4 ms·

For all our tremendous advances and expansive knowledge, we still have some billions of people that that are malnourished or starving, some that live on less th

by rndmize 14y ago

For all our tremendous advances and expansive knowledge, we still have some billions of people that that are malnourished or starving, some that live on less than a dollar a day, some that die by the hundreds of thousands in wars over resources or religion; we have nations and societies that collapse within a few hundred years as they generally grow too top-heavy to function without replacement; we are depleting resources at tremendous rates without care to the cost; and so on. As the article says, if you chose to be born twenty thousand years ago, there's a good chance you would be born in a tribe with a reasonably stable social and cultural structure that rarely lacked for any major needs. Today, you would most likely be born as one of the masses of poor subsistence farmers throughout the world, but most likely in China or India, who's life and work is miserable/back-breaking enough that they'll choose to make our electronics for 10 or 12 or 14 hours a day and consider it an improvement. It seems that only in the last decade has modern technology reached the point where it can be provided to the masses and begin what might be a global transformation that leads to better lives for all - rather than better lives for a few at the expense of the many.

raverbashing 14y ago
"if you chose to be born twenty thousand years ago, there's a good chance you would be born in a tribe with a reasonably stable social and cultural structure that rarely lacked for any major needs" If you survived your first year of life, then your first 5 years of life, etc Then you would have to hunt or do dangerous stuff with precarious tools, no health care in case of accident, etc Oh and you would probably die by your 30s. Makes the chinese factory kind of look good.
- netcan 14y ago
  probably die by your 30s Average life expectancy at birth is heavily influenced by infant mortality. Most people didn't really die in their 30s.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    Yes, or as some people say "if you survived past 5 years old your expectancy is higher" Not sure about the actual figures for that time period, though.
    - Shorel 14y ago
      About half died at 1 year. The other half died at 60 years. A few died in between because of wars or whatever. Average: 30 years. I oversimplified a bit, but you can see the overview of the statistics misinterpretation.
- rndmize 14y ago
  That you would speak of doing dangerous stuff with tools and a lack of healthcare and follow that with a mention of the Chinese factory... I find ironic. Further, while infant mortality was a problem (and has continued to be up until the last hundred years), you would probably not die by your thirties (life expectancy calculations are throw off precisely by infant mortality rates - the life expectancy for a person in almost any society goes up to at least 50 if you discount deaths of those under a year of age or so.) Is there something wrong with hunting, or difficult about it? I'm fairly sure we were good enough to wipe out a few species before the rise of agriculture. As for "dangerous stuff with precarious tools"... by all means, enlighten me. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything more dangerous than a sharp edge in any non-technologically advanced society. The number of dangers we have today from our tools (heard about a car crash on the radio recently?) and the lethality of them (how many people die from gun accidents? from mixing bleach and ammonia? electrocution? power tools? industrial machinery?) Do I even need to cover healthcare? Or how the vast majority of the world doesn't have it? Or how the majority of medications we develop don't demonstrate a greater effect than a placebo?
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    You are really comparing apples with oranges. Here's something you should do: go visit a farm. " Or how the vast majority of the world doesn't have it? " You are very removed from reality. The majority of people, even in very poor countries have access to aspirin, antibiotics. As tragic and cruel and "modern", kids that lost limbs to landmines are, they would have died without 20th century medical care, and they are alive today.
    - rndmize 14y ago
      Aspirin has been known since antiquity. Health care generally refers to reasonably complete care with practicing physicians, not a few varieties of antibiotics and painkillers. I don't see your point about visiting a farm, or your point about landmines; there's no lack of people around the world that die from things as simple as lack of drinking water and malnutrition, which I would consider the absolute minimum any kind of health care could provide.
- michaelgrafl 14y ago
  Wow. Really? Wow. No. It doesn't make the Chinese factory look good. [edit: removed because it sounded too mean to me] I suggest watching some documentaries about Asian nomads or other indigenous peoples. They live a primitive life, sure. But they seem pretty content and stress free. I'm not even sure if I prefer my own pampered life to theirs. I'd rather kill myself than work in a Chinese factory. From what I hear on the news, I'm not the only one who thinks that way.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    "I suggest watching some documentaries..." And you heard about the Chinese factories on the same documentaries right? But the Chinese workers have a choice, most of them came from the Chinese countryside willingly. Now, why did they choose that instead of having a simple, stress free life in the Chinese countryside? It's probably "easier" than being an Asian nomad, and some may have that exact background.
