A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty • Hacker News Board

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#151

Post by sonnyblarney » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #46

Maro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the Factfullness book, and I thought it's really poorly argued. I remember my BP was through the roof on the plane when I was reading that. HR is not believable imo. (I work in data, I'm a physicist.)

Rosner, Pinker and Co fell into the same trap they critiqued others - belief in destiny. They try to counter pessimistic destiny narratives with positive destiny narratives and selecting data that fits the narrative. You can't extrapolation the future from current trends. There are discontinuities and challenges that can change the dynamics.

"You can't extrapolation the future from current trends. "

Yes, you can.

We are learning and adapting our civilizations, and by most measures, it looks like we are 'getting better'.

If we continue along this path, things will likely improve.

Nobody is suggesting that there cannot be alternate dynamics. We all face the risk of war, famine, climate change etc.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#152

Post by dahart » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #122

andrepd wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The trend is the same regardless of which poverty line you pick. Poverty is decreasing, education, literacy and health are rising. The story changes quite a bit - and you know it. If we use $7.40 per day, we see a decline in the proportion of people living in poverty, but it’s not nearly as dramatic as your rosy narrative would have it. In 1981 a staggering 71% lived in poverty. Today it hovers at 58% (for 2013, the…

You say that African poverty is obscene, and it is. But that obscenity is not for a lack of effort to help. Aid has been a constant in Africa and in other formerly more dreadfully poor places since WWII when the Soviet Union and the US sought to buy influence and it’s never stopped. Development aid hasn’t helped Africa much though it has far, far surpassed aid to Europe after WWII. Absent colonialism you need a funct…

The quote you replied to is referring to global poverty, not Africa specifically. And maybe you missed that it’s a quote from Hickel straight out of the article.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#153

Post by TorKlingberg » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #145

kiba wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is "affording to be able to buy a home" should be our definition of living standard. It seemed to me that we have chosen to increase the cost of living by spreading ourselves out and requiring cars and making homes investments.

Home and land ownership has been one of the main ways that the working class can accumulate wealth. It's the average man's tried and true method of investing.

It is an unfortunate conflict that homes cannot be both stay affordable and be a good investment. Houses accumulated wealth in the 20:th century because they increased in value quickly, but that means they are no longer affordable to many people. We should allow building more homes so people can buy them. But then they won't go up as much in value as when the supply is restricted.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#154

Post by jopsen » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #103

Mirioron wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Pinker's rebuttal was initially supposed to be an email to somebody else. He recognized that Hickel was likely pushing an ideology and left it at that. Even in the email Pinker is saying that he's citing experts in the field. > then went on to calling mild centre-left socialdemocrats A central point in the criticism Hickel wrote was that markets don't work, but regulation, protectionism and state intervention…

I'm pretty sure regulation, protectionism and state intervention in a market economy is the definition of social-democracy.

No, not really.

Social democracy is about solidarity. It does not conflict with a free market which needs regulation to stay free, it does not encourage protectionism, rather it seeks solidarity with others.

I should know I live in one :)

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#155

Post by r00fus » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #140

grecy wrote: post #13

One of the most amazing things I learned reading the excellent "Factfullness" by Hans Rosling [1] is that the poorest countries in the world are currently improving faster than any country ever did, at any point in history. That's correct - countries like Lesotho and Central African Republic are improving faster than his home country of Sweden ever did, at any time. In only his lifetime Sweden went from having an inf…

Rosling, Gates etc are right that things are overall getting better. The rich are getting richer and the very poor are also doing better, but this is coming at the cost of the middle class in Western Europe and the US, where the average couple of working adults can no longer afford to buy a home and have to live with the fact that their jobs are significantly less stable compared to the past. Many are forced to work…

Agreed. Let’s not forget another externality - the environment. Whether it’s climate change due to massive pollution or the destruction of the insect base or plastic in everything, there needs to be a more holistic context.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#156

Post by sonnyblarney » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:49 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #102

barry-cotter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - While some measures have improved, the picture is no where near as good as it is represented. Name a measure of human suffering that has not improved. Healthy lifespan, deaths in childbirth, infant mortality, they’ve all gotten better. > - Using $1.90 as the baseline to beat is too low for what we would consider as being out of poverty. The trend is the same regardless of which poverty line you pick. Poverty is d…

>The trend is the same regardless of which poverty line you pick. Poverty is decreasing, education, literacy and health are rising. The story changes quite a bit - and you know it. If we use $7.40 per day, we see a decline in the proportion of people living in poverty, but it’s not nearly as dramatic as your rosy narrative would have it. In 1981 a staggering 71% lived in poverty. Today it hovers at 58% (for 2013, the…

"in a world that’s as fabulously rich as ours, obscene"

???

Wealth is mostly a function of intelligent social organization.

Why are we so much more vastly wealthy than we were 100 years go? Just because we pump more gas? No - we're smarter.

