3 ms·

> The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at an incredible pace. I think “basically any” is overselling it (particularly when combined wi

by LeonB 7y ago

> The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at an incredible pace. I think “basically any” is overselling it (particularly when combined with “incredible pace”) Climate change is hard to overlook, for example. Income inequality is rising. That leads to more of the kind of statements you’re objecting to.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Thank you. The potential destruction of the majority of living species on earth is hardly an improvement!
- darawk 7y ago
  While that's true...if you were to redistribute the wealth of the world's richest people to the world's poorest, you would accelerate climate change by at least an order of magnitude over night.
  - Tade0 7y ago
    Nobody is suggesting doing that specifically. It's not inequality per se that's at fault, but a system that serves the powerful thus increasing it. As long as such a system is in place the powerful will exploit it for their gain disregarding casualties like the environment.
    - darawk 7y ago
      Except that as I said, things are getting better for the world's poorest at an incredible rate. So, if your concern is the world's poorest, you probably don't want to mess with the current system too much. If you do still want to mess with the current system, you probably aren't actually concerned with helping the poor.
      - Tade0 7y ago
        That's a false equivalence, because you're assuming that this system is the only one which benefits the poor. The worlds poorest will suffer from climate change the most and this system is only making it worse. They may be (ostensibly) better off now, but their children certainly won't.
        darawk 7y ago
        > That's a false equivalence, because you're assuming that this system is the only one which benefits the poor. I'm not assuming that, i'm merely stating that this one does. If your goal is to benefit the poor, and you have a system that does so, you should be happy. If you are not happy, it is not because you are upset about poverty. > The worlds poorest will suffer from climate change the most and this system is only making it worse. Yes, and unfortunately mitigating climate change is directly at odds with alleviating their poverty. It's a tricky problem.
        Tade0 7y ago
        > If your goal is to benefit the poor, and you have a system that does so, you should be happy. Problem is these benefits are superficial. On one hand you get cell phones and cheap flights, on the other rivers of plastic and land devastated by mining. And it isn't even worth it, because a large part of the profit inevitably goes to those responsible for this devastation, so wealth is actually extracted from these places. > Yes, and unfortunately mitigating climate change is directly at odds with alleviating their poverty. It is in this system only, which allows it in the name of profits for the powerful.
        darawk 7y ago
        > Problem is these benefits are superficial. On one hand you get cell phones and cheap flights, on the other rivers of plastic and land devastated by mining. It's not superficial to the people that are no longer starving and dying of preventable diseases. > And it isn't even worth it, because a large part of the profit inevitably goes to those responsible for this devastation, so wealth is actually extracted from these places. So, it's not worth lifting people out of poverty if some other people also get rich? > It is in this system only, which allows it in the name of profits for the powerful. You think you've got a design for a social system that would lift more people out of poverty while harming the environment less? I'm all ears.
darawk 7y ago
> Climate change is hard to overlook, for example. Yes, climate change is a significant exception. > Income inequality is rising. That leads to more of the kind of statements you’re objecting to. Income inequality is not a bad thing on its own, though. It is bad when the people at the bottom are struggling to get by, though. And it's the struggling-to-get-by people that are disappearing at an incredible rate.

by LeonB 7y ago

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

Thank you. The potential destruction of the majority of living species on earth is hardly an improvement!

darawk 7y ago
While that's true...if you were to redistribute the wealth of the world's richest people to the world's poorest, you would accelerate climate change by at least an order of magnitude over night.
- Tade0 7y ago
  Nobody is suggesting doing that specifically. It's not inequality per se that's at fault, but a system that serves the powerful thus increasing it. As long as such a system is in place the powerful will exploit it for their gain disregarding casualties like the environment.
  - darawk 7y ago
    Except that as I said, things are getting better for the world's poorest at an incredible rate. So, if your concern is the world's poorest, you probably don't want to mess with the current system too much. If you do still want to mess with the current system, you probably aren't actually concerned with helping the poor.
    - Tade0 7y ago
      That's a false equivalence, because you're assuming that this system is the only one which benefits the poor. The worlds poorest will suffer from climate change the most and this system is only making it worse. They may be (ostensibly) better off now, but their children certainly won't.
      - darawk 7y ago
        > That's a false equivalence, because you're assuming that this system is the only one which benefits the poor. I'm not assuming that, i'm merely stating that this one does. If your goal is to benefit the poor, and you have a system that does so, you should be happy. If you are not happy, it is not because you are upset about poverty. > The worlds poorest will suffer from climate change the most and this system is only making it worse. Yes, and unfortunately mitigating climate change is directly at odds with alleviating their poverty. It's a tricky problem.
        Tade0 7y ago
        > If your goal is to benefit the poor, and you have a system that does so, you should be happy. Problem is these benefits are superficial. On one hand you get cell phones and cheap flights, on the other rivers of plastic and land devastated by mining. And it isn't even worth it, because a large part of the profit inevitably goes to those responsible for this devastation, so wealth is actually extracted from these places. > Yes, and unfortunately mitigating climate change is directly at odds with alleviating their poverty. It is in this system only, which allows it in the name of profits for the powerful.
        darawk 7y ago
        > Problem is these benefits are superficial. On one hand you get cell phones and cheap flights, on the other rivers of plastic and land devastated by mining. It's not superficial to the people that are no longer starving and dying of preventable diseases. > And it isn't even worth it, because a large part of the profit inevitably goes to those responsible for this devastation, so wealth is actually extracted from these places. So, it's not worth lifting people out of poverty if some other people also get rich? > It is in this system only, which allows it in the name of profits for the powerful. You think you've got a design for a social system that would lift more people out of poverty while harming the environment less? I'm all ears.

darawk 7y ago

> Climate change is hard to overlook, for example. Yes, climate change is a significant exception. > Income inequality is rising. That leads to more of the kind of statements you’re objecting to. Income inequality is not a bad thing on its own, though. It is bad when the people at the bottom are struggling to get by, though. And it's the struggling-to-get-by people that are disappearing at an incredible rate.