25 ms·

Poverty is by definition a relative notion. A middle class occidental has access to culinary diversity, healthcare, transport speeds and indoor plumbing that no

Poverty is by definition a relative notion. A middle class occidental has access to culinary diversity, healthcare, transport speeds and indoor plumbing that not even kings could dream of a few centuries ago. Poverty is defined relative to the technological frontier - what is known and achievable in a certain age with reasonable effort and access to common resources. > Was Man of the Hole poor? > Was that a social poverty? Yes, he was. He may have chosen poverty freely, as was his right, but there is no doubt he was materially poor compared to most his contemporaries. Furthermore, the main reason for that poverty was social - he lacked the very foundation onto which to build a productive economy, namely other people in his community. He was also constrained by repressive social institutions - his own life experience and culture and the unprovoked aggression by the farmers - and thus excluded from participating in the larger productive economy. We can of course speculate about his reasons and worldview, but IMHO it's very plausible he may have wanted not to die relatively young of some preventable disease.

dredmorbius 4y ago
So, if you choose to define poverty as relative, that works. Checking via dict.org, the first given definition however is: "The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence; indigence; need." The second allows for a possible relative measure, in proposing both need and desire as conditions: "Any deficiency of elements or resources that are needed or desired, or that constitute richness; as, poverty of soil; poverty of the blood; poverty of ideas." (Based on 1913 Webster.) <http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=poverty http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=poverty> That's limited support for the relative definition you propose, unless one chooses relation to survival and thriving itself, though your definition would suggest a societal relation. I'll accept that Man of the Hole's circumstances being contemporary and having interactions with the broader human community introduce a social element. My intent was to consider his circumstances independent of that relation, which was why I'd proposed alternatives clearly absent that aspect. You've not addressed those in your response.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  And ... further thought. (Which, I'll note, is because I'm trying to sort my own thinking on this, not to pick on your own explanation, which I find interesting...) The opposite of poverty is typically considered to be wealth. And that also has at least historical and etymological roots connoting health and well-being. Again, from dict.org, wealth: "Weal; welfare; prosperity; good." <http://dict.org/bin/Dict http://dict.org/bin/Dict> Weal, a somewhat archaic term which I feel deserves revival: "A sound, healthy, or prosperous state of a person or thing; prosperity; happiness; welfare." <http://dict.org/bin/Dict http://dict.org/bin/Dict> The etymology of wealth: "mid-13c., "happiness," also "prosperity in abundance of possessions or riches," from Middle English wele "well-being" (see weal (n.1)) on analogy of health." <https://www.etymonline.com/word/wealth https://www.etymonline.com/word/wealth> Which again suggests that the argument for a purely social connotation ... at the least goes against historical usage.
- manholio 4y ago
  The discussion is undoubtedly framed developmentally, the author clearly compares affluence among contemporary societies and tries to propose economic and technological determinants for those outcomes. In that limited frame, my assertion is that all poverty is determined by societal and institutional factors, and is also, by economic definition, a relative notion. As for the economic development of isolated tribes, we can of course speculate about different historic and economic paths they could take. There is an interesting field of inquiry that proposes an alternative history where the Roman empire sees an industrial revolution in the 1st-3rd centuries. As interesting as those speculations are, they are of little help to someone living in a corrupt and dysfunctional state, unable to benefit from the fruits of an industrial revolution that long since happened. Saying to that person "you are poor because you don't have enough energy" is disingenuous, when the real cause is oppressive and extractive power structures that could easily be dismantled.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Mind: though I've strong sympathies with elements of TFA's argument, I also have problems with its absolute line that all poverty is energy poverty. It's possible to think of counterexamples extending in both directions --- those who are energy-rich and still impoverished, and those who have little access to energy but live relatively well-off, with basic needs and securities addressed. I've been holding off on a longer reply to TFA itself as I think through this, and have largely lost the useful comment window on this particular article. In both cases, I'd argue that simplistic reductionism isn't accurate and is probably not especially useful. I would agree, however, with the following statements: - Energy is something of a master resource, in that given sufficient energy shortages of virtually any other input can be compensated for. That said, energy works through capital, material inputs, knowledge, and labour to produce goods and services. - Much actual poverty observed today is far more a matter of inequitable distribution, and virtually all of that socially imposed. - At societal levels (city, region, state, globally), there's a strong relationship between total net well-being and net energy access, though this probably shows strong threshold effects and rapidly diminishing returns after a point. - There are alternative service modes which might address needs in low-energy regimes. To take the article's discussion of refrigeration and food spoilage: yes, refrigeration is one way to provide sufficient and high-nutrition foods to populations, but there are other options, including dried bulk grains and pulses, freeze-drying and canning (both require energy in food processing but don't have the hard requirements of a reliable cold-chain distribution and storage network), UHT (ultra-high temperature) milk pasturisation (which permits unrefrigerated storage for months), fermentation, and conventionally dried fruits and vegetables (more texture/nutrition loss than freeze-drying, but less energy intensive), as well as other preserving methods. Fresh produce might be locally sourced fresh where possible. But as W. Brian Arthur has noted (he's both appeared and been quoted on the Santa Fe Institute's Complexity podcast recently), at a certain scale, economic systems require something analogous to a heart as an active circulatory system to ensure that all people get access to resources and financial capital necessary for survival.

