By VICTOR-BANDELE DADA
Humanity has never possessed as much knowledge, technology and productive capacity as it does today. Yet millions remain hungry, billions struggle with inadequate housing or insecure livelihoods, and countless people are excluded from the opportunities that could transform their lives.
Why does this happen?
If knowledge is supposed to improve human existence, why does its application sometimes leave people poorer, unemployed, displaced or unable to participate in the prosperity of their societies? This is the question behind the concept of casualties of knowledge—people disadvantaged by the way knowledge, technology, economic resources and institutions are organised and applied. The issue is not that knowledge is inherently harmful. Rather, knowledge applied without adequate attention to its wider human consequences can benefit some people while leaving others behind.
The evidence is before us
The global evidence is sobering. The World Bank’s September 2026 poverty update estimated that approximately 824 million people lived in extreme poverty in 2024. According to the United Nations’ 2025 food-security report, approximately 673 million people experienced hunger in 2024, while about 2.3 billion faced moderate or severe food insecurity. UNESCO estimated that 273 million children and young people were out of school in 2024. UN-Habitat reported in July 2026 that more than three billion people lacked adequate housing. These figures represent different, overlapping populations and must not be added together. Nevertheless, they reveal the enormous scale of human needs that remain unmet.
Humanity has developed advanced agricultural techniques, sophisticated financial systems, modern industrial processes and powerful digital technologies. Yet these achievements have not eliminated mass deprivation. The question is not whether knowledge has improved human life. It unquestionably has. The question is why its benefits remain so unevenly distributed and why so many people cannot access the opportunities it creates.
How does knowledge produce casualties? Scientific knowledge can increase food production while people remain hungry because they lack purchasing power. Automation can improve productivity while workers lose their livelihoods without adequate opportunities for retraining. Education can produce graduates without corresponding productive opportunities. Financial systems can mobilise enormous capital while small enterprises struggle to obtain the resources needed to grow.
These examples do not mean that knowledge directly causes poverty or unemployment. They demonstrate that progress in one area does not automatically resolve problems in another. The casualty is often not a person who lacks ability, but a person whose ability has not been connected to a productive opportunity.
Population growth makes this challenge more urgent. The United Nations estimated the world’s population at approximately 8.2 billion in 2024 and projected that it could reach around 10.3 billion by the mid-2080s. These are astronomical increases and projections from the 2.5 billion figure in 1950. Every additional person represents potential creativity and productive capacity. The challenge is to ensure that people can contribute to economic activity and participate in its benefits.
This raises the fundamental question: How can the casualties of knowledge be integrated into sustainable prosperity?
From casualties to contributors
The answer requires more than relief programmes, job announcements or the distribution of financial assistance. These interventions can be essential, but they must connect to a system that enables people to participate productively and sustainably. This is a central concern of Prosperity Governance and Management (PGM), a multidisciplinary research initiative associated with Emeritus Professor Isaac Ayinde Adalemo, Emeritus Professor Oyewusi Ibidapo-Obe and the present author, developed over approximately four decades. One of its central propositions is simple: Aggregation is not integration.
A country may contain millions of people, abundant natural resources, universities, businesses and financial institutions without organising these elements into a system that enables people to participate effectively in prosperity. PGM expresses a proposed basis for integration through USD: Definite Location, Definite Role and Definite Relation. Where can a person participate productively? What role can that person perform? How will that role connect to other people, resources, markets and the value generated? These questions must now be translated into an implementation pathway.
Five steps to implementation
First, identify the casualties. Communities should conduct a practical assessment of people who are unemployed, underemployed, economically excluded or displaced by technological and structural change. The assessment should document their existing skills, assets, needs, interests and barriers to participation. The purpose is not to label people as liabilities, but to identify untapped productive capacity.
Second, organise people around viable economic activities. Individuals should be grouped according to their capabilities and opportunities in agriculture, processing, manufacturing, construction, services, digital enterprise and other locally relevant sectors. Community institutions and cooperatives can provide a framework for collaboration, accountability and collective access to resources.
Third, establish definite productive roles. Every proposed activity must have a clear purpose, a defined responsibility and a realistic economic justification. Training should be linked to actual opportunities. Equipment, infrastructure and technical support should be provided according to demonstrated needs. The objective is to move from training people for its own sake to equipping them to perform useful, economically viable work.
Fourth, connect production to finance and markets. Organising people is not enough if they cannot obtain inputs, working capital, equipment, customers or reliable distribution channels. Business plans, market assessments, appropriate financing, transparent contracts and access to buyers must therefore form part of implementation from the beginning. Cooperatives should not promise prosperity merely through membership; they must support activities capable of generating genuine value.
Fifth, measure results and reinvest. Income, employment, enterprise survival, productivity, access to essential services and the distribution of benefits should be monitored. A portion of the value generated can be reinvested in skills, infrastructure, technology and environmental sustainability. Independent assessment should determine whether the model is working, what needs correction and whether expansion is justified.
Start with a measurable pilot
The pathway should begin with a pilot project rather than a nationwide promise.
A practical first phase could involve a defined community, a carefully selected economic sector and a manageable group of participants. During the first three months, organisers would establish a baseline, identify market demand, assess capabilities and develop viable business plans. Over the following three months, they would establish the necessary organisational structures, assign responsibilities, arrange training and equipment, and secure credible routes to market and finance.
During the next six months, the project would operate, track income and production, evaluate governance, identify problems and compare results against the baseline.
At the end of the first year, independent evaluators should determine whether participants have achieved measurable improvements in income, employment stability, productivity and economic participation. Only a model that demonstrates credible results should be adapted and expanded. The proposed Community Integrative (COIN) cooperative approach offers one possible institutional route for testing this framework through Cooperative Primary Societies, cooperative unions and connections to wider investment and development institutions. Its effectiveness must be demonstrated through results, not assumed from its structure.
The challenge before humanity
Knowledge has transformed medicine, agriculture, communication and industrial production. Yet its full potential cannot be realised while large sections of humanity remain disconnected from the opportunities it creates. We must therefore move beyond asking how to acquire more knowledge and ask how to organise its application more effectively. The objective is a society in which people are not merely counted, trained or assisted, but are connected to productive roles, viable enterprises, markets and fair opportunities to share in the value they create.
When knowledge produces casualties, the answer is not to reject knowledge, but to redesign the systems through which it is applied. The ultimate test of progress is not simply how much humanity knows or how much wealth it produces. It is how effectively that knowledge and wealth enable people to live productive, dignified and sustainable lives. The challenge for PGM is to demonstrate, through practical implementation and measurable outcomes, that integration can turn excluded potential into productive participation—and productive participation into sustainable prosperity.
*Dr Dada is Foundation Scholar, Prosperity Governance and Management.
The post When knowledge produces casualties appeared first on Vanguard News.