Live on Monday: Does the US need one billion people?
What would happen if you tripled the US population? Join Matthew Yglesias and Charles Duhigg at 1pm ET on Monday, September 28.
26 September, 2020
Add event to calendar
<p>
<br>
</p><p>
Is immigration key to bolstering the American economy? Could having one billion Americans secure the US's position as <em>the</em> global superpower? What if massive population growth could nourish rural economies and strengthen our country from the inside out? Perhaps these questions are provocative fodder for more debate and contention but, for Matthew Yglesias, asking them and arguing about them is part of the American way. Join him in a conversation moderated by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Charles Duhigg as they explore the case for one billion Americans.
</p><p>
Ask your questions for Matthew Yglesias during the Q&A!
</p><p><strong>Join the live stream at 1pm ET on Monday, September 28.<br></strong></p><h2>STREAMING LINKS<br><a href="https://youtu.be/FKaApFbTpx4" target="_blank">YouTube</a> | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/BigThinkdotcom/posts/10157677011223527" target="_blank">Facebook</a> | <a href="https://edge.bigthink.com/live_streams/111" target="_blank">Big Think Edge</a></h2>
Keep reading
Show less
Why virtual reality is necessary on a planet of 11 billion
Virtual reality is more than a trick. It's a solution to big problems.
11 September, 2020
- According to projections shared by the UN, Earth's population is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050. By the year 2100, that number could increase to 11 billion. Virtual reality will be necessary to reduce the waste of such a large population in industries like transport, retail, and manufacturing.
- As an existing technology, there is a lot that virtual reality can do: rich and immersive environments, heightened storytelling, emotionally resonant experiences, and increased productivity in retail. But it's only in its infancy.
- As the world's population continues to grow, the technology will need to evolve to facilitate a larger network of users, and developers will have to think harder about the technological potential and the ethical, neurological, and emotional side effects.
Keep reading
Show less
Why are there so many humans?
Having lots of kids is great for the success of the species. But there's a hitch.
03 August, 2020
Photo by chuttersnap on Unsplash
Something curious happened in human population history over the last 1 million years.
<p> First, our numbers fell to <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/2147" target="_blank">as low as 18,500</a>, and our ancestors were more endangered than chimpanzees and gorillas. Then we bounced back to extraordinary levels, far surpassing the other great apes.
</p><p>
Today the total population of gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans is estimated to be only around 500,000, according to the <a href="https://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/endangered_species/great_apes/" target="_blank">World Wildlife Fund</a>. Many species are critically endangered. Meanwhile, the human population <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html" target="_blank">has surged to 7.7 billion</a>. And the irony is: Our astonishing ability to multiply now threatens the long-term sustainability of many species, including ours.
</p><p>
What happened? Why do we live in the Anthropocene and not a world resembling <a href="http://www.planetoftheapes.com/" target="_blank">Planet of the Apes</a>? We share around 99 percent of our DNA with our great ape cousins, chimpanzees and bonobos. So, what makes us different from our closest relatives that gives us our staggering capacity for reproducing and surviving?
</p><p>
As an evolutionary anthropologist, these questions have led me to live and study among the Yucatec Maya of Mexico, the Pumé hunter-gatherers of Venezuela, and the Tanala agriculturalists of Madagascar. My research,<a href="#note">*</a> combined with genetic data and other studies, offers clues to what developed in the deep past that has made humans so successful—for better or for worse.