Wealth is what a country generates, not what it has.

It's not like a 'pile of gold' that we have that magically turns into iPhones.

Most places that have extreme poverty are rife with systematic problems. Total lack of social organization on most levels, corruption, missing or 'never existed' institutions (education, justice, civic etc.). Lack of literacy, education. An absent, stupid or corrupt elite. Etc. etc.

Swedes don't have any real natural resources, not particularly fertile land. They are 'rich' because they are organized.

It's a very hard thing to 'pass on' to other places.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#157

Post by igravious » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

mAEStro-paNDa wrote: post #141

igravious wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enlightenment Now was easily Pinker's worst book. It took the counter-intuitive theme ("hey, things are not so bad when you look at the data") of Better Angels of Our Nature – which is a great book – and ran with it. Enlightenment Now is really two books: the first part deals with (chapter by chapter) a successive list of indicators of human progress. It's second part deals with the philosophical reasons behind human…

Why does criticizing capitalism not fly for you, assuming that is Hickel's position?

Capitalism is not the problem. The excesses of capitalism are.

For example: we've known this since biblical times. Money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is.

Money is not evil in and of itself. Money is a tool. Like a hammer, money can be wielded in bad ways or good. You can build a house or bash someone's skull in. Because you can bash someone's head in with a hammer does that make hammers bad?

Private property and private property rights protect what people have worked for but if someone or some entity accumulates too much wealth and assets and capital at the expense of others then that's a very real problem.

Making a profit is not evil in and of itself; lowering your worker's wages or keeping them low (as inflation inflates away their earning power) to increase your bottom line is evil.

Now, some could argue that this is essential to capitalism, that it'll always be abused. But, one could say that of any system. I think people are coming to realise that capitalism must be strictly regulated in order for it to function well and that is not the same as criticizing capitalism itself. For these reasons those who rail against capitalism itself I have no time for.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#158

Post by mabbo » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

It sounds to me like both sides are picking metrics that make their point the strongest. And the reality is, both can be right. The proportion of the world in extreme poverty (And reducing both metrics are good goals!

The problem, as I see it, is that both of these sides seem to be exploiting the problem of poverty to support political agendas that are perhaps unrelated to poverty. Pinker perhaps moreso than Hickel (but that may be because we literally just read Hickel's very well-written thoughts on it).

The correct way forward, in my view, is to have both sides agree to a combined, single metric or a set of metrics that best capture the essence of the problem. When we agree on how to measure success, we can best see what works to improve it. I mean, presuming both sides actually care about reducing poverty and not just promoting their favorite political system, then coming together to come up with a better overall goal should be something everyone wants to do.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#159

Post by petermcneeley » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:53 PM UTC

igravious wrote: post #114

grecy wrote: post #13

One of the most amazing things I learned reading the excellent "Factfullness" by Hans Rosling [1] is that the poorest countries in the world are currently improving faster than any country ever did, at any point in history. That's correct - countries like Lesotho and Central African Republic are improving faster than his home country of Sweden ever did, at any time. In only his lifetime Sweden went from having an inf…

Enlightenment Now was easily Pinker's worst book. It took the counter-intuitive theme ("hey, things are not so bad when you look at the data") of Better Angels of Our Nature – which is a great book – and ran with it. Enlightenment Now is really two books: the first part deals with (chapter by chapter) a successive list of indicators of human progress. It's second part deals with the philosophical reasons behind human…

Your essay is written as though more than one person wrote it because its so self contradictory. Capitalism and Public programs are in conflict because underlying public efforts is progressive taxation (aka Redistribution). Labour protections (which again is anti capitalist) are pretty key for the creation of the middle class in western countries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkPQbJ4jRhE

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#160

Post by jhbadger » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

ar0 wrote: post #136

Mirioron wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Using $1.90 as the baseline to beat is too low for what we would consider as being out of poverty. It's called absolute poverty for a reason. Just because you're above the absolute poverty threshold doesn't mean you're not poor anymore. It just means that you can minimally survive. Whether you're poor or not depends on the society around you, because poverty determines how well you can participate in society. He…

> Yeah, it was just a coincidence that when China stated opening up their markets that their quality of life improved immensely and hundreds of millions are lifted out of extreme poverty. When you're talking about economic success in general then you can't forget the ex-Soviet states either. The ones that embraced free markets the most recovered the most. China is interesting because you can really use it both ways:…

Literally the whole point of the European Union is to promote free trade (they've just announced that they are going to have free trade with Japan in addition to among themselves). It may look "socialist" to the US right, but to everybody else, it is as capitalistic as it gets. That's actually why the British Left like Jeremy Corbyn has always been rather unenthusiastic about the EU as they see it as more a win for business than for people. Which is kind of why Brexit happened -- pretty much the main "remain" bloc was squashed between the anti-immigrant right and anti-business left.