8 ms·

>"development for development's sake"? Development doesn't happen for its own sake. It's about improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering. N

>"development for development's sake"? Development doesn't happen for its own sake. It's about improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering. No, it's not. It's mostly about making money. No business cares about "improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering" (they might pay lip service to that on their brochures though). Shareholders don't care about "alleviating suffering", only about return of investment. >If you had to carry water a few miles each day, or gather firewood to keep you warm in the winter or were infected by tuberculosis, you might welcome a little development. And yet, _billions_ of people continue to do that, and _billions_ of people die from deceases that technology has eradicated for us half a century or more ago, and development goes on to other stuff, like --to name but a few-- faster smartphones, game consoles, pet food and bling jewellery. (I don't mean "development" as in the "scientific development" either. I mean it as business development, the idea that production, sales, whatever must continuously expand. I'd be OK with scientific development put directly in the help of humanity, like, say, AIDS drugs sold at cost in Africa instead of pricing them for profit).

JanezStupar 14y ago
> No, it's not. It's mostly about making money. No business cares about "improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering" (they might pay lip service to that on their brochures though). Shareholders don't care about "alleviating suffering", only about return of investment. Umm, not all businesses are in the business of providing happiness to people. Some are in fact in the business of providing misery to people. Anyways, businesses are not the ones deciding what services to provide to the people, customers are. So if you want to blame anybody, blame customers (or as Tool put it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWMmZEoT84 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWMmZEoT84). > And yet, _billions_ of people continue to do that, and _billions_ of people die from deceases that technology has eradicated for us half a century or more ago, and development goes on to other stuff, like --to name but a few-- faster smartphones, game consoles, pet food and bling jewellery. While I can easily sympathize with your position, rich western corporations don't owe jack shit to third world people. I agree that it would be nice of us to help them out. However if we are not interested in helping them out for whatever reason, they still have the option of helping themselves out - the way we helped out ourselves. I sincerely believe that we are not doing it because we want them bad, but we are too preoccupied with solving our own problems to help those guys out. Yes looking at the difference between them and us, does show our preoccupation with self interest. But the reason we solved so many of our issues in precisely our preoccupation with self interest. > (I don't mean "development" as in the "scientific development" either. I mean it as business development, the idea that production, sales, whatever must continuously expand. I'd be OK with scientific development put directly in the help of humanity, like, say, AIDS drugs sold at cost in Africa instead of pricing them for profit). I believe that you and other people with the same attitude as you should put your money where your mouth is and lead the way for the rest of us.
- azm1 14y ago
  Are you really sure we as western hemisphere do not own nothing to the eastern or more accurately to people who struggle? I'm no historian but I heard something about the wiping out Indians and enslaving African people. Are you really sure you can say that we are independent snowflakes who deserve all things by right and to not actually look where to pay back for our mistakes to improve all Earth life conditions no matter of location and nationhood ? The thing is we have not solved many problems yet, we just postpone them and trying to argue with improvements on technological layer which is relatively shallow on its own. Western culture is for example filled with materialism and definitely not pushing us forward. By reducing the needs and learn about struggle of others beyond our family would help to reduce waste and improve life of others. Both sides win.
  - JanezStupar 14y ago
    Killed people cannot be brought back. Greed is always bad. However you are putting strawmen about. Let me explain. The Indian situation was at least as unfortunate as Jewish situation in ancient Babilon or Gypsy (Roma) situation in ancient Babilon. Or the situation of Amalekites and Midianites. Or the situation of Moors for that matter. It is unfortunate that sometimes two civilizations clash and cannot get to grips about what to do with some piece of land and then the more powerful group goes to tear the weaker group a new one. It is extremely unfortunate however, this issue will not be solved here on HN and it will not be solved by idealism. It is an story of pragmatism in the face of adversity. Kill or be killed, adopt or be left behind. Regarding slavery, this is another great myth. Americans (and Dutch) enslaved barely anybody. The poor gentle africans were more than capable of doing their own savagery by themselves. Africans did their own enslaving and western slave traders merely bought the available goods. Does that make slave trade moral? No. However I really dislike this picture of white man as the most amoral being on the face of the world.
    - djtriptych 14y ago
      It's really pathetic that you interpret the modern (and ongoing) economic oppression of the 3rd world to a personal attack on White men. Grow up.
cwp 14y ago
> It's mostly about making money Those things go hand in hand. Ideally, you can't make money without improving human life in exchange. Sure, any political system will include a bit of corruption and rent-seeking, but by-and-large, it's exactly the profit motive that has improved the human condition. > billions_ of people continue to do that So it's all pointless? Because we haven't achieved a paradise of endless bliss where no one suffers, we shouldn't bother to try to make things better? As a society we are pursuing both faster smartphones and eradication of diseases. It's really hard to predict which technologies will be the most fruitful. The cell phone, despite being invented to solve first-world problems, has had a huge impact on the third world. It's probably done more to improve the quality of human life than any charitable program ever! [edit] > the idea that production, sales, whatever must continuously expand. Production must expand as long as population continues to expand. The projection is that population will peak around mid-century and begin to come down again. At that point, production might well level off or begin to decline as well.
- 31reasons 14y ago
  What we are missing as a society is Long Term Thinking. Yes businesses do provide value and reduce human suffering as long as its perceived to reduce human suffering from the customer's point of view. For example, cigarettes. It does provide some value but only for the short term without thinking about the long term. If society makes it legal to sell Meth to the public I am sure big pharma will jump on the opportunities to provide you the highest quality.
  - dmix 14y ago
    Big pharma is already makes billions of dollars off of amphetamines. It's used responsibly my millions of people. It hasn't stopped people from abusing them even though they are illegal without a prescription. I'm not sure that's the pharma companies responsible if individuals choose to abuse something that has legitimate uses and strong demand. If the government can't stop it, does that mean the pharma companies have a moral obligation to not sell it? This is an important question with drugs, tobacco, guns, finance and lots of other industries. Individual responsibility vs societal control.
corporalagumbo 14y ago
The capitalist system is continually evolving and eliminating inefficiencies which allow people to profit from harming others. The trend has been strongly towards better controls to prevent businesses from externalising costs to the detriment of society, these controls have in turned spurred innovation which has resulted in cleaner, better, more productive technology benefitting everyone. Just like going around beating people up and stealing their wallets is no longer a viable road to financial success, businesses can no longer expect to profit from dumping harmful chemicals into waterways. The range of options for profit are continually being tightened and focussed exclusively in the realm of mutual benefit. We are, hopefully, on the verge of sensible legislation to prevent businesses and individuals externalising the costs of greenhouse gases too, and so spur healthy innovation in that most important area, and in so doing securing the future habitability of the planet - hopefully once we do so your objections to capitalism will begin to fade.

