3 ms·

> Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." That's a pretty important qualifier. > Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at o

> Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." That's a pretty important qualifier. > Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow? That's two questions. Obviously, any one of us exists for a finite interval of time, that's for sure. Let's call that "a lifetime." Does technological innovation occur, does the world's productive output increase, and do average living standards rise over a typical lifetime? Sure. Does that mean that wealth is infinite? Not at all. Among other things, it depends on exactly what you mean by "infinite" which, so far, you've never said. Does time flow? I'll leave that to the philosophers. OK. I've answered your questions. Now answer this one, please. If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead?

Manuel_D 2y ago
> If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead? I'd expect them to be happier when their material conditions are improved. And how is that accomplished? Under a zero-sum mindset, this requires taking wealth from other people. So the answer is to raid and conquer neighboring countries and enslave their people. The pie is of a fixed size, so the only way to increase your lot is to reduce someone else's. This was true for much of human history, until the industrial revolution. Fortunately, though, we live in the 21st century. We live in a time where material conditions are rising faster than at any point in human history. Much of this comes down to automation, and better energy capture. My responsibility is would be to invest in a more productive economy to raise living standards across the board. Make the pie bigger. This does not take a long time, world GDP per-capita more than doubled in the span on one lifetime: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-of-the-human-species-Global-GDP-per-capita-Source-The-Maddison-Project_fig1_321128165 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-of-the-human-sp... Again, your statements are just factually wrong. Global average living standards have increased substantially, over the course of one person's lifetime. The growth is not "in the future, long after we're all dead". The average 70 year old has almost certainly seen drastic improvements over the span of their life.
- dventimi 2y ago
  >> If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead? > I'd expect them to be happier when their material conditions are improved. You didn't answer the question I asked. I mean, you're not obliged to answer any questions, but for the record, you didn't answer this one. Perhaps your justification for not answering it is something like "false premise": perhaps you believe that a person's material conditions will necessarily improve as time progresses and overall wealth increases, such that they won't need you to explain to them that they're better off because they'll be able to see it with their own eyes. If that's your belief then I don't even need to offer my counterargument because surely you must already know it by now, I've already made it enough times. But, maybe I'll give you a little hint anyway. > world GDP per-capita more than doubled in the span on one lifetime Hint: "per-capita" is an average, which means you're already on shaky ground > Again, your statements are just factually wrong. Global average living standards have increased How can my statement about "global average living standards" be wrong when I never made a statement about "global average living standards"? > The average 70 year old has almost certainly seen drastic improvements over the span of their life. I assume that by "average 70 year old" what you really mean is "typical 70 year old" as in "representative 70 year old" but that still demands clarification. Where does this typical, representative 70 year old live? What percentage of the world's population do they represent? However many people that is, what about the people left over, the one's whose lives are not represented by this typical 70 year old? How have their living standards changed, if at all? These are really just rhetorical questions to try to get you to think. Don't feel the need to try to answer them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

Manuel_D 2y ago

> If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead? I'd expect them to be happier when their material conditions are improved. And how is that accomplished? Under a zero-sum mindset, this requires taking wealth from other people. So the answer is to raid and conquer neighboring countries and enslave their people. The pie is of a fixed size, so the only way to increase your lot is to reduce someone else's. This was true for much of human history, until the industrial revolution. Fortunately, though, we live in the 21st century. We live in a time where material conditions are rising faster than at any point in human history. Much of this comes down to automation, and better energy capture. My responsibility is would be to invest in a more productive economy to raise living standards across the board. Make the pie bigger. This does not take a long time, world GDP per-capita more than doubled in the span on one lifetime: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-of-the-human-species-Global-GDP-per-capita-Source-The-Maddison-Project_fig1_321128165 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-of-the-human-sp... Again, your statements are just factually wrong. Global average living standards have increased substantially, over the course of one person's lifetime. The growth is not "in the future, long after we're all dead". The average 70 year old has almost certainly seen drastic improvements over the span of their life.

dventimi 2y ago
>> If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead? > I'd expect them to be happier when their material conditions are improved. You didn't answer the question I asked. I mean, you're not obliged to answer any questions, but for the record, you didn't answer this one. Perhaps your justification for not answering it is something like "false premise": perhaps you believe that a person's material conditions will necessarily improve as time progresses and overall wealth increases, such that they won't need you to explain to them that they're better off because they'll be able to see it with their own eyes. If that's your belief then I don't even need to offer my counterargument because surely you must already know it by now, I've already made it enough times. But, maybe I'll give you a little hint anyway. > world GDP per-capita more than doubled in the span on one lifetime Hint: "per-capita" is an average, which means you're already on shaky ground > Again, your statements are just factually wrong. Global average living standards have increased How can my statement about "global average living standards" be wrong when I never made a statement about "global average living standards"? > The average 70 year old has almost certainly seen drastic improvements over the span of their life. I assume that by "average 70 year old" what you really mean is "typical 70 year old" as in "representative 70 year old" but that still demands clarification. Where does this typical, representative 70 year old live? What percentage of the world's population do they represent? However many people that is, what about the people left over, the one's whose lives are not represented by this typical 70 year old? How have their living standards changed, if at all? These are really just rhetorical questions to try to get you to think. Don't feel the need to try to answer them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]