5 ms·

I can't help but think that picking apart a magazine's headline is a huge distraction from an important issue, but I also can't help myself in pointing out how

by steego 8y ago

I can't help but think that picking apart a magazine's headline is a huge distraction from an important issue, but I also can't help myself in pointing out how off the mark you with such a superficial observation. As far as global poverty is concerned, between 1990-2013 more than a billion people were lifted out of poverty according to the World Bank. I'm sure you can point to local and anecdotal evidence that does not correlate, but to say efforts to reduce poverty have failed are just flat wrong. Cancer is an intractably complex disease, but to dismiss all efforts and advancements is also off the mark. Life expectancy for many types of cancers has improved significantly. Oncolytic viruses have been shown to treat some very advanced forms of cancer with profound results. I wish I could be more optimistic about the war on drugs, so I'll concede that one to you. If you think the branding of the effort is that terrible and counter productive, I'd love to hear your ideas on how we should brand the effort.

nonbel 8y ago
>"As far as global poverty is concerned, between 1990-2013 more than a billion people were lifted out of poverty according to the World Bank. I'm sure you can point to local and anecdotal evidence that does not correlate, but to say efforts to reduce poverty have failed are just flat wrong." Those "war on" phrases refer to specific projects in the US. For that one I wasn't too familiar but quickly looked it up and didn't see anyone claiming success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty Regarding cancer, I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698877
- steego 8y ago
  > For that one I wasn't too familiar but quickly looked it up and didn't see anyone claiming success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty Think about it. The "War on Poverty" was Lyndon Johnson's campaign to expand Roosevelt's New Deal. Does that sound like something that would prosper under the Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton (consider the congress), and Bush Jr administrations? Unlike the "War on Drugs", which was actually a never-ending boondoggle that received ample bi-partisan and financial support, Johnson's programs were in the political cross-hairs since day one. In other words, these two programs were failures for very different reasons. The comparison of the "War on Drugs" to the "War on Poverty" is incredibly superficial insofar as the only real thing they have in common are their names.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"the only real thing they have in common are their names." They are names for efforts by the US government to achieve some goal that it never achieves. I don't see what difference the detailed reasons for failure are, I am sure there are many.
    - steego 8y ago
      So what you're telling me is the reason for failure really isn't important. The fact that one program was championed for 40-50 years while the other one defunded and dismanteled is of no consequence. The real takeaway here is they were doomed to failure because the US government chose similar bad names. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
tripplethrendo 8y ago
A billion people consuming more is surely bad for climate change though, no? Millions of people pouring into 1st world countries and consuming more is surely bad for climate change.
- steego 8y ago
  > A billion people consuming more is surely bad for climate change though, no? Let me ask you a question: How do you incorporate the concept of efficiency when you talk about wealth? Is wealth and not being impoverished defined by how much you can consume? I'd argue that the history of technology shows us that we tend to value things that provide more value using fewer resources over a the long term. Most wealth is derived from extracting more value from the same resources and not simple resource consumption. Let's take light for example. There was an article written by Tim Harford discussed the economic history of producing light and how price per lumen has dropped by a factor of 500,000. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38650976 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38650976 Obviously, not all consumables can enjoy those tremendous gains in efficiencies, but there are technologies today whose price/performance is improving at a rate far faster than inflation. That's what we should invest in and accelerate. In my lifetime, I've watched the cell phone and laptop replace the need to buy dozens of other things, not just in the home, but in the office too. Cheap/viable/comfortable augmented reality will only push this trend further. A billion people consuming more natural resources, non-renewable resources and carbon emitting resources at the levels we consume them would be bad for our environment. A billion people having access to cheap/free sources of energy, a quality education, an inexpensive digital infrastructure and devices, and knowing how to use their land efficiently is magnitudes better than a billion people simply living in poverty. Poverty isn't cheap, nor is it good for the environment, especially if it leads to wars destroying wealth and raping natural resources. My hope is the markets in developing countries will be a huge opportunity for producers of efficient technology, providing those technologies a space where they can incubate until their quality begins to match their less-than-efficient competition. In some circumstances, this is true today.
- bmarkovic 8y ago
  So you're arguing that the third world doesn't deserve washing machines and clean water, so that you can have one person per SUV in the states?

by steego 8y ago

nonbel 8y ago

>"As far as global poverty is concerned, between 1990-2013 more than a billion people were lifted out of poverty according to the World Bank. I'm sure you can point to local and anecdotal evidence that does not correlate, but to say efforts to reduce poverty have failed are just flat wrong." Those "war on" phrases refer to specific projects in the US. For that one I wasn't too familiar but quickly looked it up and didn't see anyone claiming success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty Regarding cancer, I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698877

steego 8y ago
> For that one I wasn't too familiar but quickly looked it up and didn't see anyone claiming success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty Think about it. The "War on Poverty" was Lyndon Johnson's campaign to expand Roosevelt's New Deal. Does that sound like something that would prosper under the Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton (consider the congress), and Bush Jr administrations? Unlike the "War on Drugs", which was actually a never-ending boondoggle that received ample bi-partisan and financial support, Johnson's programs were in the political cross-hairs since day one. In other words, these two programs were failures for very different reasons. The comparison of the "War on Drugs" to the "War on Poverty" is incredibly superficial insofar as the only real thing they have in common are their names.
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"the only real thing they have in common are their names." They are names for efforts by the US government to achieve some goal that it never achieves. I don't see what difference the detailed reasons for failure are, I am sure there are many.
  - steego 8y ago
    So what you're telling me is the reason for failure really isn't important. The fact that one program was championed for 40-50 years while the other one defunded and dismanteled is of no consequence. The real takeaway here is they were doomed to failure because the US government chose similar bad names. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

tripplethrendo 8y ago

A billion people consuming more is surely bad for climate change though, no? Millions of people pouring into 1st world countries and consuming more is surely bad for climate change.

steego 8y ago
> A billion people consuming more is surely bad for climate change though, no? Let me ask you a question: How do you incorporate the concept of efficiency when you talk about wealth? Is wealth and not being impoverished defined by how much you can consume? I'd argue that the history of technology shows us that we tend to value things that provide more value using fewer resources over a the long term. Most wealth is derived from extracting more value from the same resources and not simple resource consumption. Let's take light for example. There was an article written by Tim Harford discussed the economic history of producing light and how price per lumen has dropped by a factor of 500,000. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38650976 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38650976 Obviously, not all consumables can enjoy those tremendous gains in efficiencies, but there are technologies today whose price/performance is improving at a rate far faster than inflation. That's what we should invest in and accelerate. In my lifetime, I've watched the cell phone and laptop replace the need to buy dozens of other things, not just in the home, but in the office too. Cheap/viable/comfortable augmented reality will only push this trend further. A billion people consuming more natural resources, non-renewable resources and carbon emitting resources at the levels we consume them would be bad for our environment. A billion people having access to cheap/free sources of energy, a quality education, an inexpensive digital infrastructure and devices, and knowing how to use their land efficiently is magnitudes better than a billion people simply living in poverty. Poverty isn't cheap, nor is it good for the environment, especially if it leads to wars destroying wealth and raping natural resources. My hope is the markets in developing countries will be a huge opportunity for producers of efficient technology, providing those technologies a space where they can incubate until their quality begins to match their less-than-efficient competition. In some circumstances, this is true today.
bmarkovic 8y ago
So you're arguing that the third world doesn't deserve washing machines and clean water, so that you can have one person per SUV in the states?