon, autonomous transport infrastructure, or free adult education throughout one’s life.

Alongside UBS, the dividend of technological progress would also make possible a four-day week. After all, countries with a shorter working week enjoy higher levels of social capital, more volunteering and greater gender equality. What is more, those who work less report greater feelings of personal satisfaction. To be clear: this isn’t a post-work society, not least because, in our lifetimes at least, there will be enough work to go around with an ageing population and climate adaptation. But a four-day week should be to the 2030s what the eight-hour day was to the late 19th century.

For all the extraordinary inventiveness of recent decades, perhaps our greatest technology remains the state – that unique vehicle for collective action. To create UBS, and expand leisure time for all, means believing in it once again. Indeed meaningful optimism about technology requires political demands and a specific vision for our collective future. Without that we are always at the whim of the 0.01%.

• Aaron Bastani is the co-founder of Novara Media. He is also the author of Fully Automated Luxury Communism

Source: US Politics - theguardian.com