3 ms·

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 ex

by 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.

by dtech 4y ago

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.