3 ms·

I would argue that it's imperative you should also widen your horizon and recognize you are viewing human history in too narrow of a lens (mostly post-victorian

I would argue that it's imperative you should also widen your horizon and recognize you are viewing human history in too narrow of a lens (mostly post-victorian era). The poverty statistic is one that gets thrown around a lot, but it's abysmally low still, and due to how our modern societies place far greater importance on money than any civilization before, this paints a much darker picture of our current timeline. This wealth inequality is also unavoidable, you cannot relocate elsewhere and forage, that land is already taken up by a corporation. One might believe all civilizations were just as unequal, but they really weren't. Those that were restricted by land had far greater levels of inequality than those by labor[1]. This is crucial because we have created a modern hell, in which no amount of labor will give you wealth, you need land to accumulate wealth and most people do not have that when we are still judging "poverty" based on "$1.25". We make ourselves feel better about our modern life, but have we really advanced past dancing for our superiors' entertainment? Sometimes when this is discussed, people might feel this is an ungrateful perspective, but I argue the opposite: you can more vividly appreciate our ancestors and their lives for what you do not know of them, and to demand better of our lives instead of settling for these abysmal statistics. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/abs/farminginequality-nexus-new-insights-from-ancient-western-eurasia/8EFE3B8F5AFA07450F87E4E9B553A43E https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/ab...

eru 3y ago
> This wealth inequality is also unavoidable, you cannot relocate elsewhere and forage, that land is already taken up by a corporation. Taken up by a sovereign nation state, you mean? They are pervasive. Corporations are a drop in the bucket by comparison. And not all countries even have corporations. > One might believe all civilizations were just as unequal, but they really weren't. Why do you bring up inequality? Who cares about that? Let's care about the absolute well-being of people, especially those in lower income percentiles. For them it's scant consolation in their poverty, if other people are also in poverty. (Ie equality is no consolation.) > [...] we are still judging "poverty" based on "$1.25". I didn't mention any of that. You can measure poverty by that metric, and we made huge strides. But you can also look at other indicators. Like life expectancy, or child mortality or access to the Internet, or access to AC, or access to food and clean water, etc. Almost any metric you can think of has gotten better. And you might quibble with 1.25 1990-dollars as an absolute threshold for poverty, sure. But you can't quibble with it as one marker of relative progress amongst many. Or in other words: 1.25 dollar a day is a low bar, but the number of people who clear that low bar used to be much, much lower in the past than today. That's progress! Let's hope people's incomes will keep clearing higher and higher bars in the future!

eru 3y ago

> This wealth inequality is also unavoidable, you cannot relocate elsewhere and forage, that land is already taken up by a corporation. Taken up by a sovereign nation state, you mean? They are pervasive. Corporations are a drop in the bucket by comparison. And not all countries even have corporations. > One might believe all civilizations were just as unequal, but they really weren't. Why do you bring up inequality? Who cares about that? Let's care about the absolute well-being of people, especially those in lower income percentiles. For them it's scant consolation in their poverty, if other people are also in poverty. (Ie equality is no consolation.) > [...] we are still judging "poverty" based on "$1.25". I didn't mention any of that. You can measure poverty by that metric, and we made huge strides. But you can also look at other indicators. Like life expectancy, or child mortality or access to the Internet, or access to AC, or access to food and clean water, etc. Almost any metric you can think of has gotten better. And you might quibble with 1.25 1990-dollars as an absolute threshold for poverty, sure. But you can't quibble with it as one marker of relative progress amongst many. Or in other words: 1.25 dollar a day is a low bar, but the number of people who clear that low bar used to be much, much lower in the past than today. That's progress! Let's hope people's incomes will keep clearing higher and higher bars in the future!