JanezStupar 14y ago

> No, it's not. It's mostly about making money. No business cares about "improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering" (they might pay lip service to that on their brochures though). Shareholders don't care about "alleviating suffering", only about return of investment. Umm, not all businesses are in the business of providing happiness to people. Some are in fact in the business of providing misery to people. Anyways, businesses are not the ones deciding what services to provide to the people, customers are. So if you want to blame anybody, blame customers (or as Tool put it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWMmZEoT84 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWMmZEoT84). > And yet, _billions_ of people continue to do that, and _billions_ of people die from deceases that technology has eradicated for us half a century or more ago, and development goes on to other stuff, like --to name but a few-- faster smartphones, game consoles, pet food and bling jewellery. While I can easily sympathize with your position, rich western corporations don't owe jack shit to third world people. I agree that it would be nice of us to help them out. However if we are not interested in helping them out for whatever reason, they still have the option of helping themselves out - the way we helped out ourselves. I sincerely believe that we are not doing it because we want them bad, but we are too preoccupied with solving our own problems to help those guys out. Yes looking at the difference between them and us, does show our preoccupation with self interest. But the reason we solved so many of our issues in precisely our preoccupation with self interest. > (I don't mean "development" as in the "scientific development" either. I mean it as business development, the idea that production, sales, whatever must continuously expand. I'd be OK with scientific development put directly in the help of humanity, like, say, AIDS drugs sold at cost in Africa instead of pricing them for profit). I believe that you and other people with the same attitude as you should put your money where your mouth is and lead the way for the rest of us.