</p>
<p>In the 1970s, the isolated village of Xculoc, in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, was home to about 300 Maya people. The maize-farming residents had no electricity or running water. Women hauled water from a 50-meter-deep well using ropes and buckets. They ground maize—the mainstay of their diet—in hand-cranked grinders.</p><p>Then two technologies were introduced that changed these Maya's lives and, ultimately, their population: a gas-powered water pump and two gas-powered maize grinders.</p><p>Using these devices, young women saved about two and a half hours of labor and 325 calories a day. In addition, younger siblings could more easily fetch water and crush maize, freeing up their older sisters' time and literally decreasing their daily grind. That's important because studies have found that heavy subsistence work <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/499550?read-now=1&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents" target="_blank">suppresses ovarian function</a>, whereas reducing labor and raising women's energy balance is associated with a bump in fertility.</p>
<p>Subsequently, the age at which women in Xculoc first gave birth dropped by two years. And according to my long-term research, women who started childbearing after these machines arrived produced significantly larger families than prior generations. By 2003, women who started reproducing in the 1970s had eight to 12 children.</p><p>Saving women time and energy is central to increasing the population. And humans have developed numerous technological and social ways of accomplishing this that differ from our great ape relatives.</p><p>It's important to note that scientists must be cautious about drawing direct analogies between contemporary people or apes and our ancient ancestors. But modern humans and primates are our best tools for inferring how the underpinnings of our numerical success may have evolved.</p><p>Somewhere along the evolutionary road, humans started to favor new ways of having and raising their young. Mothers began weaning their infants earlier. In modern societies where infants rely on their mother's milk and not bottle feeding, babies nurse for two to three years. By contrast, great ape mothers nurse their young for four to six years.</p><p>Breastfeeding is calorically expensive. It takes a mother about 600 extra calories a day to produce milk. So, the sooner she stops nursing, the sooner she can biologically support another pregnancy. In modern societies without contraception, mothers give birth on average every three years. Other great apes may wait as many as six to eight years between births.</p>
<p>Our ancient ancestors also fed, sheltered, and cared for youngsters who were weaned but still growing. This gave them a better chance at surviving than nonhuman great ape young, which fend for themselves after they're weaned. Today a child living in a hunter-gatherer society is twice as likely as a wild chimpanzee to survive to age 15.</p><p>Novel ways of parenting, compared to earlier hominins, meant human mothers were in the unique situation of having multiple dependents of different ages to care for at the same time. I cannot underscore enough how much this sets human mothers and children apart from the other great apes.</p><p>Having lots of kids is great for the success of the species. But there's a hitch. Mothers don't have enough hours in the day to care for their babies full time while providing for their older offspring. That's especially true because the unique aspects of the human diet give mothers a lot of tasks to juggle</p><p>When these ancient life history traits were evolving, our ancestors made their living as hunter-gatherers, who typically eat diverse fare, including fruits, nuts, tubers, roots, large and small game, birds, reptiles, eggs, insects, fish, and shellfish. Cobbling together such a menu requires modern hunter-gatherers to travel, on average, 13 kilometers per day. By contrast, chimpanzees and gorillas roam, on average, 2 kilometers per day.</p>
<p>What's more, hunter-gatherers process most of their food to make it more digestible or to boost the bioavailability of nutrients. And as everyone who prepares food knows, that takes a significant amount of time.</p><p>Among the Pumé hunter-gatherers from the savannas of Venezuela, women spend about three hours a day cracking, mashing, grinding, pounding, sifting, winnowing, butchering, and cooking food. The same is true of Efe women—hunter-gatherers living in the Ituri forest of Central Africa.</p><p>That prep time is in addition to the hours the Pumé and Efe spend foraging and then carrying ingredients back to camp. Furthermore, each processing task requires a specialized technology, which means someone has to collect raw materials and make tools. !Kung women and men in the Kalahari Desert of Southern Africa spend about an hour each day making and repairing tools. Savanna Pumé women devote nearly two hours to toolmaking—twice as much as the men.</p><p>Hunter-gatherers also build shelters and hearths to provide a safe place to process ingredients, to store food and tools, and to leave children who may be too young to accompany others on long foraging trips. Plus, they must haul water, chop firewood, fashion clothing, and maintain the social and information networks needed to access geographically dispersed resources.</p>
