3 ms·

> In my grandpa's village everything was local production and commerce but they all lived way worse than me and my friends that get paid through remote companie

> In my grandpa's village everything was local production and commerce but they all lived way worse than me and my friends that get paid through remote companies and spend our money online. (1) That is because technology also takes away components of life that one can enjoy without being rich such as accesss to nature and local food production. (2) The global economy is only so "good" because it takes advantage of the commons in poorer places. We simply should not have the capability to do that. You only benefit off the suffering of others.

graemep 2y ago
The first point is true, but most people do not choose it. I do not think your second point stands. Almost the entire world is financially better off than it was in the past. Lots of third world economies are visibly richer than they were a few decades ago. Whose suffering are they benefitting from?
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > The first point is true, but most people do not choose it. Because they lack wisdom and human beings en masse operate on instinct, not wisdom. > Almost the entire world is financially better off than it was in the past. Lots of third world economies are visibly richer than they were a few decades ago. Whose suffering are they benefitting from? The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money". But a longer life does not a better life make, nor does money always equate to better off. For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money". I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute. >For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that? You can ask for how much people are willing to pay for access to such a scenery and put a dollar value on it, or try to infer it based on housing price patterns (eg. house next to national park vs equally rural house next to corn fields).
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      > I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute. You can define other concrete metrics. Distance to wild nature for example. That's concrete.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    The prevailing evaluative mechanism would note that you could take that million dollars, invest it in a 4% annuity, and move next to the national park of your choice with $40,000 in your pocket every year for the rest of your life. Indeed, there's a whole movement called FIRE of people who do things like this. But there's also people like me, who say that sounds great but don't really mean it, because it's cringe to admit that you care about money.
  - graemep 2y ago
    I did specify financially. Also, there has been a visible improvement in living standards in third world countries. More money does not mean people have a better life in a rich country because there are diminishing returns on having more money. In a country where most people are a lot poorer and desperately need more money, more money does mean better off. I am pretty sure people who can afford a proper house instead of a slum stack, or have a proper toilet, etc. are better off. As I said, there are visible improvements in the lives of the very poor. "For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city." That is your preference. Many people prefer living in a big city. Also, what about how good your conditions of life are next to the beautiful national park? A nice house in a big city with good food and leisure time vs a shack in the beautiful place, hard work to grow a barely adequate amount of food?
- Yeul 2y ago
  The last 40 years have seen enormous economic growth outside the G7 to the point that North America and Western Europe no longer dominate the global economy. Vice president Vance marrying a woman from India was a look into the future. The rich elite know what's happening.
  - graemep 2y ago
    Rishi Sunak's wife is a better example: the one in the couple with the money is the Indian heiress not the British former hedge fund manager!
ptero 2y ago
On (1), I grew up behind the iron curtain in a pre-internet age next to a village (no TV, no organized entertainment). The typical non-working activity there was not to enjoy the beauty of nature (as farmers they were fed up with it) but to be bored, get drunk and start fights with anyone non local. When the economy opened up in late 1980s anyone who could ran out to cities. I will take technology and some globalism any day. My 2c.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  False dichotomy. Both situations are bad because both are predicated on lack of wisdom. A lack of wisdom in a poor place implies brawls and wanton violence. A lack of wisdom in a rich, technological age implies resource destruction and climate change. Wisdom combined with restricted technology would be ideal, such as with the Amish. They have their problems but they show that a technologically restricted society is best. Note: I am not arguing for NO technology, but severely restricted technology.
  - ptero 2y ago
    Who is going to do this "severe restriction of technology"? The people themselves, as you write, do not want to do it. And anytime a self-appointed elite start doing "what is best for the people" against their will, police repression and labor camps are also on the menu. Nah, I will take my freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      You assume the people always won't. There's a growing amount of skepticism towards technology and it's quite possible people will begin to hate it. I myself intend to spread the word about the dangers of technology to the best of my ability.
  - arkh 2y ago
    Ok, let's restrict the technology. What's the end goal? Because 1 billion years from now, even if humanity is back to before the wheel technology plants will have disappeared and the oceans evaporated due to the sun. If we want Earth originated life to have a chance to go over this bump something will have to go forward.
Retric 2y ago
(2) They where literally describing a poor area being better off with global trade. Economies of scale and local advantages make the world better off. There’s no advantage to growing bananas in greenhouses in Iowa when you can grow wheat and trade with Panama.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  That local trade involves taking advantage of the commons (putting CO2 in the atmosphere) to make it work. In my opinion, we do not have the right to take that advantage.
  - chaostheory 2y ago
    Few people would be able to afford much in your local economy.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      Well for one, lots of my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little. Isn't this basically collectivization, which empirically has been shown to a massive failure? Without a monetary incentive, it's hard to get people to actually do stuff rather than lying on their couch and watching tiktok.
      - chaostheory 2y ago
        Historically, that doesn’t work. It failed in China, North Korea, and in Cuba. It’s a fantasy.
  - Retric 2y ago
OfficeChad 2y ago
[dead]

graemep 2y ago

The first point is true, but most people do not choose it. I do not think your second point stands. Almost the entire world is financially better off than it was in the past. Lots of third world economies are visibly richer than they were a few decades ago. Whose suffering are they benefitting from?

