4 ms·

Continuing - "why should we aim to reduce emissions at a significant detriment to human life?" That's a false premise - GDP =/= benefit to human life. It's act

by Festro 4y ago

Continuing - "why should we aim to reduce emissions at a significant detriment to human life?" That's a false premise - GDP =/= benefit to human life. It's actually just a subjective benefit to some humans who control capital in those high GDP countries. Human life goes far beyond GDP and things like happiness metrics and longevity metrics do not always directly correlate to GDP.

krona 4y ago
GDP per capita correlates quite nicely with life expectancy, so it seems GDP isn't just a number, it actually corresponds with something in reality.
- dtech 4y ago
  Once you are in a high GDP (western countries) situation it doesn't matter anymore, and an increase in GDP for those does not really mean an increase in life expectancy. The marginal benefit decreases massively. See e.g. US GDP growing 38% 2009-2019, but life expectancy being stagnant with a 0.5% increase. [1] https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?utm_medium=explore&mprop=lifeExpectancy&popt=Person&hl=en# https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?utm_medium=explore...
  - prottog 4y ago
    Of course, it's not the case that had the US GDP not grown as much, we would instead have had more of an increase in life expectancy. The American population is unfortunately quite unhealthy by global standards, mainly due to lifestyle issues. Besides, with the US life expectancy at 79 years and the world's best at 85, you're not buying much to begin with. As other commenters are pointing out, it would be nice if there was a better measure of a population's health and happiness; but GDP corresponds to it to a large degree, perhaps up to a certain point of wealth, as you said.
    - cratermoon 4y ago
      > mainly due to lifestyle issues Are you blaming individual choice for problems that are systemic in nature?
      - prottog 4y ago
        No blame; I'm observing, not condemning. Your phrasing does make me question, however, whether you think individual choice amounts to anything, considering we all form parts of systems.
  - danuker 4y ago
    Once you get past $20k/yr GDP per capita, there's indeed limited additional benefit (there are diminishing returns). But if look at the scenarios for Middle East and Africa, it would take roughly 10 years longer for the Green Road scenario to get to $20k/yr, compared to the Highway. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/ipcc-scenarios?facet=none&Metric=GDP&Rate=Per+capita&Region=Middle+East+and+Africa https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/ipcc-scenarios?facet=no...
  - saint_fiasco 4y ago
    When it comes to reducing climate change, countries that are already rich don't matter so much. They can reduce emissions without reducing their quality of life too much. But there are lots of countries in the world that are not at high GDP yet, but will be high GDP in the future. Because their GDP is not high, GDP growth does correlate very strongly with their quality of life. They are not going to want to delay their growth just because of climate change, and it's probably immoral to force them.
- Festro 4y ago
  I didn't say it was 'just' a number. I didn't claim it didn't correlate 'nicely' with life expectancy. I said it doesn't 'always' correlate. There are outliers, as with most trends. And besides - quality of life is a more important metric than life expectancy. Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia are world leaders on life expectancy and GDP. But terrible on women's rights, equality, and human rights. We shouldn't be measuring human benefit on GDP, we shouldn't be questioning the merits of reducing climate change based on maximising GDP.
  - krona 4y ago
    > I said it doesn't 'always' correlate. It either correlates or it doesn't, and outliers, as the name implies, are statistical anomalies. That being said I also think quality of life is important, but I think being dead is quite a poor quality of life.
- danuker 4y ago
  Indeed. Same with nutrition [1] and education [2]. [1] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/hidden-hunger-index-vs-gdp-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/hidden-hunger-index-vs-gd... [2] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/learning-outcomes-vs-gdp-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/learning-outcomes-vs-gdp-...
- gsatic 4y ago
  Living long is highly over rated as quality of life tanks beyond a point. Ideally we should be measuring Gross National Stupidity.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  The US life expectancy is terrible given the GDP.
4RealFreedom 4y ago
Reminds me of the saying "money can't buy happiness". It can't but it does remove friction. A country with a larger GDP can do more for it's citizens.
- analog31 4y ago
  That country is likely to do so by shipping carbon and misery to poorer countries unless some sort of international pressure or governance happens.
slibhb 4y ago
There's nothing subjective about central heating, air conditioning, healthcare, and living in homes that can easily withstand hurricanes and flooding.
matthiasb 4y ago
Your answer is spot on. This makes me think of Yoichi Kaya's formula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity It shows illustrates the dependency between GDP, population, energy and emissions. Assuming we don't want to reduce population and GDP, we are left with optimizing energy and emission intensity. I just finished this comic book by Jancovici which explains all this and it is very easy to read. https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-End-Blain-Christophe-ebook/dp/B0B42ZW3VD https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-End-Blain-Christophe-eb...

