4 ms·

Oh goodie! If I lived in Chad I would use 99.9% less electricity, clearly a win. I would also die 31 years earlier - why isn't that one green too? Dying early i

Oh goodie! If I lived in Chad I would use 99.9% less electricity, clearly a win. I would also die 31 years earlier - why isn't that one green too? Dying early is clearly much better for the environment than hanging around using up resources and belching CO2.

jakedata 5y ago
...replying to myself here to possibly avoid being downvoted to oblivion: This is an example of sarcastic critique. The goal is to illustrate the entirely arbitrary nature of the green vs red labels given to various categories such as electricity consumption. Thank you for your time.
- johnday 5y ago
  I'm not sure it's "arbitrary" that people living longer is considered an upside.
  - jakedata 5y ago
    Nor is greater electricity consumption strictly a downside. Using more responsibly sourced electricity could be considered a good thing if it offsets charcoal sourced from a rainforest. Dying 30 years earlier certainly can reduce your lifetime energy consumption.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      Metrics cannot be perfect. That doesn't mean "don't have metrics" it means "think carefully about what your metrics actually mean." All other things being equal in two countries, it's a positive if one uses less electricity.
chrischapman 5y ago
Upvote for 'Oh Goodie' and the humour in general. But had to reflect on the sad reality of the following being in green! > spend 99.58% less money on health care That is apparently a 'benefit' of living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. When compared to: > die 23.88 years sooner perhaps the health care statistic should have been in red?
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  This criticism doesn't make sense. You could argue that the expense is a contributing factor to why the US' healthcare is better, and if it had a single category that said "healthcare is 90% better in other country because it costs less" then that would be misleading somehow. But that's not at all what happened. They gave two metrics: comparative life expectancy and comparative healthcare expense. The metric where your country fares better is red, the one where it fares worse is green. You cannot argue that lower cost isn't purely better if you are solely examining that single metric. Splitting it into separate metrics allows you to do so. Your backlash against the representation says more about your beliefs than it does about the site.
  - sigmaprimus 5y ago
    That was somewhat of an ad hominem attack, I believe the point that was being made is that Red and Green have certain connotations, generally Red = Bad, Stop, Danger and Green = Good, Go, Safe. I don't think it has anything to do with ones beliefs and though it may indicate an opinion, there is no value in criticizing someone for having a different opinion when they provide it in the appropriate space such as a comments' forum.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      > Red and Green have certain connotations, generally Red = Bad, Stop, Danger and Green = Good, Go, Safe. Yes, this was understood. The context I gave my answer in was after seeing other comments which indicated that the site was somehow designed to make the US look bad. The only reason I can even fathom for how a commentor would question the inclusion of the healthcare cost metric is from embarassment at healthcare costs here and wishing to justify it with a discussion of outcomes (which, as I pointed out earlier, is already included in the life-expectancy metric). I don't see how any interpretation of their comment can get around the fact that GP doesn't agree that healthcare costs should have been included as a "benefit", which I take issue with. Healthcare costs are a valid concern, and something I'd look into before emigrating. To me, big healthcare costs is a gigantic red flag for a country. In fact, health care costs (and other sensibilities around public welfare) are near the top of the list for why I might some day emigrate. Why do you think GP doesn't see lower healthcare costs as a benefit?

jakedata 5y ago

...replying to myself here to possibly avoid being downvoted to oblivion: This is an example of sarcastic critique. The goal is to illustrate the entirely arbitrary nature of the green vs red labels given to various categories such as electricity consumption. Thank you for your time.

johnday 5y ago
I'm not sure it's "arbitrary" that people living longer is considered an upside.
- jakedata 5y ago
  Nor is greater electricity consumption strictly a downside. Using more responsibly sourced electricity could be considered a good thing if it offsets charcoal sourced from a rainforest. Dying 30 years earlier certainly can reduce your lifetime energy consumption.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Metrics cannot be perfect. That doesn't mean "don't have metrics" it means "think carefully about what your metrics actually mean." All other things being equal in two countries, it's a positive if one uses less electricity.

chrischapman 5y ago

Upvote for 'Oh Goodie' and the humour in general. But had to reflect on the sad reality of the following being in green! > spend 99.58% less money on health care That is apparently a 'benefit' of living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. When compared to: > die 23.88 years sooner perhaps the health care statistic should have been in red?

DangitBobby 5y ago
This criticism doesn't make sense. You could argue that the expense is a contributing factor to why the US' healthcare is better, and if it had a single category that said "healthcare is 90% better in other country because it costs less" then that would be misleading somehow. But that's not at all what happened. They gave two metrics: comparative life expectancy and comparative healthcare expense. The metric where your country fares better is red, the one where it fares worse is green. You cannot argue that lower cost isn't purely better if you are solely examining that single metric. Splitting it into separate metrics allows you to do so. Your backlash against the representation says more about your beliefs than it does about the site.
- sigmaprimus 5y ago
  That was somewhat of an ad hominem attack, I believe the point that was being made is that Red and Green have certain connotations, generally Red = Bad, Stop, Danger and Green = Good, Go, Safe. I don't think it has anything to do with ones beliefs and though it may indicate an opinion, there is no value in criticizing someone for having a different opinion when they provide it in the appropriate space such as a comments' forum.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    > Red and Green have certain connotations, generally Red = Bad, Stop, Danger and Green = Good, Go, Safe. Yes, this was understood. The context I gave my answer in was after seeing other comments which indicated that the site was somehow designed to make the US look bad. The only reason I can even fathom for how a commentor would question the inclusion of the healthcare cost metric is from embarassment at healthcare costs here and wishing to justify it with a discussion of outcomes (which, as I pointed out earlier, is already included in the life-expectancy metric). I don't see how any interpretation of their comment can get around the fact that GP doesn't agree that healthcare costs should have been included as a "benefit", which I take issue with. Healthcare costs are a valid concern, and something I'd look into before emigrating. To me, big healthcare costs is a gigantic red flag for a country. In fact, health care costs (and other sensibilities around public welfare) are near the top of the list for why I might some day emigrate. Why do you think GP doesn't see lower healthcare costs as a benefit?