  - gbog 14y ago
    re Chinese factory: you must be aware that millions of people migrate to coastal cities in China in order to work in these factories, have some heating in winter, buy a phone and avoid being farmer? Do you think they all stupid? You must be aware that half of the world (Vietnam, Brazil, India, ...) is trying very hard to get a little piece of the "Chinese factories" cake?
dodo53 14y ago
That's essentially average-utilitarian (has the happiness of a random person in the population gone up?); I guess many people are closer to total-utilitarian (ie. the total number of happy/surviving people is also important).
- tomkr 14y ago
  Wouldn't total-utilitiarian then prefer a population of 1000000 mostly unhappy people over a population of 100 very happy people? In that case it would at least be an awkward benchmark, as you just need to procreate as much as possible to get the "best" scenario.
  - dodo53 14y ago
    Yes, there's an interesting thing on that here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/ I haven't looked at enough philosophy to be able to figure out what I'd place myself as, average-utilarianism also seems to lead to morally-counter-intuitive stuff.
kamaal 14y ago
Agriculture is hardly to be blamed for hunger. In modern economics you need to pay to get something. And you need a job to earn money. What this basically means is, hunger is basically a problem of affordability and not food production. No jobs means, no food. Not just that it also means no good shelter, no good clothing and access to health facilities. The biggest failure should be to look at why we haven't leveraged automation in agriculture to a point where one shouldn't have to work just to survive. But the way I see, in another coming decades this is something which is going to be inevitable. In my country(India), it suggested all along the years that the biggest struggle for resources is going to be for water. In fact we are already facing a massive water crisis. It is believed there will massive riots, big war like stand off between states and mafia like control over water resources very soon. Much of this is a result of reckless mismanagement of water resources Eg: Waste dumping(both industrial and civic), turning lakes into sites for real estates in cities, over consumption of ground water. Some more time from now and India is all set for a major water crisis. The miserable back breaking 12-14 schedules making electronics for you, is far better. The alternates are far worse. I can tell you it was more worst in India even in the past. There was rampant caste system. If you weren't born a male in a high caste warrior or priest family you were essentially screwed. And yes at least now people can chose some alternatives, back then it was slave labor bonded through generations. All you could do was slog in the fields for a rich landlord/king and hope you could eat bread twice a day. Or at most die building structures like the Taj Mahal or The Giza Pyramid. And yes there were famines, plagues and epidemics. In short, life in the past was scary. I would say we are far better off then what we were before.
- rndmize 14y ago
  All the things you cite as the scary parts of life in the past were after the development of agriculture. The article (and my point) is that life for the average person was better in the millenia prior to that. Indeed, the fact that life was so miserably for the people that built Giza or the Taj Mahal is precisely the point - hunter-gatherer tribes of a few hundred people never did such things. And my point about the endless hours making electronics is that if this is the best we can do for the majority of people in the world today, which is an improvement on the miserable times of earlier civilization/agricultural society, how pathetic is that compared to times of tribal societies when things were much more equal and life (on average) was much better? And I think you answer your own question about automation - our economic system is the reason we have people starving even when we have enough food to feed everyone. Automation won't change that by itself.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
This is just silly. Agriculture has allowed the population of the Earth to explode, and that has included increasing the population of poor people. However, technology is also lifting those people out of poverty. The developed world includes more countries today than it did in 1950, or even 1980. In the next 50 years several more countries are poised to join the ranks of countries with wealth similar to that of the G7 today. In all likelihood there will be a swathe of newly minted developed countries including Brazil, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, etc. as well as many Eastern European countries by the mid 21st century. And in the meantime many of the most poverty stricken regions of the world will be less so by then. This is not hope or optimism, it's merely following the trends that have been consistent for the last 2 centuries.
Shorel 14y ago
And you will be born today as poor subsistence farmer BECAUSE of the overpopulation that's possible thanks to agriculture. We develop one advance and instead of using it to be happier, we use it to be just more people, and poorer. Seriously, we need to stop being more and more just for the sake of it.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "Seriously, we need to stop being more and more just for the sake of it." I don't think most people would appreciate the demand to stop having children because infant mortality these days is so low.