by Festro 4y ago

krona 4y ago

GDP per capita correlates quite nicely with life expectancy, so it seems GDP isn't just a number, it actually corresponds with something in reality.

dtech 4y ago
Once you are in a high GDP (western countries) situation it doesn't matter anymore, and an increase in GDP for those does not really mean an increase in life expectancy. The marginal benefit decreases massively. See e.g. US GDP growing 38% 2009-2019, but life expectancy being stagnant with a 0.5% increase. [1] https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?utm_medium=explore&mprop=lifeExpectancy&popt=Person&hl=en# https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?utm_medium=explore...
- prottog 4y ago
  Of course, it's not the case that had the US GDP not grown as much, we would instead have had more of an increase in life expectancy. The American population is unfortunately quite unhealthy by global standards, mainly due to lifestyle issues. Besides, with the US life expectancy at 79 years and the world's best at 85, you're not buying much to begin with. As other commenters are pointing out, it would be nice if there was a better measure of a population's health and happiness; but GDP corresponds to it to a large degree, perhaps up to a certain point of wealth, as you said.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    > mainly due to lifestyle issues Are you blaming individual choice for problems that are systemic in nature?
    - prottog 4y ago
      No blame; I'm observing, not condemning. Your phrasing does make me question, however, whether you think individual choice amounts to anything, considering we all form parts of systems.
- danuker 4y ago
  Once you get past $20k/yr GDP per capita, there's indeed limited additional benefit (there are diminishing returns). But if look at the scenarios for Middle East and Africa, it would take roughly 10 years longer for the Green Road scenario to get to $20k/yr, compared to the Highway. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/ipcc-scenarios?facet=none&Metric=GDP&Rate=Per+capita&Region=Middle+East+and+Africa https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/ipcc-scenarios?facet=no...
- saint_fiasco 4y ago
  When it comes to reducing climate change, countries that are already rich don't matter so much. They can reduce emissions without reducing their quality of life too much. But there are lots of countries in the world that are not at high GDP yet, but will be high GDP in the future. Because their GDP is not high, GDP growth does correlate very strongly with their quality of life. They are not going to want to delay their growth just because of climate change, and it's probably immoral to force them.
Festro 4y ago
I didn't say it was 'just' a number. I didn't claim it didn't correlate 'nicely' with life expectancy. I said it doesn't 'always' correlate. There are outliers, as with most trends. And besides - quality of life is a more important metric than life expectancy. Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia are world leaders on life expectancy and GDP. But terrible on women's rights, equality, and human rights. We shouldn't be measuring human benefit on GDP, we shouldn't be questioning the merits of reducing climate change based on maximising GDP.
- krona 4y ago
  > I said it doesn't 'always' correlate. It either correlates or it doesn't, and outliers, as the name implies, are statistical anomalies. That being said I also think quality of life is important, but I think being dead is quite a poor quality of life.
danuker 4y ago
Indeed. Same with nutrition [1] and education [2]. [1] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/hidden-hunger-index-vs-gdp-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/hidden-hunger-index-vs-gd... [2] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/learning-outcomes-vs-gdp-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/learning-outcomes-vs-gdp-...
gsatic 4y ago
Living long is highly over rated as quality of life tanks beyond a point. Ideally we should be measuring Gross National Stupidity.
cratermoon 4y ago
The US life expectancy is terrible given the GDP.

4RealFreedom 4y ago

Reminds me of the saying "money can't buy happiness". It can't but it does remove friction. A country with a larger GDP can do more for it's citizens.

analog31 4y ago
That country is likely to do so by shipping carbon and misery to poorer countries unless some sort of international pressure or governance happens.

slibhb 4y ago

There's nothing subjective about central heating, air conditioning, healthcare, and living in homes that can easily withstand hurricanes and flooding.

matthiasb 4y ago

Your answer is spot on. This makes me think of Yoichi Kaya's formula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity It shows illustrates the dependency between GDP, population, energy and emissions. Assuming we don't want to reduce population and GDP, we are left with optimizing energy and emission intensity. I just finished this comic book by Jancovici which explains all this and it is very easy to read. https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-End-Blain-Christophe-ebook/dp/B0B42ZW3VD https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-End-Blain-Christophe-eb...