3 ms·

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 -

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

>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.