4 ms·

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 w

by 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.
      - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
        > 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. If you’re actually serious, look up Communalism or Murray Bookchin. There are in fact real and detailed ideas about alternatives that would still lift people out of poverty without a wealthy class extracting wealth from those places and people.
        darawk 7y ago
        Ok. I looked this up a bit, it seems to essentially be a variant of anarcho-syndicalism. The essential conceit of which appears to be "we're going to do centralized planning, but local, so it'll be good instead of bad". It's unclear to me why this would substantially resolve any of the serious criticisms of central planning (calculation problem, local knowledge problem, etc.)

by darawk 7y ago

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.
    - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
      > 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. If you’re actually serious, look up Communalism or Murray Bookchin. There are in fact real and detailed ideas about alternatives that would still lift people out of poverty without a wealthy class extracting wealth from those places and people.
      - darawk 7y ago
        Ok. I looked this up a bit, it seems to essentially be a variant of anarcho-syndicalism. The essential conceit of which appears to be "we're going to do centralized planning, but local, so it'll be good instead of bad". It's unclear to me why this would substantially resolve any of the serious criticisms of central planning (calculation problem, local knowledge problem, etc.)