Too many monkeys in the zoo

[Gorbles]

Ah yeah, the corrupt colonial powers of Switzerland, Korea, Finland, Austria, Slovenia or Iceland. I understand their conquest and plundering of countries in the third world for 500 years is the reason why they have a wealthy lifestyle and they should totally feel guilty and responsible of what happens there, take responsability and start paying up.

I would suggest that resorting to sarcasm instead of engaging with the point being made is definitely not how we reach the best solutions.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Ah yeah, the corrupt colonial powers of Switzerland, Korea, Finland, Austria, Slovenia or Iceland. I understand their conquest and plundering of countries in the third world for 500 years is the reason why they have a wealthy lifestyle and they should totally feel guilty and responsible of what happens there, take responsability and start paying up.

Switzerland certainly profited from colonialisation and continues to profit from exploitation of the 3rd world.
You don't have to be a colonial power to benefit if you are financing them.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switze...ns which they often proudly called “colonies”.

 

[Akka]

I would suggest that resorting to sarcasm instead of engaging with the point being made is definitely not how we reach the best solutions.

Gratuitous sarcasm is useless, but it's a case of actually useful sarcasm that points at the absurdity of the same tired old cliché.

Switzerland certainly profited from colonialisation and continues to profit from exploitation of the 3rd world.
You don't have to be a colonial power to benefit if you are financing them.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-and-its-colonists/45946742#:~:text=One of the worst kinds of Swiss involvement,great plantations which they often proudly called “colonies”.

What about all the others wealthy countries I listed ?
What about the countries that were colonized themselves and ended up wealthy (like Canada, New Zealand, Australia) ?
There were only four real main colonial powers (France, UK, Spain, Portugal), which must account for about 90 % of every colonized countries in the world. A case can be made for the USA due to massive interference and economic pressure. But there are MANY more than these five countries which have reached comfortable level of wealth.
Falling back and on this regurgitated excuse is just lazyness and won't help finding a solution, because at some point you won't manage to guilt-trip people into paying when they realize they have little to do with the argument provided.

By all means you can argue that the capitalist system of today rest on the exploitation of the poors by the wealthy (as I said, "classes"), but pretending it's because "colonization since 500 years" is just not going to fly, on top of being grossly simplistic.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Bout to hit 8 billion human beings.

What do you think about that?

I really wanted pictures of monkeys in zoos. They’re some of the funniest and coolest animals. Title really mislead me.

 

[Gorbles]

Gratuitous sarcasm is useless, but it's a case of actually useful sarcasm that points at the absurdity of the same tired old cliché.

It's not useful at all, because it leaves people guessing as to the reason for it. You explain this in the second part of this post just now, which helps, but ultimately leads us to "you disagree with AZ that colonialist exploitation is to blame". You could just, y'know, say that. Then we'd skip the past five posts or so in favour of something more constructive.

Like, you consider something a cliche. I consider "but that's technically not colonialism" a cliche as well, because it's frequently used to downplay its impact. Calling it "regurgitated" and "laziness" is more of the same. Would it have helped if I have responded to your argument with sarcasm, or would it have escalated the discussion in the wrong direction? I assume the latter.

This whole tangent is about the state of developed (often Western) nations vs. exploited developing nations. Colonialism is inherent to this discussion. When we're talking about education, it's incredibly inherent. Why is Australia relevant when discussion Britain's colonialism? Because Australia exists because of it. The same as New Zealand. The same as Canada (with help from France, etc). The same as the States (again, with help from France, etc). They not magically uninvolved somehow. You're listing countries that exist in their modern form because of colonialist expansion literally at the cost of indigenous rights, livelihoods and literal lives.

 

[Senethro]

I wonder what the "Colonialism stopped existing in 19XX" explanation of global wealth disparity is...

To fix a thing, it helps to be able to understand and explain a thing.

 

[Akka]

It's not useful at all, because it leaves people guessing as to the reason for it.

When someone claims that "countries are wealthy because colonization since 500 years" and I make sarcasm by listing wealthy countries which had nothing to do with colonization, I don't think it leaves a lot of room to guess wrong, unless someone really want to do so.

Like, you consider something a cliche. I consider "but that's technically not colonialism" a cliche as well, because it's frequently used to downplay its impact. Calling it "regurgitated" and "laziness" is more of the same.

We're not even, by a long shot, in the domain of "not technically colonalism" in many if not most cases. At best we could be in the "stretching the definition of colonialism so far it loses all meaning and is just a blanket term for all possible aspect of economic unbalance", at which point it lands squarely in the sarcasm-deserving answer. As I said several times, the problem of wealth repartition today is the unchecked capitalist system, not the "historical european colonialism".

