3 ms·

He didn't "as if" the zero-sum argument away. In the very next paragraph: > Rather than being drained dry, [the global south] are advancing, growing their sha

by calt 6y ago

He didn't "as if" the zero-sum argument away. In the very next paragraph: > Rather than being drained dry, [the global south] are advancing, growing their share of the global pie even as they deliver better lives to their own poorest citizens. Unfairness isn't good. They probably agree that things are unfair and should be better. Hickel is saying ~you're wrong about poverty because the situation is unfair~ Noah Smith is saying ~OK. But I'm not wrong about the fact that poverty is decreasing and the situation is improving.~

ttiurani 6y ago
This exactly is the much more important second point Hickel is making. Even if growing GDP does mean tiny scraps of wealth are left to lower the number of the extremely poor[1], it's nowhere near resource efficient enough to be feasible within constraints of climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and resource depletion. Pumping up GDP is not a sustainable way to reduce poverty. Gates and other people who benefit the most from the status quo continuing to advertise for this graph gives a very false sense of optimism. 1: $1.90/d is lower than the consumption level of slaves in the US in the 19th century. Helping people get slightly above the level of slaves is of course better than not doing that, but it is hardly enough.
- calt 6y ago
  That's a good point, and I think that to a varying degree the relevant parties - Max Roser, Steven Pinker, and Noah Smith - all agree with it. I'm new to this controversy, but after reading these comments for entirely too long it appears in this thread that Hickel is writing numerous scathing articles misrepresenting the views of Max Roser, Steven Pinker, and Noah Smith to make this point. It's unfortunate.
  - simiones 6y ago
    From the article, I got the sense that Max Roser in fact agrees with Hickel that Pinker's account (or, at least, Pinker's conclusions from the actual data) is wrong.

by calt 6y ago

ttiurani 6y ago

This exactly is the much more important second point Hickel is making. Even if growing GDP does mean tiny scraps of wealth are left to lower the number of the extremely poor[1], it's nowhere near resource efficient enough to be feasible within constraints of climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and resource depletion. Pumping up GDP is not a sustainable way to reduce poverty. Gates and other people who benefit the most from the status quo continuing to advertise for this graph gives a very false sense of optimism. 1: $1.90/d is lower than the consumption level of slaves in the US in the 19th century. Helping people get slightly above the level of slaves is of course better than not doing that, but it is hardly enough.

calt 6y ago
That's a good point, and I think that to a varying degree the relevant parties - Max Roser, Steven Pinker, and Noah Smith - all agree with it. I'm new to this controversy, but after reading these comments for entirely too long it appears in this thread that Hickel is writing numerous scathing articles misrepresenting the views of Max Roser, Steven Pinker, and Noah Smith to make this point. It's unfortunate.
- simiones 6y ago
  From the article, I got the sense that Max Roser in fact agrees with Hickel that Pinker's account (or, at least, Pinker's conclusions from the actual data) is wrong.