Today I read Who’s qualified to save the world? by Elle Griffin.
We’re left to ponder who is authorized to save the world and whether we want them to save it. What should we do when we find ourselves with an unlikeable savior?
We want change from the bottom up but…
Yes, we should eradicate disease if we can do so, and some tech entrepreneurs can make it happen. We need to power our world with nuclear fusion if we hope to avoid climate catastrophe, and one billionaire might be more likely to achieve it than our governments. Space exploration is important, and governments have struggled to fund it. There can be no doubt those in Gaza desperately need aid, even if only our problematic governments can provide it.
We want money and power in the right hands, but whose hands? What savior do we trust?
Both books cede an obvious answer: We need all the saviors. They keep each other in check.
I like this conclusion. It resonates with what I like so much about causal inference—that engaging in high quality causal inference means needing one another. Depending on others with different expertise is so necessary to make good causal inferences.
What would the world look like if everyone who wanted to make a difference could? Are we already here, to some degree? Is the next step an awakening of those who feel the pull to make change?