<p>There are simply not enough hours in the day for any one person to accomplish all this. So, our ancestors came up with a solution.</p><p>That solution was cooperation—but not the kind of task-sharing many species engage in. Hunter-gatherers developed a distinct feature called intergenerational cooperation: Parents help kids, <em>and</em> children help parents.</p><p>This is not a trait we share with the other great apes, who aren't particularly good at sharing food, helping mothers or offspring who aren't their own, or even supporting their own children after they reach a certain age. Nonhuman great ape mothers rarely share meals with their juvenile offspring once they're weaned, and juvenile apes don't offer food to their moms.</p><p>But among humans, intergenerational cooperation means it really does take a village to raise a child. Across cultures, mothers in hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies offer only about half of the direct care an infant receives. Savanna Pumé infants, for example, have an average of nine caretakers besides their mother. Efe infants have an average of 11.</p><p>Fathers and grandparents certainly play important roles in supporting their families. But it's not enough. An average Maya mother is 60 by the time her last child leaves home, so she has very few years after that to be a babysitting or food-collecting grandmother.</p><p>My research suggests a much more obvious source of help has been overlooked: kids. Other than mothers, children provide most of the child care in many cultures. And 7- to 10-year-olds do the bulk of the babysitting.</p><p>Children are also responsible for processing much of the food and running the household. A Pumé boy carries home an average of 4.5 kilograms of wild fruit on days he forages. That's the equivalent of 3,200 calories—enough to feed himself and at least some of his family. (And that's in addition to any snacking he does in the field.) His sister can bring home more than a kilogram of roots (worth about 4,000 calories)—some of which she will eat, but most of which she shares. Among the Hadza hunter-gatherers of East Africa, children forage for five to six hours a day. By age 5, they can supply about 50 percent of their own calories during some seasons.</p>
<p>Children in agricultural communities are also hard workers. Yucatec Maya between the ages of 7 and 14 devote two to five hours a day to domestic and field work. Teens between the ages of 15 and 18 labor about 6.5 hours a day—as much as their parents.</p><p>By the time a Maya mother is 40, she has an average of seven children at home. These children contribute a combined 20 hours of work a day and supply 60 percent of what the family consumes.</p><p>Thanks to this multigenerational help, a woman can spend time doing what only she can do: have more children. So, children increase the population, but their labor is also a built-in engine to fuel their community's fertility and speed up reproduction.</p><p>With intergenerational cooperation and a diversity of dietary strategies, our ancestors multiplied and weathered population bottlenecks. Just after 1800, the human population hit 1 billion.</p><p>The global population then expanded exponentially, largely due to the enhanced survival of both infants and older people. It reached 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1987, 6 billion in 1999, 7 billion in 2011, and today is at over 7.7 billion.<br><a target="_blank"></a><br>These figures intrigue me as an evolutionary enigma and deeply concern me as a contemporary issue. There is no question, though, that humans have been incredibly successful. The question is: How long can we maintain that success and still be sustainable? The answer, like our secret to growth in the past, stands on the shoulders of cooperation.</p><p><em>* Editor's note: The author derived much of this essay from </em><em>her 47th JAR Distinguished Lecture, "How There Got to Be So Many of Us," which was published in the Winter 2019 issue of the </em>Journal of Anthropological Research<em>.</em></p><p>This work first appeared on <a href="https://www.sapiens.org/" target="_blank">SAPIENS</a> under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND 4.0 license</a>. Read the <a href="https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/human-population-evolution/" target="_blank">original here</a>.<img src="https://www.sapiens.org/track/12597-1596466362813/?dt=Why+Are+There+So+Many+Humans%3F&dl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sapiens.org%2Fevolution%2Fhuman-population-evolution%2F" alt=""><span></span></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Photo by Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images
- According to new research at the University of Washington, a significant population decline will begin after 2064.
- The reasons include more access to contraception and better education for girls and women.
- Many countries will have to grapple with the social and financial consequences of their decline.
