The twentieth-century political philosopher Isaiah Berlin claimed with good reason that we have many values, and some often have to be curtailed to accommodate others of equal importance. Among these, I believe, are human longevity and economic growth.
These two values aren’t always in competition. Countries with high economic growth have the resources to provide healthcare and infrastructure that improve longevity. Compared to poorer countries with a history of less economic growth, rich countries can afford more well-qualified doctors, better-equipped hospitals, and the most advanced medicines to cure people of diseases that threaten their lives.
A wealthy country can also afford physical infrastructure that has historically improved longevity even more than improved healthcare. This includes cleaner air and water as well as health-preserving controls over products that can harm people’s health, such as tainted meat and virus-infected produce. Yet, life expectancy in the United States is lower than that of 21 comparable countries and lower than some much poorer countries, such as Kosovo, Albania, Sri Lanka, and Algeria, according to David Wallace-Wells in a New York Times opinion (Aug. 13, 2023).
Part of the reason, but only part I believe, is over-emphasis on economic growth which leaves many people frustrated, needy, and alone, as we see in the United States at this time. Economic growth depends largely on consumer demand because the sale of consumer products, both goods and services, constitutes about 70 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP), the primary measure of the economy’s size.
Consumer demand increases when people live alone. The construction industry gets a boost because more housing units are needed than when people share housing with roommates or family members. When demand for housing increases, the prices for existing housing go up as well, another boost to GDP. The economy grows even more when married couples split up because then lawyers and accountants may be needed, and a formerly stay-at-home spouse may have to start working outside the home, again raising GDP.
Living alone contributes to loneliness which, according to the Surgeon General, is a significant cause of early death in the United States. Such loneliness contributes to economic growth, in addition to the ways noted above, because lonely people pay more for entertainment than the socially engaged. They have greater interest in TV streaming services, on-line gaming, and social media which add to GDP largely through ads that promote the purchase of products and services.
“Deaths of Despair” result not only from loneliness, but also from the inability to afford “must have” consumer items. The more such items are needed for people to have what they consider respectable lives - items such as functioning cars, iPhones, and professional grooming - the more the economy grows through the sale of these items. But because they are “must have,” those who can’t afford them are socially marginalized. They can’t take part in mainstream social life.
Humans are social beings. Our sense of self-worth is greatly influenced by the views that we believe others have of us. When we can’t afford socially respectable versions of must-have goods and services, we have reduced self-esteem. Believing this condition to be permanent leads to the kind of despair that increases rates of mortality through obesity, general inattention to health, and overconsumption of alcohol or other drugs.
The economy grows also when our personal security is jeopardized. People pay for more security services. They also buy more firearms to protect themselves from others who have bought them. Reduced longevity in the U.S. results in part from increased gun-related deaths.
We could increase longevity if people socialized and shared more, as we typically do after such disasters as floods or wildfires. What if it became the social norm for people to cut the lawn of elderly neighbors who may reciprocate with a home baked pie? What if more people, including single people, engaged in group activities related to the religious or civic organizations of their choice? What if people developed the interpersonal skills to find and remain together with a life partner, making it possible for them to assist one another as they age?
Statistics show clearly that people who are engaged with others in these ways live longer than average in the United States. But the benefits of their social interactions inhibit economic growth. Fewer professional gardeners are needed when neighbors cut the lawn. Fewer purchases to enhance self-esteem are needed when people are esteemed for their contributions to the group activities of a civic or religious group. Fewer home health aides are needed when elderly couples help one another with the chores of daily living.
How much should we encourage the kinds of social interaction that reduces social isolation and deaths of despair and thereby increases longevity at the expense of economic growth?
Reply to wenz.peter@uis.edu for a my response.
Is the statistic from Wallace-Wells about “life expectancy” the average of the age-at-death of everyone born in the U. S.? If so, then the calculation includes all the deaths of babies and young people, which skews the number so that it does not measure how old we can expect to get when we get old. Nonetheless, your argument is interesting in how it correlates economic statistics with probable unhappiness. As the Taoists suggest, health, wealth, and happiness are independent wishes. Whether or not money can buy longevity, GDP may, to some extent, be inversely correlated to contentment, well-being, low blood pressure, etc. For that matter, GDP may also be related to deaths of young people, such as teenage suicides,…