301–310 of 369 posts
Also, I am baffled that this is apparently a Nature publication, sounds more like an op-ed for a newspaper. What was the research result that was communicated in the article? It's barely exhaustive enough to count as a literature review.
"The philosopher John Stuart Mill noted more than 200 years ago that, once decent living standards were assured, human efforts should be directed to the pursuit of social and moral progress and the increase of leisure, not the competitive struggle for material wealth" Yes, we took the wrong turn. Most people are subjected to a life long rat race of economic relevance/volatility where most of their waking hours are sp…
For better or worse we gave up on slavery a long time ago. We decided that humans shouldn't be directed but rather be left to choose their own direction. This means that they are likely to choose, literally and metaphorically, junk food over vegetables. While vegetables may be better for you, it turns out humans like to taste the competitive struggle for material wealth. If it wasn't obvious 200 years ago, we have learned that helping your neighbour live a good life doesn't spark the same desire as striving to have something to show that you are better than your neighbour.
> It's unclear who this destructive machine is serving.
Those who participate in it. This "machine" you speak of is nothing more than the aggregate of choices made by a population of people. They could change, but what's the incentive? Leisure isn't the top priority of the human. Mating is. And displays of "being better" help attract higher quality mates. We have yet to figure out how to provide decent mating options for all so competition is still required.
Needs a (2014) tag. Also, I am baffled that this is apparently a Nature publication, sounds more like an op-ed for a newspaper. What was the research result that was communicated in the article? It's barely exhaustive enough to count as a literature review.
This has been known since the idea was first conceived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Limitat... The real issue is simply that, a lot of the things we want to convert to simple metrics can't be. Suppose I hand you a list of the exact rate each crime in a country was committed, and I ask you to convert that list to a single number, how would you do so? You could assign a weight to each crime, bu…
Apparently my high school teacher should have written a nature paper, instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that "traveling the stars" is a worthy goal, even more worthy than stewardship of the paradise we already have. We are living in heaven. We have a wonderful planet that nurtures us yet we continue to sabotage our favorable situation for the sake of growing worthless numbers like GDP, all while some people starve or are forced into lives of misery. And yes, I have read Para…
The earth is at best a temporary paradise, doomed to be burned up by a rogue asteroid or if it's exceedingly lucky its very own sun. Also incomprehensibly limited in the population and diversity of life it can support when compared with the universe. How incredibly selfish of us to decide we shall be the select few that get to live on a single planet when the universe has the potential to support so many more lives.…
You don't know that. We don't know what happens to objects that fall into black holes. In fact, it's quite possible we're already inside a black hole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Economist recently reported on a study that used the brightness of countries' lights at night as proxy for GDP[1][2]. The study suggests China and other autocracies have significantly exaggerated their GDP growth over the last twenty years. [1]: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/09/29/a-study-... [2]: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/how-much-should-we-tr...
I could for example use a sales of buckwheat as a proxy of GDP! I think ut will be some interesting reporting about who is exaggerated their GDP!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually we can get better metrics than GDP by measuring amount of light on satellite night images. It fits GDP more or less for western democracies, but it it better measure for other countries.
Night light is easy to fake with upward-facing illuminators.
The title/article seems to be a bit of a strawman, AFAICT countries (or their governments / citizens) do not consider the GDP as the one and only measure of national success. Politics are driven by tons of different interest groups (in the broadest sense, ranging from corporate interests, environmental activists, minority representatives, medical or teaching professionals, farmers, retirees living on state pensions,…
Have they tried securing access to large amounts of cheap energy? It is a bit of a win-win because either GDP goes up and case closed or they can sit back and relax in luxury mulling why GDP didn't go up despite massive increases in the general prosperity.
Energy isn't the entire story because there also need to be people around who know how to transform it into whatever you want, but it is a rather important part of the puzzle. After that, freedom and education are probably going to make up the rest. What else is there? I suppose land ownership.
The puzzle isn't that complicated. We all know what comfort looks like. Asking how to make GDP go up is the wrong question, it is just a tool to point out when policies are wasting resources. More waste -> less GDP -> notice that and waste less -> reorient to secure prosperity.
The title/article seems to be a bit of a strawman, AFAICT countries (or their governments / citizens) do not consider the GDP as the one and only measure of national success. Politics are driven by tons of different interest groups (in the broadest sense, ranging from corporate interests, environmental activists, minority representatives, medical or teaching professionals, farmers, retirees living on state pensions,…
> In truth, pretty much nobody really knows for sure what policies actually will increase GDP... Have they tried securing access to large amounts of cheap energy? It is a bit of a win-win because either GDP goes up and case closed or they can sit back and relax in luxury mulling why GDP didn't go up despite massive increases in the general prosperity. Energy isn't the entire story because there also need to be people…
Securing large amounts of cheap energy is non trivial as europe is beginning to find out.