21–30 of 73 posts
Helpful to keep in mind that India recently changed the way it calculates GDP by updating its base year and moving from a cost-of-input calculation to an expenditure calculation. This will give it a nominal boost as many currently non-market activities (cooking, cleaning, child rearing) enter the realm of the market as paid-for services, and are thus counted in the GDP calculation. More on that in this previous artic…
According to the chart, it will also be the decade of Africa -- which is sort of a nice change. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You value African wildlife more than improved living standards for the 100s of millions of Africans? I think we should preserve the wildlife as best as we can but I think we should also value increased standards of living for 100s of millions of people....
I understand your point. But don't you think the wildlife are equally important? There are 7 BILLION people on earth... but there are just 5000 rhinos, for example. That's 1.5 MILLION people to a rhino. This is one of the most magnificent species to have ever walked earth - why shouldn't we prioritize preserving it over human comfort? Why do you value increase in living standards over a sentient species that all thin…
The implicit end of that sentence is "equally important to the hundreds of millions of Africans living there." And to that, emphatically no.
People are more important. Full stop. I am no anti-environmental activist. I want to see renewable energy take over fossil fuels, I want to see conscientious business taking environmental factors into account at all steps of production. But given the 100% false dichotomy of "African development" or "animals" I am going to pick the one that helps one of the most impoverished, war-torn regions on the planet every time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your point. But don't you think the wildlife are equally important? There are 7 BILLION people on earth... but there are just 5000 rhinos, for example. That's 1.5 MILLION people to a rhino. This is one of the most magnificent species to have ever walked earth - why shouldn't we prioritize preserving it over human comfort? Why do you value increase in living standards over a sentient species that all thin…
> But don't you think the wildlife are equally important? The implicit end of that sentence is "equally important to the hundreds of millions of Africans living there." And to that, emphatically no. People are more important. Full stop. I am no anti-environmental activist. I want to see renewable energy take over fossil fuels, I want to see conscientious business taking environmental factors into account at all steps…
Why do they deserve to be prioritised over the millions of other species on earth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But don't you think the wildlife are equally important? The implicit end of that sentence is "equally important to the hundreds of millions of Africans living there." And to that, emphatically no. People are more important. Full stop. I am no anti-environmental activist. I want to see renewable energy take over fossil fuels, I want to see conscientious business taking environmental factors into account at all steps…
Humans are just an exponentially increasing function which will generally grow to consume the resources available to them. Why do they deserve to be prioritised over the millions of other species on earth?
The snarky answer is probably something about how lions would not be setting up Human Preserves if the situations were reversed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really think that dirt poor countries are better at preserving wildlife than countries where people do not starve to death, die from diarrhea or burn every bush within reach for firewood? I think it depends a lot on what any growth is based on. If I understand this report correctly, their definition of economic complexity ranks countries with varied exports a lot higher than single minded commodities exporters…
Well, I look at it from the perspective of history. Wherever modern human development has taken hold, we've had a degradation of animal life. It happened in Europe, it happened in China, it happened in America after it was colonized. A lot of African people live in harmony with their environment. It is external development (investment from China, globalization etc.) that is hurting wildlife in their areas. Why should…
I think it's for Africans to decide how happy they are watching their children die from diarrhea so that zebras have more space. They will make their choice, but for the overwhelming majority of Africans the choice is not between being a hunter-gather society once again and destroying wildlife. That's a fantasy.
There are much more important (and realistic) choices to make, such as how many children to have, how to beat corruption, how to skip some of the more polluting sorts of development models, how to finance modern infrastructure that enables a modern economy, not just one based purely and digging up commodities until boom turns to bust.
The way to avoid destruction of wildlife is to have to have good policies, good education, good infrastructure and modern industries like IT, telecoms, finance, pharma or entertainment.
In order to go back to hunter-gatherer societies, the first thing you'd have to do is kill 95% of the population. Doesn't sound like a happy solution to me, but if you are so fond of it, please start doing it in your own country and just let Africa be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But don't you think the wildlife are equally important? The implicit end of that sentence is "equally important to the hundreds of millions of Africans living there." And to that, emphatically no. People are more important. Full stop. I am no anti-environmental activist. I want to see renewable energy take over fossil fuels, I want to see conscientious business taking environmental factors into account at all steps…
Humans are just an exponentially increasing function which will generally grow to consume the resources available to them. Why do they deserve to be prioritised over the millions of other species on earth?
Helpful to keep in mind that India recently changed the way it calculates GDP by updating its base year and moving from a cost-of-input calculation to an expenditure calculation. This will give it a nominal boost as many currently non-market activities (cooking, cleaning, child rearing) enter the realm of the market as paid-for services, and are thus counted in the GDP calculation. More on that in this previous artic…
GDP should be depreciated.
Whatever the political motivations, this is just shoddy scholarship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is sort of horrible, once you think about it. Africa is the last continent on earth to have abundant wildlife. Development in Africa would mean we lose a large portion of wildlife on earth, forever.
You value African wildlife more than improved living standards for the 100s of millions of Africans? I think we should preserve the wildlife as best as we can but I think we should also value increased standards of living for 100s of millions of people....