This whole tangent is about the state of developed (often Western) nations vs. exploited developing nations. Colonialism is inherent to this discussion. When we're talking about education, it's incredibly inherent. Why is Australia relevant when discussion Britain's colonialism? Because Australia exists because of it. The same as New Zealand. The same as Canada (with help from France, etc). The same as the States (again, with help from France, etc). They not magically uninvolved somehow. You're listing countries that exist in their modern form because of colonialist expansion literally at the cost of indigenous rights, livelihoods and literal lives.

No, it's not inherent and even less "incredibly so", due to what I point above. If colonialism was the root cause, Australia being created by colonialism should mean that Australia would be a victim of it, its resources leeched by the colonial power. Instead, it's part of the wealthy elite in the nations (like Canada, like New Zealand). Samely, all the (conveniently left out) wealthy countries that had never any meaningful link with any sort of colonialism (like the nordic or central european countries) would not be wealthy if the argument had actual value (unless, again, we twist the word to meaninglessness, at which point the entire argument becomes moot).

To get back at overconsumption and overpopulation, maybe (certainly even) that the wealthy countries have to give their part due to simply having the means to do so, but let's not go into infantilization by pretending that countries having population explosions and doing nothing to rein it in are just blameless victims and have no responsibilities in it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Gratuitous sarcasm is useless, but it's a case of actually useful sarcasm that points at the absurdity of the same tired old cliché.

What about all the others wealthy countries I listed ?
What about the countries that were colonized themselves and ended up wealthy (like Canada, New Zealand, Australia) ?
There were only four real main colonial powers (France, UK, Spain, Portugal), which must account for about 90 % of every colonized countries in the world. A case can be made for the USA due to massive interference and economic pressure. But there are MANY more than these five countries which have reached comfortable level of wealth.
Falling back and on this regurgitated excuse is just lazyness and won't help finding a solution, because at some point you won't manage to guilt-trip people into paying when they realize they have little to do with the argument provided.

By all means you can argue that the capitalist system of today rest on the exploitation of the poors by the wealthy (as I said, "classes"), but pretending it's because "colonization since 500 years" is just not going to fly, on top of being grossly simplistic.

I didn't say only colonialisation, but it certainly played a part. The former colonies particularly in Africa are amongst the poorest countries in the world.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are inhabited by descendants of colonists who dispossessed the indigenous inhabitants who remain amongst the poorest people in those countries.

 

[Senethro]

To get back at overconsumption and overpopulation, maybe (certainly even) that the wealthy countries have to give their part due to simply having the means to do so, but let's not go into infantilization by pretending that countries having population explosions and doing nothing to rein it in are just blameless victims and have no responsibilities in it.

Its very easy to take a swipe like this in a country that has already had its population explosion. Very moral high ground.

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem is over consumption, and right now thats us (developed world), and in the short term future it'll be everyone.

There's a third problem, which is that we also have people that are too poor to overconsume. With regards to my next question, this horror is blindingly worse than whatever we imagine.

Do people (here) think that we can get onto a sustainable path without a significant reduction in their current quality of life?

 

[Gorbles]

When someone claims that "countries are wealthy because colonization since 500 years" and I make sarcasm by listing wealthy countries which had nothing to do with colonization, I don't think it leaves a lot of room to guess wrong, unless someone really want to do so.

But the point is that you disagree. It's not that these countries have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that you disagree that they had something to do with it. Your claim, their claim, my claim. You're pushing yours as the inarguable fact here, which only hurts finding the best solution (r.e. overconsumption).

We're not even, by a long shot, in the domain of "not technically colonalism" in many if not most cases.

Disagree! I appreciate it's hard to generalise, and it's a pain for the thread to go over the examples one by one. But if you accept that I disagree with you over something that is arguable, or that AZ disagrees with you, does this not make our arguments therefore internally-consistent? And if you can't accept that it is arguable, is there any point to this discussion?

Australia being created by colonialism should mean that Australia would be a victim of it, its resources leeched by the colonial power

The Australian indigenous people are, absolutely. The mostly-white descendants of our colonial escapades aren't what I'd call victims, exactly. And the resulting power structure has enriched the non-indigenous at the cost of indigenous people, so, again, the point here is how Australia as it currently exists is a beneficiary of colonialism (and the inherent sidelining and marginalisation of the indigenous people who lived there beforehand).

Again, to get back to overconsumption, the reason why so many countries are in the state that they are is because of colonialism. Let's stop pretending it's something that's 500 years old, eh? People still talk about the British Empire now. South Africa has only started to undo apartheid in most adults' living memory. Indigenous rights in Canada, Australia, the US and elsewhere are an ongoing battle (for the indigenous people). When you talk about a Western standard of living, or quality of living, that we apparently can't raise everyone up to, you're talking about something that exists because of our colonial history.