<p>After two centuries of unprecedented growth, human population will begin to shrink after 2064. This is good news for a number of reasons, most importantly because it signals an increase in education of girls and women.</p><p>That's the word from a large team of researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington's School of Medicine. Their <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2.pdf" target="_blank">findings</a> were recently published in The Lancet. </p><p>The team predicts that global population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064 before dropping to 8.8 billion at the turn of the century. While that contradicts previous findings by the UN, it's still a billion more people than inhabit the earth today. </p><p>For humans to replace the population, the total fertility rate (TFR) has to maintain a level of 2.1 births per woman. Due to improvements in contraception access and more available education for girls and women, the impetus for having children has declined. </p><p>In some regions, the decline has been dramatic. For example, the TFR in Italy and Spain is now 1.2 while in Poland it's 1.17. Even in "high-fertility" regions, the tide is changing. Sub-Saharan African women averaged 4.6 births per woman in 2017; that number is predicted to drop to 1.7 in 2100. Niger has the highest fertility rate in the world: 7 births per woman. In 2100, that is predicted to fall to 1.8. </p><p>Population decline will have major financial consequences; the researchers believe nations have to begin planning for this now. Discussing working-age individuals (aged 20-64 years), they write, </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Huge declines in the number of workers were forecasted in China and India, alongside steady increases in Nigeria. By 2100, India was forecasted to still have the largest working-age population in the world, followed by Nigeria, China, and the USA." </p>
Mapping global population and the future of the world | The Economist
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e2cc6601e6772f8d94e215e973ba61fe"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ur77lDetI9Q?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715150444.htm" target="_blank">comments</a> on the study, writing, </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"It offers a vision for radical shifts in geopolitical power, challenges myths about immigration, and underlines the importance of protecting and strengthening the sexual and reproductive rights of women. The 21st century will see a revolution in the story of our human civilisation. Africa and the Arab World will shape our future, while Europe and Asia will recede in their influence."</p><p>Indeed, the populations that will shrink the fastest include Asia and central and eastern Europe. Japan, which has been <a href="https://qz.com/1295721/the-japanese-population-is-shrinking-faster-than-every-other-big-country/" target="_blank">grappling with this reality</a> for years, will drop from 128 million in 2017 to 60 million in 2100; Thailand, from 71 to 35 million; Portugal, 11 to 5 million; and South Korea, 53 to 27 million. </p><p>The study focuses on expansion, though it doesn't discuss how quickly we've reached current levels. After 350,000 years of <em>Homo sapiens</em> on Earth, we hit one billion people in 1804. It took 123 years to add another billion; 33 years to get to three billion; 14 years to four billion. If we hit eight billion by the end of this decade, we'll have quadrupled our population in just a century. </p><p>Those are unsustainable numbers. As the COVID-19 pandemic has proven, supply chain management and health care systems in many countries are broken, especially in America. Thanks to the outsourcing of labor and our for-profit health care model, income inequality is breaking our society. Adding more humans to our population during a pandemic, with seniors being the most vulnerable population, should give us pause.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUwMzI0MS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzQwNTU5N30.o9DFv9PFbzzX5zQNq1Ya_3ZwqmFbCyZBTivvxxoxZUc/img.png?width=980" id="571d0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7d824e65060bfb1c887081d246f7757f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Stein Emil Vollset, et al.
<p>Of course, procreation is more a biological process than a philosophical one. Survivability is the goal of every species. That said, we've mitigated the potential damage of overcrowding by contraception and education, as the study suggests. Either we need to more fairly distribute resources around the world—tough to imagine in a capitalist system—or pay the price for birthing too many humans. The latter could be quelled if we have fewer children.</p><p>Stein Emil Vollset, Professor of Global Health at IHME and lead author of the study, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715150444.htm" target="_blank">weighs</a> the costs and benefits:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"While population decline is potentially good news for reducing carbon emissions and stress on food systems, with more old people and fewer young people, economic challenges will arise as societies struggle to grow with fewer workers and taxpayers, and countries' abilities to generate the wealth needed to fund social support and health care for the elderly are reduced."</p><p>The researchers believe immigration will be an even more pressing issue in the coming decades. This might mean less surface area being inhabited as people crowd into environmentally and financially robust regions—a forthcoming reality due to climate change anyway.</p><p>In conclusion, Professor Ibrahim Abubakar at University College London comments on the study, noting, "The distribution of working-age populations will be crucial to whether humanity prospers or withers." Depending on your age, you might not have to worry about this, but our children and grandchildren certainly will. </p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
What 11 emerging countries think about increased diversity
Pew Research Center data shows that most people think diversity improves lives in their countries.