azm1 14y ago
Are you really sure we as western hemisphere do not own nothing to the eastern or more accurately to people who struggle? I'm no historian but I heard something about the wiping out Indians and enslaving African people. Are you really sure you can say that we are independent snowflakes who deserve all things by right and to not actually look where to pay back for our mistakes to improve all Earth life conditions no matter of location and nationhood ? The thing is we have not solved many problems yet, we just postpone them and trying to argue with improvements on technological layer which is relatively shallow on its own. Western culture is for example filled with materialism and definitely not pushing us forward. By reducing the needs and learn about struggle of others beyond our family would help to reduce waste and improve life of others. Both sides win.
- JanezStupar 14y ago
  Killed people cannot be brought back. Greed is always bad. However you are putting strawmen about. Let me explain. The Indian situation was at least as unfortunate as Jewish situation in ancient Babilon or Gypsy (Roma) situation in ancient Babilon. Or the situation of Amalekites and Midianites. Or the situation of Moors for that matter. It is unfortunate that sometimes two civilizations clash and cannot get to grips about what to do with some piece of land and then the more powerful group goes to tear the weaker group a new one. It is extremely unfortunate however, this issue will not be solved here on HN and it will not be solved by idealism. It is an story of pragmatism in the face of adversity. Kill or be killed, adopt or be left behind. Regarding slavery, this is another great myth. Americans (and Dutch) enslaved barely anybody. The poor gentle africans were more than capable of doing their own savagery by themselves. Africans did their own enslaving and western slave traders merely bought the available goods. Does that make slave trade moral? No. However I really dislike this picture of white man as the most amoral being on the face of the world.
  - djtriptych 14y ago
    It's really pathetic that you interpret the modern (and ongoing) economic oppression of the 3rd world to a personal attack on White men. Grow up.

cwp 14y ago

> It's mostly about making money Those things go hand in hand. Ideally, you can't make money without improving human life in exchange. Sure, any political system will include a bit of corruption and rent-seeking, but by-and-large, it's exactly the profit motive that has improved the human condition. > billions_ of people continue to do that So it's all pointless? Because we haven't achieved a paradise of endless bliss where no one suffers, we shouldn't bother to try to make things better? As a society we are pursuing both faster smartphones and eradication of diseases. It's really hard to predict which technologies will be the most fruitful. The cell phone, despite being invented to solve first-world problems, has had a huge impact on the third world. It's probably done more to improve the quality of human life than any charitable program ever! [edit] > the idea that production, sales, whatever must continuously expand. Production must expand as long as population continues to expand. The projection is that population will peak around mid-century and begin to come down again. At that point, production might well level off or begin to decline as well.

31reasons 14y ago
What we are missing as a society is Long Term Thinking. Yes businesses do provide value and reduce human suffering as long as its perceived to reduce human suffering from the customer's point of view. For example, cigarettes. It does provide some value but only for the short term without thinking about the long term. If society makes it legal to sell Meth to the public I am sure big pharma will jump on the opportunities to provide you the highest quality.
- dmix 14y ago
  Big pharma is already makes billions of dollars off of amphetamines. It's used responsibly my millions of people. It hasn't stopped people from abusing them even though they are illegal without a prescription. I'm not sure that's the pharma companies responsible if individuals choose to abuse something that has legitimate uses and strong demand. If the government can't stop it, does that mean the pharma companies have a moral obligation to not sell it? This is an important question with drugs, tobacco, guns, finance and lots of other industries. Individual responsibility vs societal control.

corporalagumbo 14y ago

The capitalist system is continually evolving and eliminating inefficiencies which allow people to profit from harming others. The trend has been strongly towards better controls to prevent businesses from externalising costs to the detriment of society, these controls have in turned spurred innovation which has resulted in cleaner, better, more productive technology benefitting everyone. Just like going around beating people up and stealing their wallets is no longer a viable road to financial success, businesses can no longer expect to profit from dumping harmful chemicals into waterways. The range of options for profit are continually being tightened and focussed exclusively in the realm of mutual benefit. We are, hopefully, on the verge of sensible legislation to prevent businesses and individuals externalising the costs of greenhouse gases too, and so spur healthy innovation in that most important area, and in so doing securing the future habitability of the planet - hopefully once we do so your objections to capitalism will begin to fade.