3 ms·

What he said that "its hard to prove if we are still peasants" is wrong. But you cannot argue that we human have benefitted at the cost of nature? Also, >Nobod

What he said that "its hard to prove if we are still peasants" is wrong. But you cannot argue that we human have benefitted at the cost of nature? Also, >Nobody cares about your stupid degrowth ideology that advocates for death and people to be poorer. Is also not true. Having a 1km lawn is excess. Flying solo on a private plane to visit an office halfway across the world for 1-2 days every other week is excess. No sane person arguing for this position is claiming that people who can barely find food every day is living in excess and must suffer degrowth. It is the privileged that needs to degrowth and redistribute their excess wealth. Do you really think that the Earth can sustain had every single person on Earth lives like the ultra wealthy? Or even as the middle-class American with single unit home in the suburb? We would probably annihilate almost all of "interesting" flora/fauna and be left with chickens and cows if that at all. Maybe that's a perfectly reasonable trade? AFAIK humanity must take priority over every other being AFAIC.

rapind 3y ago
> What he said that "its hard to prove if we are still peasants" is wrong. I think this depends on how you classify peasant. If we can agree that it's about income inequality, and not quality of life, then there was a study done comparing income inequality in the late eighteenth century to current day, which concluded that "Incomes were much more equally distributed in colonial America than in America today, or in other countries in the late eighteenth century". https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396 https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396 Ultimately it depends on the specifics and the dates we are comparing. I don't think people fully realize how significant income inequality really is today.
- anon-3988 3y ago
  Why does income inequality matter? Why does it matter that some people are way, way richer than the other. This correlates with poorer quality of life, sure, but income inequality itself is not really that important. Calling the modern middle-class human a peasant is quite misguided imo. It is important to acknowledge that we have fared much better than our ancestors. Is it a problem, say, if we all achieved nirvana but some achieved better nirvana? Must we rebel against them too?
  - rapind 3y ago
    It matters a lot since wealth translates to power and influence. > Calling the modern middle-class human a peasant is quite misguided imo. The modern middle class is shrinking fast. About 17%. Most people are either low income or poor. > It is important to acknowledge that we have fared much better than our ancestors. Look, we generally live much longer these days, so I think that's a decent measurement that we're far better off in aggregate compared to the middle ages. However life expectancy has actually been decreasing recently in many places, and we have some really big global problems to solve if we don't want that trend to continue. If that trend does continue though, then it becomes very hard to say we're better off than our ancestors. > Is it a problem, say, if we all achieved nirvana but some achieved better nirvana? Must we rebel against them too? Probably yes. Most people aren't zen. It's in our nature to measure our status among our peers, and probably responsible for most people's wealth and their drive to do better. Better is always relative. Before arguing the morality of this, you'll need to also defend the morality of billionaires (what's the point really?).

rapind 3y ago

> What he said that "its hard to prove if we are still peasants" is wrong. I think this depends on how you classify peasant. If we can agree that it's about income inequality, and not quality of life, then there was a study done comparing income inequality in the late eighteenth century to current day, which concluded that "Incomes were much more equally distributed in colonial America than in America today, or in other countries in the late eighteenth century". https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396 https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396 Ultimately it depends on the specifics and the dates we are comparing. I don't think people fully realize how significant income inequality really is today.

anon-3988 3y ago
Why does income inequality matter? Why does it matter that some people are way, way richer than the other. This correlates with poorer quality of life, sure, but income inequality itself is not really that important. Calling the modern middle-class human a peasant is quite misguided imo. It is important to acknowledge that we have fared much better than our ancestors. Is it a problem, say, if we all achieved nirvana but some achieved better nirvana? Must we rebel against them too?
- rapind 3y ago
  It matters a lot since wealth translates to power and influence. > Calling the modern middle-class human a peasant is quite misguided imo. The modern middle class is shrinking fast. About 17%. Most people are either low income or poor. > It is important to acknowledge that we have fared much better than our ancestors. Look, we generally live much longer these days, so I think that's a decent measurement that we're far better off in aggregate compared to the middle ages. However life expectancy has actually been decreasing recently in many places, and we have some really big global problems to solve if we don't want that trend to continue. If that trend does continue though, then it becomes very hard to say we're better off than our ancestors. > Is it a problem, say, if we all achieved nirvana but some achieved better nirvana? Must we rebel against them too? Probably yes. Most people aren't zen. It's in our nature to measure our status among our peers, and probably responsible for most people's wealth and their drive to do better. Better is always relative. Before arguing the morality of this, you'll need to also defend the morality of billionaires (what's the point really?).