Do you want the best solution? Or do you want the best solution that also doesn't impact you negatively at all? Which wouldn't be the best solution, but blaming countries for their "population explosions" without considering ours is already starting off on the wrong foot, so.

 

[AmazonQueen]

There's a third problem, which is that we also have people that are too poor to overconfidence. With regards to my next question, this horror is blindingly worse than whatever we imagine.

Do people (here) think that we can get onto a sustainable path without a significant reduction in their current quality of life?

A significant reduction in consumption is certainly required by most, if not all, people in wealthy countries. Not all of that need translate to a reduction in quality of life.

 

[El_Machinae]

Destructive consumption. Yes. And let's grant that it's hard to calculate consumption when it's front loaded but generates savings (like tearing down four fine houses to build an apartment complex)


But I am being specific wrt Quality of Life being my question, please

 

[Lexicus]

I make sarcasm by listing wealthy countries which had nothing to do with colonization, I don't think it leaves a lot of room to guess wrong, unless someone really want to do so.

Except of course none of those countries "had nothing to do with colonization", not having their own colonies and "having nothing to do with colonization" are quite different propositions.

 

[Senethro]

Do people (here) think that we can get onto a sustainable path without a significant reduction in their current quality of life?

No.

I mean, in my opinion I'll experience a higher quality of life because I'd buy more into a society that isn't doomed or advancing the HOlocene extinction, but those are very non-material benefits.

 

[AmazonQueen]

No.

I mean, in my opinion I'll experience a higher quality of life because I'd buy more into a society that isn't doomed or advancing the HOlocene extinction, but those are very non-material benefits.

Yes, I think some degree of sacrifice is justified so that my children and grandchildren have some quality of life (not measured just in luxury consumer goods).

 

[sophie]

You know there’s like, a whole field of study devoted to solving this issue, right?

Degrowth: A response to Branko Milanovic — Jason Hickel

In late 2017, Branko Milanovic wrote a blog post titled “ The illusion of degrowth in a poor and unequal world .” He penned it, he says, following a conversation he had with a proponent of degrowth, which was me. I wrote a response, which I have updated here for clarity, and to a

www.jasonhickel.org

What actually matters for human well-being is provisioning – in other words, people’s access to the resources they need to live long, healthy, flourishing lives. The reason GDP is an unsuitable metric here is because it only counts a very narrow slice of economic activity; specifically, that which has to do with commodity exchange-value. It does not count all forms of provisioning; in fact, much of the provisioning we rely on is totally ignored by, and irrelevant to, GDP. Milanovic knows this.

So it’s quite possible that GDP could go up while provisioning declines; for instance, if the UK National Health Service were privatized, GDP would go up but people’s access to healthcare would be curtailed (the same is true for virtually all forms of privatization or enclosure). Similarly, GDP could go down while provisioning improves; for instance, if the UK government imposed rent controls, or restored public housing, GDP might take a hit but people would have easier access to housing. This trade-off is known as the Lauderdale Paradox.

Now, when we think about the question in terms of resource provisioning, the picture changes quite a bit. It becomes clear that there’s no scarcity at all. Recent research has found that we could end global poverty and ensure flourishing lives for everyone on the planet (for 10 billion people by the middle of the century), including universal healthcare and education, with 60% less energy than we presently use (150 EJ, well within what is considered compatible with 1.5C). As for resource use, we know that high-income nations could meet their citizens’ material needs at a high standard, with up to 80% less resource use, bringing them back within the sustainable threshold.

From this angle, it becomes clear that capitalism is highly inefficient when it comes to meeting human needs; it produces so much, and yet leaves 60% of the human population without access to even the most basic goods. Why? Because a huge portion of commodity production (and all the energy and materials it requires) is irrelevant to human well-being. Consider this thought experiment: Portugal has significantly better social outcomes than the United States, with 65% less GDP per capita. This means that $38,000 of US per capita income is effectively ‘wasted’. That adds up to $13 trillion per year for the US economy as a whole; $13 trillion worth of extraction and production and consumption each year, and $13 trillion worth of ecological pressure, that adds nothing, in and of itself, to human well-being. It is damage without gain.

This should not come as a surprise, because the point of capitalism is surplus extraction, elite accumulation, and reinvestment for expansion – not meeting human needs. To the extent that the system does meet human needs, this is generally the result of political interventions (i.e., unions, labour rights, public provisioning, etc.).

 

[Akka]

I didn't say only colonialisation, but it certainly played a part.

