It sounds to me like both sides are picking metrics that make their point the strongest. And the reality is, both can be right. The proportion of the world in e

It sounds to me like both sides are picking metrics that make their point the strongest. And the reality is, both can be right. The proportion of the world in extreme poverty (<$.190/day) can be going down while overall number of people in poverty (<$7.50/day) can be increasing. These aren't contradictory. And reducing both metrics are good goals! The problem, as I see it, is that both of these sides seem to be exploiting the problem of poverty to support political agendas that are perhaps unrelated to poverty. Pinker perhaps moreso than Hickel (but that may be because we literally just read Hickel's very well-written thoughts on it). The correct way forward, in my view, is to have both sides agree to a combined, single metric or a set of metrics that best capture the essence of the problem. When we agree on how to measure success, we can best see what works to improve it. I mean, presuming both sides actually care about reducing poverty and not just promoting their favorite political system, then coming together to come up with a better overall goal should be something everyone wants to do.