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> The first point is true, but most people do not choose it. Because they lack wisdom and human beings en masse operate on instinct, not wisdom. > Almost the entire world is financially better off than it was in the past. Lots of third world economies are visibly richer than they were a few decades ago. Whose suffering are they benefitting from? The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money". But a longer life does not a better life make, nor does money always equate to better off. For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that?
- gruez 2y ago
  >The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money". I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute. >For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that? You can ask for how much people are willing to pay for access to such a scenery and put a dollar value on it, or try to infer it based on housing price patterns (eg. house next to national park vs equally rural house next to corn fields).
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    > I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute. You can define other concrete metrics. Distance to wild nature for example. That's concrete.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  The prevailing evaluative mechanism would note that you could take that million dollars, invest it in a 4% annuity, and move next to the national park of your choice with $40,000 in your pocket every year for the rest of your life. Indeed, there's a whole movement called FIRE of people who do things like this. But there's also people like me, who say that sounds great but don't really mean it, because it's cringe to admit that you care about money.
- graemep 2y ago
  I did specify financially. Also, there has been a visible improvement in living standards in third world countries. More money does not mean people have a better life in a rich country because there are diminishing returns on having more money. In a country where most people are a lot poorer and desperately need more money, more money does mean better off. I am pretty sure people who can afford a proper house instead of a slum stack, or have a proper toilet, etc. are better off. As I said, there are visible improvements in the lives of the very poor. "For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city." That is your preference. Many people prefer living in a big city. Also, what about how good your conditions of life are next to the beautiful national park? A nice house in a big city with good food and leisure time vs a shack in the beautiful place, hard work to grow a barely adequate amount of food?
Yeul 2y ago
The last 40 years have seen enormous economic growth outside the G7 to the point that North America and Western Europe no longer dominate the global economy. Vice president Vance marrying a woman from India was a look into the future. The rich elite know what's happening.
- graemep 2y ago
  Rishi Sunak's wife is a better example: the one in the couple with the money is the Indian heiress not the British former hedge fund manager!

ptero 2y ago

On (1), I grew up behind the iron curtain in a pre-internet age next to a village (no TV, no organized entertainment). The typical non-working activity there was not to enjoy the beauty of nature (as farmers they were fed up with it) but to be bored, get drunk and start fights with anyone non local. When the economy opened up in late 1980s anyone who could ran out to cities. I will take technology and some globalism any day. My 2c.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
False dichotomy. Both situations are bad because both are predicated on lack of wisdom. A lack of wisdom in a poor place implies brawls and wanton violence. A lack of wisdom in a rich, technological age implies resource destruction and climate change. Wisdom combined with restricted technology would be ideal, such as with the Amish. They have their problems but they show that a technologically restricted society is best. Note: I am not arguing for NO technology, but severely restricted technology.
- ptero 2y ago
  Who is going to do this "severe restriction of technology"? The people themselves, as you write, do not want to do it. And anytime a self-appointed elite start doing "what is best for the people" against their will, police repression and labor camps are also on the menu. Nah, I will take my freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    You assume the people always won't. There's a growing amount of skepticism towards technology and it's quite possible people will begin to hate it. I myself intend to spread the word about the dangers of technology to the best of my ability.
- arkh 2y ago
  Ok, let's restrict the technology. What's the end goal? Because 1 billion years from now, even if humanity is back to before the wheel technology plants will have disappeared and the oceans evaporated due to the sun. If we want Earth originated life to have a chance to go over this bump something will have to go forward.

Retric 2y ago

(2) They where literally describing a poor area being better off with global trade. Economies of scale and local advantages make the world better off. There’s no advantage to growing bananas in greenhouses in Iowa when you can grow wheat and trade with Panama.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
That local trade involves taking advantage of the commons (putting CO2 in the atmosphere) to make it work. In my opinion, we do not have the right to take that advantage.
- chaostheory 2y ago
  Few people would be able to afford much in your local economy.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    Well for one, lots of my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little. Isn't this basically collectivization, which empirically has been shown to a massive failure? Without a monetary incentive, it's hard to get people to actually do stuff rather than lying on their couch and watching tiktok.
    - chaostheory 2y ago
      Historically, that doesn’t work. It failed in China, North Korea, and in Cuba. It’s a fantasy.
- Retric 2y ago

OfficeChad 2y ago

[dead]