6 ms·

This could easily all be arguments for why you personally should want a more equitable world where we don’t have a Third world full of unhappiness and wasted ta

This could easily all be arguments for why you personally should want a more equitable world where we don’t have a Third world full of unhappiness and wasted tallent.

pfdietz 3y ago
Why not both?
- deprecative 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - chr1 3y ago
    Before capitalism all of the world was "Third world". And the equity you get without capitalism is everybody being equally poor. And then millions die, like in every attempt to build communism in past century.
    - waffleiron 3y ago
      I know it’s unfashionable to say on a venture capitalist forum, but millions die under capitalism too.
      - lars512 3y ago
        That's certainly true and remains an unacceptable state of the world, but it's also true that globally, it's a steadily decreasing number, even under conditions of population growth. E.g. looking at child mortality over time https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-deaths-igme-data https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-deaths-igme-data
      - Thiez 3y ago
        And in same (many?) cases it's intentional, e.g. by overthrowing governments so the West has cheaper oil, gas, or bananas (Guatemala).
adastra22 3y ago
Billions have been lifted out of poverty in China and India alone. Africa is next. The problem is not too many people. If anything, people who think there are too many people are a problem.
- healsdata 3y ago
  The combined population of those countries is 2.8 billion. For your assertion to be true, 71% of those countries would have had to have been in poverty in the recent past and now are not.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    You got about a billion in China, they were at the bottom end of the country gdp per capita rankings, now they are well into the upper half. The commenter probably assumed India did a similar journey, but India is still full of poverty and not even close to China, so yeah probably less than two billions combined but definitely more than a billion.
    - adastra22 3y ago
      "More than a billion" is enough to add the -s in English grammar.
      - throwaway047278 3y ago
        As long as we're in the pedantic mode: "More than a billion" could mean from 1 billion up to 1.99 billion. You need at least 2 billions to be able to add the -s The poster you replied to wrote "so yeah probably less than two billions combine", so that actually means you could not use the "-s" ending in this case.
        adastra22 3y ago
        To be pedantic, the pluralization for anything other than 1 billion exactly is billions. $1,000,000,001 would be 1.000000001 billions, with an s. Which is all rather not the point because that's not what I said. I said "Billions have been lifted out of poverty." The meaning of that statement is: "the count of people who have been lifted out of poverty is measured with the 'billion' unit." That even includes 1 billion, exactly. If I had said "it numbers in the thousands", then 1,000 would have been an acceptable value, as would 9,9999. But see my other comment. The number of people in India and China who have been lifted out of poverty in the last ~50 years or so is much more than a billion.

This could easily all be arguments for why you personally should want a more equitable world where we don’t have a Third world full of unhappiness and wasted tallent.

pfdietz 3y ago

Why not both?

deprecative 3y ago
[flagged]
- chr1 3y ago
  Before capitalism all of the world was "Third world". And the equity you get without capitalism is everybody being equally poor. And then millions die, like in every attempt to build communism in past century.
  - waffleiron 3y ago
    I know it’s unfashionable to say on a venture capitalist forum, but millions die under capitalism too.
    - lars512 3y ago
      That's certainly true and remains an unacceptable state of the world, but it's also true that globally, it's a steadily decreasing number, even under conditions of population growth. E.g. looking at child mortality over time https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-deaths-igme-data https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-deaths-igme-data
    - Thiez 3y ago
      And in same (many?) cases it's intentional, e.g. by overthrowing governments so the West has cheaper oil, gas, or bananas (Guatemala).

adastra22 3y ago

Billions have been lifted out of poverty in China and India alone. Africa is next. The problem is not too many people. If anything, people who think there are too many people are a problem.

healsdata 3y ago
The combined population of those countries is 2.8 billion. For your assertion to be true, 71% of those countries would have had to have been in poverty in the recent past and now are not.
- Jensson 3y ago
  You got about a billion in China, they were at the bottom end of the country gdp per capita rankings, now they are well into the upper half. The commenter probably assumed India did a similar journey, but India is still full of poverty and not even close to China, so yeah probably less than two billions combined but definitely more than a billion.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    "More than a billion" is enough to add the -s in English grammar.
    - throwaway047278 3y ago
      As long as we're in the pedantic mode: "More than a billion" could mean from 1 billion up to 1.99 billion. You need at least 2 billions to be able to add the -s The poster you replied to wrote "so yeah probably less than two billions combine", so that actually means you could not use the "-s" ending in this case.
      - adastra22 3y ago
        To be pedantic, the pluralization for anything other than 1 billion exactly is billions. $1,000,000,001 would be 1.000000001 billions, with an s. Which is all rather not the point because that's not what I said. I said "Billions have been lifted out of poverty." The meaning of that statement is: "the count of people who have been lifted out of poverty is measured with the 'billion' unit." That even includes 1 billion, exactly. If I had said "it numbers in the thousands", then 1,000 would have been an acceptable value, as would 9,9999. But see my other comment. The number of people in India and China who have been lifted out of poverty in the last ~50 years or so is much more than a billion.