3 ms·

More people live in poverty now than ever before. The overall percentage may have decreased, but the sheer number is greater. Technically more people suffer now

More people live in poverty now than ever before. The overall percentage may have decreased, but the sheer number is greater. Technically more people suffer now than ever in history. It doesn't matter that there's more. This is just an example of statistics hiding how bad things truly are. The scale is greater now than it was back then. Now, a city of millions can be obliterated in an instant. Now, we can see the effects of global warming and how it can decimate the world's food supply. We have more knowledge now than ever before - and before, ignorance was bliss.

Geminidog 6y ago
>More people live in poverty now than ever before. The overall percentage may have decreased, but the sheer number is greater. The sheer number doesn't matter when compared to the percentage. The percentage is the real number that measures our progress and the actual number is an illusion. 100 people die of car accidents per day does that mean we ban cars? No. The sheer number is an illusion the percentage is the real deal. >The scale is greater now than it was back then. Now, a city of millions can be obliterated in an instant. Now, we can see the effects of global warming and how it can decimate the world's food supply. Nobody is saying these aren't threats or problems. But compared with the past these problems are looming problems that we have to deal with as a society. A peasant in the dark ages had to deal with starvation, black death or invaders. These were actual threats in the sense that an average conversation will be like: "Last week Martha got her head chopped off by a barbarian and Bob died of starvation. "
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  I get your point - but when we're talking about suffering, the amount matters. It doesn't matter if we reduce pollution if we're still causing global warming - things may be better, but that doesn't mean they're good enough. > A peasant in the dark ages had to deal with starvation, black death or invaders. These were actual threats in the sense that an average conversation will be like: "Last week Martha got her head chopped off by a barbarian and Bob died of starvation. " To even suggest starvation doesn't exist is...I don't even have the words. Did you hear about the Nigerian farmers who were executed last week by Boko Haram? Not very different than a barbarian raiding a small village.
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    >To even suggest starvation doesn't exist is...I don't even have the words. Stop over dramatizing the situation. Obviously I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm obviously not implying it. What I am implying is that starvation is dramatically lower in percentage then it was in the past. >Did you hear about the Nigerian farmers who were executed last week by Boko Haram? Not very different than a barbarian raiding a small village. Again tragic but in the big scheme of things historically this would be something happening across the street from you. Nowadays it's happening in few places but you think it's a huge deal because the news manages to cover it.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      No over dramatization - sorry if I struck a nerve with such an innocuous comment. > What I am implying is that starvation is dramatically lower in percentage then it was in the past. You aren't implying it. You're directly stating it. This isn't in debate, what's in debate is if, even if the percentage is better, more total suffer. Is that actually a moral good? It's like saying "we've killed 90% of your cancer cells, but weren't able to kill all of them. The cancer will still kill you, but we killed a greater percentage of it! yay us!" It doesn't make sense in certain scenarios and is only helpful as a delta - plus, to even suggest that we have less poverty than ever in history is unsubstantiated with fact.

Geminidog 6y ago

>More people live in poverty now than ever before. The overall percentage may have decreased, but the sheer number is greater. The sheer number doesn't matter when compared to the percentage. The percentage is the real number that measures our progress and the actual number is an illusion. 100 people die of car accidents per day does that mean we ban cars? No. The sheer number is an illusion the percentage is the real deal. >The scale is greater now than it was back then. Now, a city of millions can be obliterated in an instant. Now, we can see the effects of global warming and how it can decimate the world's food supply. Nobody is saying these aren't threats or problems. But compared with the past these problems are looming problems that we have to deal with as a society. A peasant in the dark ages had to deal with starvation, black death or invaders. These were actual threats in the sense that an average conversation will be like: "Last week Martha got her head chopped off by a barbarian and Bob died of starvation. "

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
I get your point - but when we're talking about suffering, the amount matters. It doesn't matter if we reduce pollution if we're still causing global warming - things may be better, but that doesn't mean they're good enough. > A peasant in the dark ages had to deal with starvation, black death or invaders. These were actual threats in the sense that an average conversation will be like: "Last week Martha got her head chopped off by a barbarian and Bob died of starvation. " To even suggest starvation doesn't exist is...I don't even have the words. Did you hear about the Nigerian farmers who were executed last week by Boko Haram? Not very different than a barbarian raiding a small village.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  >To even suggest starvation doesn't exist is...I don't even have the words. Stop over dramatizing the situation. Obviously I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm obviously not implying it. What I am implying is that starvation is dramatically lower in percentage then it was in the past. >Did you hear about the Nigerian farmers who were executed last week by Boko Haram? Not very different than a barbarian raiding a small village. Again tragic but in the big scheme of things historically this would be something happening across the street from you. Nowadays it's happening in few places but you think it's a huge deal because the news manages to cover it.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    No over dramatization - sorry if I struck a nerve with such an innocuous comment. > What I am implying is that starvation is dramatically lower in percentage then it was in the past. You aren't implying it. You're directly stating it. This isn't in debate, what's in debate is if, even if the percentage is better, more total suffer. Is that actually a moral good? It's like saying "we've killed 90% of your cancer cells, but weren't able to kill all of them. The cancer will still kill you, but we killed a greater percentage of it! yay us!" It doesn't make sense in certain scenarios and is only helpful as a delta - plus, to even suggest that we have less poverty than ever in history is unsubstantiated with fact.