|
Ytlaya posted:Being economically uplifted or whatever (basically what I had in parenthesis immediately after that). It depends whether you're talking about money or material conditions I guess, since globalization is likely responsible for average increase in earnings (though that's likely to only continue until capital runs out of places they can export labor for cheaper). If you could provide a quantifiable definition of “economically uplifted” as this would make addressing your argument easier. It sometimes seems like a lot of people itt speak in terms of some kind of mystical concept of advancement. If you have faith in the idea that humanity is fallen and has degenerated since Adam, and approaching a well deserved rapture, of course economic arguments will have no sway. There’s not much point arguing about faith, if you mean something specific about earthly problems then it’s worth talking. edit: I would also dispute that technological change has been the primary driver of "economic uplift" over than last several decades. It wasn't some technological leap that caused the proportion of Indians with toilets to practically double over the last five years. It doesn't require any new technology to put in a well pump in an African town, so that locals don't have to spend two hours a day fetching water. Or training a midwife in proper sanitation. These are the real radical changes that are uplifting society. The primary driver of change is just applying things we already know how to do well somewhere where they haven't been applied before. And mostly people don't go back once you apply these things. Once people in a place have a road, they will maintain it. When people understand the mechanisms causing soil degradation, they will act collectively to enforce best practices. The fact is there's a whole lot of low hanging fruit still out there. We could spend our whole lives just trying to address one, making steady improvements, and taking those trends to their conclusion will represent a massive improvement in billions of lives, even if by your arbitrary criteria it still doesn't make their lives "decent". Squalid fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Sep 8, 2018 |
#
¿
Sep 7, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Xae posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization I think it's very interesting that this long term trend towards decreasing homicide remains very strong even when we just look at comparatively brief intervals. For the United States for example:  homicides are per 100,000 people The trend is just as clear in European data too:  I tend to lean towards economic explanations for these kinds of social changes, but there's been several historical studies on this phenomena that suggest it may be driven in large part by culture change. That is to say homicide has become less socially acceptable over time. I can't remember the title of the work I read parts of but it was on the decline in homicide in Dutch/Flemish cities from the Renaissance to the early modern, and focused on the decline in the culture of knife duels.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you confine "the world as it is" to "within the last century except for the really big blips" and make a studious point of ignoring the looming massive problems on the horizon. Unless you are blessed with the gift of prophesy you shouldn't allow your world view to be controlled by unquantifiable risks of future harm. You could walk out your front door the next day, and be killed by a drunk driver. Or Trump could start a nuclear war. Alternatively neither thing may happen. Up to a certain point we have just accept that we live with many swords hanging over our heads. But hey you never know, maybe the strings will hold, or if they do fall they'll miss, and eventually we may even be able to take a few down.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2018 23:42
|
|