by rndmize 14y ago

raverbashing 14y ago

"if you chose to be born twenty thousand years ago, there's a good chance you would be born in a tribe with a reasonably stable social and cultural structure that rarely lacked for any major needs" If you survived your first year of life, then your first 5 years of life, etc Then you would have to hunt or do dangerous stuff with precarious tools, no health care in case of accident, etc Oh and you would probably die by your 30s. Makes the chinese factory kind of look good.

netcan 14y ago
probably die by your 30s Average life expectancy at birth is heavily influenced by infant mortality. Most people didn't really die in their 30s.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  Yes, or as some people say "if you survived past 5 years old your expectancy is higher" Not sure about the actual figures for that time period, though.
  - Shorel 14y ago
    About half died at 1 year. The other half died at 60 years. A few died in between because of wars or whatever. Average: 30 years. I oversimplified a bit, but you can see the overview of the statistics misinterpretation.
rndmize 14y ago
That you would speak of doing dangerous stuff with tools and a lack of healthcare and follow that with a mention of the Chinese factory... I find ironic. Further, while infant mortality was a problem (and has continued to be up until the last hundred years), you would probably not die by your thirties (life expectancy calculations are throw off precisely by infant mortality rates - the life expectancy for a person in almost any society goes up to at least 50 if you discount deaths of those under a year of age or so.) Is there something wrong with hunting, or difficult about it? I'm fairly sure we were good enough to wipe out a few species before the rise of agriculture. As for "dangerous stuff with precarious tools"... by all means, enlighten me. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything more dangerous than a sharp edge in any non-technologically advanced society. The number of dangers we have today from our tools (heard about a car crash on the radio recently?) and the lethality of them (how many people die from gun accidents? from mixing bleach and ammonia? electrocution? power tools? industrial machinery?) Do I even need to cover healthcare? Or how the vast majority of the world doesn't have it? Or how the majority of medications we develop don't demonstrate a greater effect than a placebo?
- raverbashing 14y ago
  You are really comparing apples with oranges. Here's something you should do: go visit a farm. " Or how the vast majority of the world doesn't have it? " You are very removed from reality. The majority of people, even in very poor countries have access to aspirin, antibiotics. As tragic and cruel and "modern", kids that lost limbs to landmines are, they would have died without 20th century medical care, and they are alive today.
  - rndmize 14y ago
    Aspirin has been known since antiquity. Health care generally refers to reasonably complete care with practicing physicians, not a few varieties of antibiotics and painkillers. I don't see your point about visiting a farm, or your point about landmines; there's no lack of people around the world that die from things as simple as lack of drinking water and malnutrition, which I would consider the absolute minimum any kind of health care could provide.
michaelgrafl 14y ago
Wow. Really? Wow. No. It doesn't make the Chinese factory look good. [edit: removed because it sounded too mean to me] I suggest watching some documentaries about Asian nomads or other indigenous peoples. They live a primitive life, sure. But they seem pretty content and stress free. I'm not even sure if I prefer my own pampered life to theirs. I'd rather kill myself than work in a Chinese factory. From what I hear on the news, I'm not the only one who thinks that way.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  "I suggest watching some documentaries..." And you heard about the Chinese factories on the same documentaries right? But the Chinese workers have a choice, most of them came from the Chinese countryside willingly. Now, why did they choose that instead of having a simple, stress free life in the Chinese countryside? It's probably "easier" than being an Asian nomad, and some may have that exact background.
- gbog 14y ago
  re Chinese factory: you must be aware that millions of people migrate to coastal cities in China in order to work in these factories, have some heating in winter, buy a phone and avoid being farmer? Do you think they all stupid? You must be aware that half of the world (Vietnam, Brazil, India, ...) is trying very hard to get a little piece of the "Chinese factories" cake?

