Subsistence farming societies before: not poor!
Anybody who looks can see that poverty has increased!
21–30 of 94 posts
Subsistence farming societies before: not poor!
Anybody who looks can see that poverty has increased!
The article claims that a large number of people formerly lived cashless lives, but now live a lower-quality life that depends on cash. This claim doesn't have a lot of data for it, but is maybe believable. A data-driven discussion of quality of life, regardless of cash income, would clear this up. Looks like other commenters are dispelling the notion pretty quickly. Regarding cash income though, I feel that this art…
We have had decent data about this for a long time. It's a lot easier to gather than climate data, on which the same people will profess great certainty. But it doesn't fit everyone's preferred view of things.
100 years ago the richest man in the world could die from a simple infection because there were no such thing as antibiotics. People take for granted so many things we have in the modern world, they want some form of utopia right now. Perfect is the enemy of good
I wonder why it is so hard for so many people to accept that the world is better than it ever has been, and is still getting better. You see this from every side of the political spectrum. Is being super cynical just a bug in our nature?
Classic "noble savage" / "everything was better in the past" article. Why is this on HN?
Classic "noble savage" / "everything was better in the past" article. Why is this on HN?
Perhaps it's suitable for HN because it raises the question of good data analysis versus making up numbers that amount to false news.
Unfortunately, the author of this piece seems to suffer from the delusion that subsistence life is ideal. He makes a valid point that our data about poverty prior to 1981 is lacking; however, he completely ignores more telling data, such as infant mortality rates correlated with infrastructure development. Short version: life _is_ improving for the majority of people on the planet. Recommended reading on the subject:…
The author discusses poverty, not health. We can argue that health is more achievable in modern world, but the picture of poverty isn't changed by that.
This sounds like fantasy to me: "Prior to colonisation, most people lived in subsistence economies where they enjoyed access to abundant commons – land, water, forests, livestock and robust systems of sharing and reciprocity. They had little if any money, but then they didn’t need it in order to live well – so it makes little sense to claim that they were poor." They still fought over resources and hunting grounds. T…
Classic "noble savage" / "everything was better in the past" article. Why is this on HN?
Unfortunately, the author of this piece seems to suffer from the delusion that subsistence life is ideal. He makes a valid point that our data about poverty prior to 1981 is lacking; however, he completely ignores more telling data, such as infant mortality rates correlated with infrastructure development. Short version: life _is_ improving for the majority of people on the planet. Recommended reading on the subject:…
The author discusses poverty, not health. We can argue that health is more achievable in modern world, but the picture of poverty isn't changed by that.