23 June, 2020
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p>A glance at news headlines could lead one to believe our world has lost to <a href="https://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/how-tribalism-overrules-reason-and-makes-risky-times-more-dangerous" target="_blank">tribalism and hate</a>. In just the last few years, we've seen <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/happen-charlottesville-protest-anniversary-weekend/story?id=57107500" target="_blank">white supremacists march openly in American streets</a>, e<a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2015/05/499352-world-day-un-warns-global-cultural-diversity-under-attack" target="_blank">xtremist forces target cultural sites</a> serving as reminders of humanity's shared heritage, <a href="https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/12/28/stabbing-monsey-synagogue-attack/" target="_blank">places of worship terrorized</a>, minorities blamed and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/839980029/blamed-for-coronavirus-outbreak-muslims-in-india-come-under-attack" target="_blank">assaulted over myths about novel coronavirus</a>'s origins, and leaders propose <a href="https://cmsny.org/trumps-executive-orders-immigration-refugees/" target="_blank">a myriad of attempts</a> to reject refugees and migrants.</p><p>This is a part of today's reality, but it's worth remembering that news headlines aren't a trend analysis. They are a collection of reports and instances that tell only one side of our story—often the scariest and most extreme part.</p><p>Far from being pushed to the fringes, cosmopolitanism and the ethics of diversity may be enjoying a heyday according to Pew Research Center data from 11 emerging countries.</p>
Does diversity improve lives?
<p>The center surveyed more than 28,000 peoples across Columbia, India, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Tunisia, Venezuela, Vietnam, South African, and the Philippines on their opinions of diversity within their borders. These countries were chosen based on their middle-income status, differing degrees of technology ownership, and high levels of migration (internal or external).</p><p>The survey asked respondents how they viewed increasing numbers of other races, religions, and nationalities and what effect that had on the quality of life in their countries. Additional questions were tailored to a country's unique demographics and circumstances.</p><p>For example, respondents in the Philippines were asked how favorably they viewed Muslims and Christians, while Tunisians were asked about Sunnis and Shiites. Others, such as Mexico and Lebanon, were asked about asylum seekers fleeing to their countries.</p><p>Pew found that "[a]cross the 11 countries surveyed, more said their countries are better off thanks to the increasing number of people of different races, ethnic groups, and nationalities who live there." A minority said the increase made no difference, and an even smaller minority said their country was worse off.</p>Testing tribalism
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQwODQyMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzIwODg3N30.vO03jZ1PziezobG9vuLqDI64jiu_93HJ-7prbrE9Enk/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C215%2C0%2C91&height=700" id="63e80" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e05016b95976d40d499a0820b055e74b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="crowd of Syrian refugees" />Lebanon and Jordan took in millions of Syrian refugees during the civil war, helping to explain their complex relationship with diversity in their borders.