dodo53 14y ago

That's essentially average-utilitarian (has the happiness of a random person in the population gone up?); I guess many people are closer to total-utilitarian (ie. the total number of happy/surviving people is also important).

tomkr 14y ago
Wouldn't total-utilitiarian then prefer a population of 1000000 mostly unhappy people over a population of 100 very happy people? In that case it would at least be an awkward benchmark, as you just need to procreate as much as possible to get the "best" scenario.
- dodo53 14y ago
  Yes, there's an interesting thing on that here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/ I haven't looked at enough philosophy to be able to figure out what I'd place myself as, average-utilarianism also seems to lead to morally-counter-intuitive stuff.

kamaal 14y ago

Agriculture is hardly to be blamed for hunger. In modern economics you need to pay to get something. And you need a job to earn money. What this basically means is, hunger is basically a problem of affordability and not food production. No jobs means, no food. Not just that it also means no good shelter, no good clothing and access to health facilities. The biggest failure should be to look at why we haven't leveraged automation in agriculture to a point where one shouldn't have to work just to survive. But the way I see, in another coming decades this is something which is going to be inevitable. In my country(India), it suggested all along the years that the biggest struggle for resources is going to be for water. In fact we are already facing a massive water crisis. It is believed there will massive riots, big war like stand off between states and mafia like control over water resources very soon. Much of this is a result of reckless mismanagement of water resources Eg: Waste dumping(both industrial and civic), turning lakes into sites for real estates in cities, over consumption of ground water. Some more time from now and India is all set for a major water crisis. The miserable back breaking 12-14 schedules making electronics for you, is far better. The alternates are far worse. I can tell you it was more worst in India even in the past. There was rampant caste system. If you weren't born a male in a high caste warrior or priest family you were essentially screwed. And yes at least now people can chose some alternatives, back then it was slave labor bonded through generations. All you could do was slog in the fields for a rich landlord/king and hope you could eat bread twice a day. Or at most die building structures like the Taj Mahal or The Giza Pyramid. And yes there were famines, plagues and epidemics. In short, life in the past was scary. I would say we are far better off then what we were before.

rndmize 14y ago
All the things you cite as the scary parts of life in the past were after the development of agriculture. The article (and my point) is that life for the average person was better in the millenia prior to that. Indeed, the fact that life was so miserably for the people that built Giza or the Taj Mahal is precisely the point - hunter-gatherer tribes of a few hundred people never did such things. And my point about the endless hours making electronics is that if this is the best we can do for the majority of people in the world today, which is an improvement on the miserable times of earlier civilization/agricultural society, how pathetic is that compared to times of tribal societies when things were much more equal and life (on average) was much better? And I think you answer your own question about automation - our economic system is the reason we have people starving even when we have enough food to feed everyone. Automation won't change that by itself.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

This is just silly. Agriculture has allowed the population of the Earth to explode, and that has included increasing the population of poor people. However, technology is also lifting those people out of poverty. The developed world includes more countries today than it did in 1950, or even 1980. In the next 50 years several more countries are poised to join the ranks of countries with wealth similar to that of the G7 today. In all likelihood there will be a swathe of newly minted developed countries including Brazil, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, etc. as well as many Eastern European countries by the mid 21st century. And in the meantime many of the most poverty stricken regions of the world will be less so by then. This is not hope or optimism, it's merely following the trends that have been consistent for the last 2 centuries.

Shorel 14y ago

And you will be born today as poor subsistence farmer BECAUSE of the overpopulation that's possible thanks to agriculture. We develop one advance and instead of using it to be happier, we use it to be just more people, and poorer. Seriously, we need to stop being more and more just for the sake of it.

illuminate 14y ago
"Seriously, we need to stop being more and more just for the sake of it." I don't think most people would appreciate the demand to stop having children because infant mortality these days is so low.