Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

atlas.cid.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

#51

Post by anon4this1 »

pc86 wrote: post #39
anon4this1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty" Objectively, humanity most closely resembles a cancer. The more you feed it, the more it grows. It tramples everything in its path. The belief that somehow exponential economic growth is going to fix everything and everyone will lead happy middle class lives in some kind of harmony with nature is delusional. We are in the midst of the largest mass extinction eve…

Then by all means, everyone who lives there can continue living in huts so that the trees aren't disturbed, right? This entire argument is insane.

In modern economic terms, subsistence living in small communities barely registers as existence at all. However it is the way most of humanity lived for most of history. And generally it seemed to be a satisfying way of life. We evolved to live in this way.

We think of people living in situations of subsistence as being unbearably impoverished and disadvantaged now. We have no evidence that we are really any happier or more fulfilled than them. We have longer life expectancy, and we spend much of it isolated and lonely and sick.

Re: New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

#52

Post by ashwinaj »

anon4this1 wrote: post #24
pc86 wrote: post #23

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?

> Why do they deserve to be prioritised over the millions of other species on earth?

Hmm...should save a human or an animal? Wow this sub thread is shocking. Let me throw in my obnoxious hat into the ring; why not get rid of useless/unproductive/racist/bigoted/terrorists/middle management people to save the animals? Even better, why don't I unilaterally decide who is important and who isn't just to save animals? Just....wow.

Re: New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

#53

Post by pc86 »

anon4this1 wrote: post #51
pc86 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then by all means, everyone who lives there can continue living in huts so that the trees aren't disturbed, right? This entire argument is insane.

In modern economic terms, subsistence living in small communities barely registers as existence at all. However it is the way most of humanity lived for most of history. And generally it seemed to be a satisfying way of life. We evolved to live in this way. We think of people living in situations of subsistence as being unbearably impoverished and disadvantaged now. We have no evidence that we are really any happier…

Which is interesting considering you're posting that argument on a forum on the internet, run by a company whose entire existence is based around economic expansion and acquisition of material wealth.

Re: New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

#54

Post by douche »

anon4this1 wrote: post #51
pc86 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then by all means, everyone who lives there can continue living in huts so that the trees aren't disturbed, right? This entire argument is insane.

In modern economic terms, subsistence living in small communities barely registers as existence at all. However it is the way most of humanity lived for most of history. And generally it seemed to be a satisfying way of life. We evolved to live in this way. We think of people living in situations of subsistence as being unbearably impoverished and disadvantaged now. We have no evidence that we are really any happier…

Arguably, Clovis people at the end of the last Ice Age killed off the majority of large mammals in North and South America. Living at a subsistence level is no real remedy against impact on the environment.

What I believe will happen, and really, we are already starting to see this happen in the United States, is that the concentration of humanity into denser populations in the urban and suburban zones means that the more rural zones become abandoned and grow back up. New England is more densely forested now than it has been in 200 years, because the population has concentrated in the cities, and land that was formerly cleared for intensive agriculture has fallen into disuse.

Re: New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

#55

Post by littletimmy »

ashwinaj wrote: post #52
anon4this1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Why do they deserve to be prioritised over the millions of other species on earth? Hmm...should save a human or an animal? Wow this sub thread is shocking. Let me throw in my obnoxious hat into the ring; why not get rid of useless/unproductive/racist/bigoted/terrorists/middle management people to save the animals? Even better, why don't I unilaterally decide who is important and who isn't just to save animals? Just…

Is it the slippery slope you're worried about?

Nobody is really talking about killing people in this thread. What is being said is that the unnecessary development of Africa will lead to a population explosion and vast increase in consumption of resources that will hurt animals. We should not be encouraging development, and should focus on curating the African wilderness.

Re: New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

#56

Post by anovikov »

abhishivsaxena wrote: post #31
roymurdock wrote: post #5

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…

I don't have a study to back it up, but it seems the high pollution levels in Indian cities are mostly because of extremely high vehicular density - based on my unscientific observation that most polluted areas of Delhi are next to transportation depots/stations. Anand Vihar - a suburb of Delhi - for example, is the most polluted place in the world, but that's also because it's the gateway to Delhi for people from th…

What are the unfixable problems that prevent manufacturing in India?

Re: New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

#57

Post by douche »

littletimmy wrote: post #55
ashwinaj wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do they deserve to be prioritised over the millions of other species on earth? Hmm...should save a human or an animal? Wow this sub thread is shocking. Let me throw in my obnoxious hat into the ring; why not get rid of useless/unproductive/racist/bigoted/terrorists/middle management people to save the animals? Even better, why don't I unilaterally decide who is important and who isn't just to save animals? Just…

Is it the slippery slope you're worried about? Nobody is really talking about killing people in this thread. What is being said is that the unnecessary development of Africa will lead to a population explosion and vast increase in consumption of resources that will hurt animals. We should not be encouraging development, and should focus on curating the African wilderness.

Who is this we? If people in Africa want to exploit their natural resources to develop and improve their lives, they should be free to do so. Everybody else has.

It's a little hypocritical for Westerners who have already reaped the benefits and costs of development to pull the ladder up after themselves for the rest of the world. I'm not of the persuasion that colonialism was the worst thing ever since the start of time, but it is especially hypocritical and racist to say "Oh, sorry, we built some shoddy infrastructure, wrecked a lot of your traditional society, and used you to extract resources, now you should go back to living in grass huts and dying of treatable diseases to save the rhinos."

If Africa can develop by skipping some of the shittier stages of agriculture->industry->post-industry evolution that we've experienced in the US, or Europe, or China, then that's a good thing.

Re: New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

#59

Post by vadym909 »

anovikov wrote: post #56
abhishivsaxena wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a study to back it up, but it seems the high pollution levels in Indian cities are mostly because of extremely high vehicular density - based on my unscientific observation that most polluted areas of Delhi are next to transportation depots/stations. Anand Vihar - a suburb of Delhi - for example, is the most polluted place in the world, but that's also because it's the gateway to Delhi for people from th…

What are the unfixable problems that prevent manufacturing in India?

1. High Govt regulation, permission, licensing, red tape, labor laws, politics 2. Irregular power and water supply 3. Poor infrastructure/Logistics- Roads, Bridges, Rails, Ports

Re: New Global Growth Projections Predict the Decade of India

#60

Post by littletimmy »

douche wrote: post #57
littletimmy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it the slippery slope you're worried about? Nobody is really talking about killing people in this thread. What is being said is that the unnecessary development of Africa will lead to a population explosion and vast increase in consumption of resources that will hurt animals. We should not be encouraging development, and should focus on curating the African wilderness.

Who is this we? If people in Africa want to exploit their natural resources to develop and improve their lives, they should be free to do so. Everybody else has. It's a little hypocritical for Westerners who have already reaped the benefits and costs of development to pull the ladder up after themselves for the rest of the world. I'm not of the persuasion that colonialism was the worst thing ever since the start of t…

Maybe the Westerners who exploited these lands should pay reparations to Africa and fast-track their development past industrialization. Or just offer Africans resettlement in Europe and the United States, thereby preserving African wilderness.
Post reply on HN