dredmorbius 4y ago

So, if you choose to define poverty as relative, that works. Checking via dict.org, the first given definition however is: "The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence; indigence; need." The second allows for a possible relative measure, in proposing both need and desire as conditions: "Any deficiency of elements or resources that are needed or desired, or that constitute richness; as, poverty of soil; poverty of the blood; poverty of ideas." (Based on 1913 Webster.) <http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=poverty http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=poverty> That's limited support for the relative definition you propose, unless one chooses relation to survival and thriving itself, though your definition would suggest a societal relation. I'll accept that Man of the Hole's circumstances being contemporary and having interactions with the broader human community introduce a social element. My intent was to consider his circumstances independent of that relation, which was why I'd proposed alternatives clearly absent that aspect. You've not addressed those in your response.

dredmorbius 4y ago
And ... further thought. (Which, I'll note, is because I'm trying to sort my own thinking on this, not to pick on your own explanation, which I find interesting...) The opposite of poverty is typically considered to be wealth. And that also has at least historical and etymological roots connoting health and well-being. Again, from dict.org, wealth: "Weal; welfare; prosperity; good." <http://dict.org/bin/Dict http://dict.org/bin/Dict> Weal, a somewhat archaic term which I feel deserves revival: "A sound, healthy, or prosperous state of a person or thing; prosperity; happiness; welfare." <http://dict.org/bin/Dict http://dict.org/bin/Dict> The etymology of wealth: "mid-13c., "happiness," also "prosperity in abundance of possessions or riches," from Middle English wele "well-being" (see weal (n.1)) on analogy of health." <https://www.etymonline.com/word/wealth https://www.etymonline.com/word/wealth> Which again suggests that the argument for a purely social connotation ... at the least goes against historical usage.
manholio 4y ago
The discussion is undoubtedly framed developmentally, the author clearly compares affluence among contemporary societies and tries to propose economic and technological determinants for those outcomes. In that limited frame, my assertion is that all poverty is determined by societal and institutional factors, and is also, by economic definition, a relative notion. As for the economic development of isolated tribes, we can of course speculate about different historic and economic paths they could take. There is an interesting field of inquiry that proposes an alternative history where the Roman empire sees an industrial revolution in the 1st-3rd centuries. As interesting as those speculations are, they are of little help to someone living in a corrupt and dysfunctional state, unable to benefit from the fruits of an industrial revolution that long since happened. Saying to that person "you are poor because you don't have enough energy" is disingenuous, when the real cause is oppressive and extractive power structures that could easily be dismantled.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Mind: though I've strong sympathies with elements of TFA's argument, I also have problems with its absolute line that all poverty is energy poverty. It's possible to think of counterexamples extending in both directions --- those who are energy-rich and still impoverished, and those who have little access to energy but live relatively well-off, with basic needs and securities addressed. I've been holding off on a longer reply to TFA itself as I think through this, and have largely lost the useful comment window on this particular article. In both cases, I'd argue that simplistic reductionism isn't accurate and is probably not especially useful. I would agree, however, with the following statements: - Energy is something of a master resource, in that given sufficient energy shortages of virtually any other input can be compensated for. That said, energy works through capital, material inputs, knowledge, and labour to produce goods and services. - Much actual poverty observed today is far more a matter of inequitable distribution, and virtually all of that socially imposed. - At societal levels (city, region, state, globally), there's a strong relationship between total net well-being and net energy access, though this probably shows strong threshold effects and rapidly diminishing returns after a point. - There are alternative service modes which might address needs in low-energy regimes. To take the article's discussion of refrigeration and food spoilage: yes, refrigeration is one way to provide sufficient and high-nutrition foods to populations, but there are other options, including dried bulk grains and pulses, freeze-drying and canning (both require energy in food processing but don't have the hard requirements of a reliable cold-chain distribution and storage network), UHT (ultra-high temperature) milk pasturisation (which permits unrefrigerated storage for months), fermentation, and conventionally dried fruits and vegetables (more texture/nutrition loss than freeze-drying, but less energy intensive), as well as other preserving methods. Fresh produce might be locally sourced fresh where possible. But as W. Brian Arthur has noted (he's both appeared and been quoted on the Santa Fe Institute's Complexity podcast recently), at a certain scale, economic systems require something analogous to a heart as an active circulatory system to ensure that all people get access to resources and financial capital necessary for survival.