7 ms·

I'd say goodness lies in how we use our technology and that in the balance it's hard to say. We have 7 billion people on the planet now compared to 1 billion i

I'd say goodness lies in how we use our technology and that in the balance it's hard to say. We have 7 billion people on the planet now compared to 1 billion in 1800. In addition to natural population biology, this growth has been influenced greatly by advances in medicine and agriculture. Yet today over 1 billion people live in extreme poverty, and only 1 billion people live in a so-called first-world country or at that approximate standard of living. I'm not sure if there was anybody living in extreme poverty in 1800. If we could quantify an individual's suffering, then we could look at two metrics: the sum of all suffering on the planet, and the average individual suffering on the planet. While I would probably agree that for 1st-world countries these numbers have gone down, I'm just not sure if the same can be said for the global population. It's also unclear whether technology was just ineffective here or actually contributed to the problem. Even as far as our current dreams of technotopia are concerned, it's important not to forget just how dependent they are on people working and living in what many of us consider abhorrent conditions. If our use of technology made it so that every human on the planet had to do less work overall then I might be convinced that it was "good" as opposed to "hard to say", but it seems like we want ourselves to do as much if not more work with each new advance, as if work and production of stuff is the ultimate measure of our lives.

brian_cloutier 14y ago
> I'm not sure if there was anybody living in extreme poverty in 1800. There was no extreme poverty during the second half of the industrial revolution? The Irish Great Famine never happened? In the late 1800's, 16million people /didn't/ immigrate to America, because the jobs they had were better and paid more than the shit factory jobs we had?
pdonis 14y ago
I'm not sure if there was anybody living in extreme poverty in 1800. You have got to be kidding. What we call "extreme poverty" today would have seemed like luxury to almost every human being who has ever lived. The difference today is not that there are a billion people who live in extreme poverty; it's that there are a billion who are living at a first world standard of living. That is a far higher fraction of humanity than ever before; I would be surprised if even a small fraction of a percent of all of humanity in 1800 lived at what would then have been considered a "first world" standard of living. (Not to mention that what qualifies as a first world standard of living today has, in many respects, never existed before--what qualified as "first world" in 1800 would, in many respects, be considered "extreme poverty" today.)
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  When I say "extreme poverty" I am referring mostly to modern conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such conditions in 1800. Of course I am aware that there were plagues and famines and caste systems and so on, but I would be surprised to learn that 1/7 of the population lived the way that 1/7 of the population lives now, basically without enough food or water as a part of daily life. Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does."
  - pdonis 14y ago
    I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such conditions in 1800. How do you think people lived in sub-Saharan Africa in 1800? Living at bare subsistence level is exactly how almost all humans who have ever lived, lived. Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does." That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. It's because Europe (and America) have gotten enormously richer through huge increases in productivity. As in, now 1/7 of humanity gets to live in "first world" conditions, in--wait for it--Europe and America.
    - georgeorwell 14y ago
      > That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. Do you have any references for that claim? My understanding is that whereas (sub-Saharan) African people by and large used to be farmers and were generally able to grow enough food, drink enough water, build adequate shelter, and make enough clothes, that since colonization (which got going in earnest in 1880) the continent was basically shoehorned into modern industrial society and that now many Africans are dependent on whatever foreign aid they can get and are no longer self-sufficient. What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly, but again, if you have a reference that says colonization (or its later rejection) did nothing to change poverty in Africa it would be interesting to read it.
tsotha 14y ago
Yet today over 1 billion people live in extreme poverty... The right way to put that is "Yet today only a billion people live in extreme poverty." What we call "extreme poverty" today was the norm throughout the world until the 20th century.

brian_cloutier 14y ago

> I'm not sure if there was anybody living in extreme poverty in 1800. There was no extreme poverty during the second half of the industrial revolution? The Irish Great Famine never happened? In the late 1800's, 16million people /didn't/ immigrate to America, because the jobs they had were better and paid more than the shit factory jobs we had?

pdonis 14y ago

I'm not sure if there was anybody living in extreme poverty in 1800. You have got to be kidding. What we call "extreme poverty" today would have seemed like luxury to almost every human being who has ever lived. The difference today is not that there are a billion people who live in extreme poverty; it's that there are a billion who are living at a first world standard of living. That is a far higher fraction of humanity than ever before; I would be surprised if even a small fraction of a percent of all of humanity in 1800 lived at what would then have been considered a "first world" standard of living. (Not to mention that what qualifies as a first world standard of living today has, in many respects, never existed before--what qualified as "first world" in 1800 would, in many respects, be considered "extreme poverty" today.)

georgeorwell 14y ago
When I say "extreme poverty" I am referring mostly to modern conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such conditions in 1800. Of course I am aware that there were plagues and famines and caste systems and so on, but I would be surprised to learn that 1/7 of the population lived the way that 1/7 of the population lives now, basically without enough food or water as a part of daily life. Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does."
- pdonis 14y ago
  I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such conditions in 1800. How do you think people lived in sub-Saharan Africa in 1800? Living at bare subsistence level is exactly how almost all humans who have ever lived, lived. Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does." That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. It's because Europe (and America) have gotten enormously richer through huge increases in productivity. As in, now 1/7 of humanity gets to live in "first world" conditions, in--wait for it--Europe and America.
  - georgeorwell 14y ago
    > That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. Do you have any references for that claim? My understanding is that whereas (sub-Saharan) African people by and large used to be farmers and were generally able to grow enough food, drink enough water, build adequate shelter, and make enough clothes, that since colonization (which got going in earnest in 1880) the continent was basically shoehorned into modern industrial society and that now many Africans are dependent on whatever foreign aid they can get and are no longer self-sufficient. What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly, but again, if you have a reference that says colonization (or its later rejection) did nothing to change poverty in Africa it would be interesting to read it.

tsotha 14y ago

Yet today over 1 billion people live in extreme poverty... The right way to put that is "Yet today only a billion people live in extreme poverty." What we call "extreme poverty" today was the norm throughout the world until the 20th century.