3 ms·

Your line of thinking implies that sans globalization the benefits of modern technology would not have achieved the same, if not better, without offering a scin

Your line of thinking implies that sans globalization the benefits of modern technology would not have achieved the same, if not better, without offering a scintilla of evidence for that self-affirming assertion. Let's be clear here: the dissenting position that you dismiss (in an ad hom manner) as motivated by "envy and hatred" is critical of the unbelievably distored distribution of wealth and political power that has resulted. We are concerned about the future generations, "friend".

logicchains 9y ago
Consider looking then to a country that completely rejects globalism, like North Korea. How has _modern technology_ helped citizens there live long, healthy and satisfying lives? >unbelievably distored distribution of wealth and political power Distorted by who's standard? There's no way to scientifically assert that a certain distribution of wealth and power is correct; it's just a distribution. To assert that a particular distribution is "wrong" (or synonyms in this case like "distorted") is a value judgement. It's a natural impulse for people to feel bad when other people have more than them, and this feeling is called envy, so it's not unreasonable to attribute a person's dislike of a distribution in which others have more than them as motivated by envy. Especially from the perspective of someone who believes increasing the size of the pie is more important than equalising the distribution, which many economists believe.
- eternalban 9y ago
  North Korea can not possibly be considered a meaningful 'control' in an empirical context given that it represents a bona fide edge case. > Distored by who's standard? By the standard of those of us who have a contrary "belief" than your economists. As for envy, I hold that envy is operational amongst near peers. Peasants don't "envy" the king.

logicchains 9y ago

Consider looking then to a country that completely rejects globalism, like North Korea. How has _modern technology_ helped citizens there live long, healthy and satisfying lives? >unbelievably distored distribution of wealth and political power Distorted by who's standard? There's no way to scientifically assert that a certain distribution of wealth and power is correct; it's just a distribution. To assert that a particular distribution is "wrong" (or synonyms in this case like "distorted") is a value judgement. It's a natural impulse for people to feel bad when other people have more than them, and this feeling is called envy, so it's not unreasonable to attribute a person's dislike of a distribution in which others have more than them as motivated by envy. Especially from the perspective of someone who believes increasing the size of the pie is more important than equalising the distribution, which many economists believe.

eternalban 9y ago
North Korea can not possibly be considered a meaningful 'control' in an empirical context given that it represents a bona fide edge case. > Distored by who's standard? By the standard of those of us who have a contrary "belief" than your economists. As for envy, I hold that envy is operational amongst near peers. Peasants don't "envy" the king.