151–160 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comments like these are completely unacceptable.
How exactly does the parent comment violate HN guidelines?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly does the parent comment violate HN guidelines?
It is literally advocating killing millions of people "because their lives will be miserable anyway". That's how you get genocides.
Perhaps "because their lives will be miserable" argument was indeed dumb though. I wouldn't support environmentally unsustainable actions in any highly developed nation either, no matter how many lives it could save on short-term. Long-term we have no hope if environmental factors aren't taken seriously. As far as most African countries goes, reducing birth rate through any humane means possible should be the primary goal, together with building economic growth on renewables rather than fossil fuels.
I would imagine that developing environmentally sustainable ways to fight malaria shouldn't be so hard if Western countries actually bothered to properly fund such research. Too bad our priorities are elsewhere, like developing more effective weapons. That's the attitude which actually creates genocide, not the idea of long-term sustainable development which I tried to promote with my comment but clearly failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fighting Malaria will presumably enable humans to settle in more areas than before, which will in itself do a lot of ecological damage. Edit: 2 downvotes. At this point, HN might as well switch off voting. It has become ridiculous. Here is something else for you to vote down: 2 + 2 = 4 Take that, suckers!
Mere habitable area is already not the main constraint by far. Farmland isn't even as increased yield has lead to a decrease and market breaking surpluses for almost a century with lesser yield boosts. If habitable land was the constraint we would see ruralization - instead we see urbanization even when policies favor the suburban.
Didn't find a perfect source. But it doesn't seem to support the thesis that less land is required by humans.
Are you saying farmers would work their fields covered in Mosquito nets, while most people live in Malaria free cities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't this argument be applied to any living thing, not just the ones that humans have engineered? As soon as anything can mutate to enter a new niche, it will work the same way as this would.
Usually we breed organisms for weekness. Many of our farm animals and plants wouldnt survive without our protection. Also mutations, often have to overcome obsticles to conquer a new niche. They have to reach a specific habitat or deploy seeds at a distribution system (cars driving dirt roads e.g.). Lets take a nice little SciFi Example- NASA breeds in its lab a terraformer for venus, a sort of airborn spirondella. T…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The limiting factor ends up being competition much more than it ends up being rate of reproduction. For example, we'd get sick a lot more if we weren't teeming with more or less symbiotic organisms. A fungus that specializes in infecting Anopheles and also destroys the resource that it is optimized to consume isn't just going to up and start dissolving rubber.
> A fungus that specializes in infecting Anopheles Research was made in the nine species known of the genus Metarhizum. Some of them are known to science since only 10 years ago when some of the species were better studied and split and hidden species appeared. Some species seem to be specialist, like M. acridi, that target grasshoppers. Other are generalist, like M. anisopliae that can attack insects of seven differ…
http://vestaron.com/products.html
It's a spray on insecticide and has gone through EPA approval.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What makes you think the gap is compounding? Is that fact-based, or feelings-based? What a strange way to engage in a debate. I already explained why I think the gap is compounding. Feel free to offer a constructive rebuttal if you disagree. > We've wiped out two thirds of the world's extreme poverty in twenty years. That is fantastic. How does it relate to the compounding power gap we’re discussing?
If you read Factfulness , you'll find that it's not a strange way to engage at all. One thing Hans Rosling proved and taught is that even well-educated, caring, attentive people are incredibly wrong about simple facts about global economics and health - so much so that, on his multiple-choice questions, every group he examined performed worse on their answers than if they simply guessed at random. So yes, "Is this be…
First, don’t use yearly growth rates when discussing long-term trends. The data is too noisy. Ten year averages should be your minimum for the topic at hand.
Second, GDP is not a useful way to detect the ways in which former colonies are crippled. There are several reasons, but just to name a few: it does not distinguish raw materials from refined goods and advanced industries (why do you think Lybia is on top of your list?); it does not reflect quality of life or security; it does not reflect independence from foreign interests; it does not reflect military power or the ability to influence global and regional affairs. There isn’t a single metric which neatly reflects every dimension of the problem (I never claimed there was), but as a starting point for further research, I recommend studying the UN’s IHDI report. You can find lists of countries sorted by IHDI. Another good thing to do is study the bottom third of pretty much any sorted list of countries - by IHDI, HDI, any variation of GDP or GDP growth - and ask yourself 1) “why are these countries in the bottom?” and 2) “how likely are these countries to be in the top third in 50 years?”.