<p> When looking at results from individual countries, the picture becomes much more nuanced. A majority of respondents from India, Columbia, the Philippines, Kenya, and Venezuela agreed with the statement that <a href="https://bigthink.com/amway/what-are-the-benefits-of-diversity-in-the-workplace" target="_blank">increased diversity made their countries better places</a> to live. Conversely, a minority agreed with the same statement in Tunisia, Mexico, Jordan, and Lebanon. </p><p> The reasons for these divergences seem to stem not only from deep historical divides but also current events. Lebanon, which held the most negative views of diversity among the eleven, took in an estimated <a href="http://reporting.unhcr.org/node/2520#:~:text=Lebanon%20hosts%20the%20largest%20number,Palestinian%20refugees%20under%20UNRWA's%20mandate." target="_blank">1.5 million Syrian refugees</a>, a massive influx for a country of around 7 million. Jordan too saw a massive wave of asylum seekers from the civil war; likewise, its respondents held that increasing numbers of different peoples made life in their country worse. </p><p> Mexico has also seen a <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/venezuelan-refugee" target="_blank">surge of asylum seekers</a> from Central American countries, yet its overall view wasn't as unfavorable as either Jordan or Lebanon. However, it was the only country in the set to have a majority hold that increasing ethnic and religious diversity made no difference to the quality of life. And about half those surveyed did hold negative views toward refugees. </p><p> <br> </p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/16/attitudes-toward-diversity-in-11-emerging-economies/pg_2020-06-16_diversity-emerging-economies_0-01/"><img src="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/PG_2020.06.16_Diversity-Emerging-Economies_0-01.png?w=609"></a><p> <br> </p><p> But while current unrest in some regions has strained relations, it's not the whole story that refugees and migrants generate negativity toward others. Views differ widely. </p><p> Kenya, for example, maintains large refugee camps housing asylum seekers from Somalia and South Sudan, yet half of the country's respondents believed this multicultural status improved life in their country. And a majority held approving opinions of refugees. </p><p> Similarly, about half of respondents from Venezuela, Vietnam, and Jordan rated migrant and refugee groups favorably. Yes, Jordan. </p><p> Though a majority of Jordanians believe increasingly diverse peoples make their country worse, they nonetheless hold agreeable views of refugees. The researchers speculate this divergence may stem from the fact that Jordan hosts two large refugee groups—recent Syrian refugees and Palestinian refugees who have been in the country since the conflicts of the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century. They found that Jordanians who self-identified as Palestinians viewed refugees more favorably. </p>Getting used to each other
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cdee76bef43c85ed51018f8b6d8c0690"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7cmEwt4gxbc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>So, what leads to improved views of multiculturalism? According to Pew's data, those with the most positive views on racial, ethnic, and religious diversity were those who interacted most with these groups. More contact equaled more positive views.</p><p>In all of the countries, younger adults were more likely to interact with people of different backgrounds, and except for Jordan, they also held more favorable views of others. The same held true for those who attained higher levels of education. </p><p>This data mirrors another Pew survey in which researchers asked Americans their views on increased racial and ethnic diversity.</p><p>Around 58 percent of Americans said increasing numbers of diverse people would make the United States a better place to live. Only 9 percent said it would make the country worse, while 31 percent said it didn't make a difference. Opinions were split along partisan lines, with more Democrats viewing the statement favorably than Republicans. </p><p>But like the 11 emerging countries, Americans varied by age and education, too. Fifteen percent of respondents 65 and older believed growing multiculturalism made the U.S. worse—the highest of any age group. And 70 percent of college graduates saw diversity in a positive light, compared to 45 percent of those with a high school diploma or less school.</p><p>The survey's complete results can be found <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/16/attitudes-toward-diversity-in-11-emerging-economies/" target="_blank">here</a>, while the survey on American attitudes on diversity is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/14/most-americans-express-positive-views-of-countrys-growing-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>A future toward acceptance
<p>These data suggest that the world hasn't succumbed to a <a href="https://bigthink.com/videos/tribalism-politics" target="_blank">new era of tribalism</a> and hate. Far from it. The beliefs of cosmopolitanism and ethics of diversity are, in fact, spreading across many of the world's emerging countries and will likely increase as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/668106376/generation-z-is-the-most-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-yet" target="_blank">subsequent generations</a> become more educated and integrated. That progress may be uneven, but it's real and measurable.</p><p>An appreciation of, even desire for, diversity won't end the tragic events that generate eye-catching headlines, but it can make our shared futures more manageable. As Kwame Anthony Apiah wrote in his book "Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers": "I am urging that we should learn about people in other places, take an interest in their civilizations, their arguments, their errors, their achievements, not because that will bring us to agreement, but because it will help us get used to one another."</p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="67dcb72a5ef594ca089e0bf839b4cd2b" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/039332933X?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51FqKk4TkpL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time)</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/039332933X?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$1.99</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$9.99</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__used-price"><span class="grey">Used From: </span><span class="used-price">$1.99</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