Third, study the role of Trans-National Corporations in the world economy. How much do they contribute to the economic output of former colonies? To what extent are they headquartered in former colonial powers? To what extent are their profits, and capital gains realized by their shareholders, reinvested in former colonies vs. colonial powers? Can you spot a compounding effect?
Fourth, for a different take on the problem, study the racial wealth gap in the US, Canada and Australia. Study the development state of indigenous nations within those countries. Can you guess the root cause of this state of affairs? Can you spot a compounding effect?
Lastly, quoting from your favorite self-help book doesn’t make you magically smarter or more convincing, just obnoxious.
I hope these pointers will help you in your quest for “factfulness”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read Factfulness , you'll find that it's not a strange way to engage at all. One thing Hans Rosling proved and taught is that even well-educated, caring, attentive people are incredibly wrong about simple facts about global economics and health - so much so that, on his multiple-choice questions, every group he examined performed worse on their answers than if they simply guessed at random. So yes, "Is this be…
You write very confidently, but don’t seem to have a good grasp of this topic, so I’ll give you a few pointers. First, don’t use yearly growth rates when discussing long-term trends. The data is too noisy. Ten year averages should be your minimum for the topic at hand. Second, GDP is not a useful way to detect the ways in which former colonies are crippled. There are several reasons, but just to name a few: it does n…
Why is Libya at the top of the list? Probably due to the growth response to the cessation (or at least reduction) of civil war. That happens. And no, this doesn't take into account raw materials vs advanced production, which is a long-term growth concern for many countries. On the other hand, many former colonies are developing advanced manufacturing, particularly in Asia.
Military power and the ability to influence global affairs via violence is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Exploitation at gunpoint is no longer a viable economic model, and hasn't really been since WWII, which is why colonization ended in the first place.
Believe it or not, former colonies are independent nations with independent economies and independent goals, who don't just exist at the tolerance of great powers anymore. Your attitude towards them pretends to be supportive, but is actually utterly condescending. Really, please stop and think about that point.
I'm well aware of the role of trans-national corporations in this system (I use the phrase "neoliberal hegemony" pretty freely). But the simple fact is, when those corporations invest in former colonial economies, they're creating jobs and growth there, and there's a lot more opportunity there than in the fully developed economies of former colonial powers. That's why those economies are growing so fast. China in particular (a former colony itself) has invested heavily in its "Belt and Road" approach to investing in infrastructure to create mutually beneficial trade opportunities - building ports, factories, communications, etc.
And yes, I'm aware of the racial wealth gap in the US (which is a special case in many ways) and other countries. Been studying it for decades, actually.
Of course you think it's obnoxious. You're getting told that your condescending attitude towards former colonies and reactionary attitude toward their "oppressors" is wrong, that things are much better than you think they are. Being wrong is a bitter pill to swallow. But which is better... feeling good about being wrong, or being right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read Factfulness , you'll find that it's not a strange way to engage at all. One thing Hans Rosling proved and taught is that even well-educated, caring, attentive people are incredibly wrong about simple facts about global economics and health - so much so that, on his multiple-choice questions, every group he examined performed worse on their answers than if they simply guessed at random. So yes, "Is this be…
You write very confidently, but don’t seem to have a good grasp of this topic, so I’ll give you a few pointers. First, don’t use yearly growth rates when discussing long-term trends. The data is too noisy. Ten year averages should be your minimum for the topic at hand. Second, GDP is not a useful way to detect the ways in which former colonies are crippled. There are several reasons, but just to name a few: it does n…
It's not weird to think a book can make you smarter, either. Assuming you believe reading and learning in general make you smarter (I assume you do), and that smart and engaged people are sometimes wrong (I assume you believe that as well), then it stands to reason that a book dedicated to understanding how smart and engaged people can believe incorrect things will make you even smarter than before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the book and others with similar thoughts suggest anything like being paralyzed with fear, so we should be OK here.
I disagree. The often unstated sentiment under such thoughts is always "hmm, this sounds way too crazy, we probably shouldn't do it because it feels too much like 'Playing God'!". It's a form of concern-trolling: deep down inside you are against something, but don't want to say that openly, so instead you pretend to side with the proponents, but choose to play the role of "concerned citizen" and invent scary scenario…
What is encouraged is taking actions that have well understood OR bounded risk.
By bringing up "concern-trolling", I am concerned you have given up the fight. By avoiding the direct argument and retreating to this supposed hidden argument, which is much easier to counter, there is not anything left to discuss. Tell me if I am misunderstanding.