That I would have agreed, but what you actually wrote doesn't sound like that :

These are the countries we've looted for the last 500 years, whose corrupt governments we've maintained and whose corrupt elites we encourage to bank here, spend their stolen money here, buy property here and send their children to be educated here.
We continue to take more from the 3rd world in resources and profits than we provide in terms of aid.
It was the rich countries who made the world the way it is, its their responsibility to at least play a part in fixing it.

I clearly don't get the feel of this nuance here.

But the point is that you disagree. It's not that these countries have nothing to do with it, it's the fact that you disagree that they had something to do with it. Your claim, their claim, my claim. You're pushing yours as the inarguable fact here, which only hurts finding the best solution (r.e. overconsumption).

You and @Lexicus can claim that Iceland, Korea and Slovenia had something to do with colonialism, but at this point I'm just going to point at this :

We're not even, by a long shot, in the domain of "not technically colonalism" in many if not most cases. At best we could be in the "stretching the definition of colonialism so far it loses all meaning and is just a blanket term for all possible aspect of economic unbalance", at which point it lands squarely in the sarcasm-deserving answer. .

Again, to get back to overconsumption, the reason why so many countries are in the state that they are is because of colonialism. Let's stop pretending it's something that's 500 years old, eh? People still talk about the British Empire now. South Africa has only started to undo apartheid in most adults' living memory. Indigenous rights in Canada, Australia, the US and elsewhere are an ongoing battle (for the indigenous people). When you talk about a Western standard of living, or quality of living, that we apparently can't raise everyone up to, you're talking about something that exists because of our colonial history.

Colonialism is one of the main reasons, but it's not the only one. I used the several examples of wealthy countries that weren't colonized (and there are also a LARGE amount of wealthy or at least second-rank economy countries that were colonized) to point that it goes beyond "colonialism".

Do you want the best solution? Or do you want the best solution that also doesn't impact you negatively at all? Which wouldn't be the best solution, but blaming countries for their "population explosions" without considering ours is already starting off on the wrong foot, so.

I want a solution that keep everyone responsible.
Let the wealthy (the actual ones, who gain billions with the system, not the worker in an overall country that already has trouble meeting end and somehow gets accused of "benefiting colonialism") pay their share. Heck, give a larger part of my taxes if we can ensure that it does end up making a difference (not fond of just giving it to warlords). Punish waste. Reward efficiency. Tax excessive consumption. Develop new technology for better use of what we have. I'm fine with all that.
But don't ask me to cut on what should be acceptable consumption if the population hadn't multiplied by five in a single century. And yes I will blame countries for their population explosion just like you blame countries for colonialism. I don't buy the argument that some countries have all responsabilities and others have none.

As for "our" population explosion, France went from 26 millions in the 1700s to 66 millions today (and a good 5 to 10 millions come from immigration and not natural growth). That's just doubling population in 250 years. We're talking about countries getting three to five times more populous in 70 years. So yeah, I'm already considering "ours". If the world had only doubled its population since the XVIIIth century, I don't think overpopulation would be a problem today.

 

[Lexicus]

Do people (here) think that we can get onto a sustainable path without a significant reduction in their current quality of life?

I don't think living more sustainably necessarily means living worse. I do think that most Americans are so psychologically damaged by exposure to (ie, living inside) the rapacious American system that they would subjectively experience it (at least at first) as a quality-of-life decline though.

 

[AmazonQueen]

That I would have agreed, but what you actually wrote doesn't sound like that :

These are the countries we've looted for the last 500 years, whose corrupt governments we've maintained and whose corrupt elites we encourage to bank here, spend their stolen money here, buy property here and send their children to be educated here.
We continue to take more from the 3rd world in resources and profits than we provide in terms of aid.
It was the rich countries who made the world the way it is, its their responsibility to at least play a part in fixing it.

I clearly don't get the feel of this nuance here.

You and @Lexicus can claim that Iceland, Korea and Slovenia had something to do with colonialism, but at this point I'm just going to point at this :



Colonialism is one of the main reasons, but it's not the only one. I used the several examples of wealthy countries that weren't colonized (and there are also a LARGE amount of wealthy or at least second-rank economy countries that were colonized) to point that it goes beyond "colonialism".

I want a solution that keep everyone responsible. Let the wealthy (the actual ones, who gain billions with the system, not the worker in an overall country that already has trouble meeting end and somehow gets accused of "benefiting colonialism") pay their share. Heck, give a larger part of my taxes if we can ensure that it does end up making a difference (not fond of just giving it to warlords). Don't ask me to cut on what should be acceptable consumption if the population hadn't multiplied by five in a single century. And yes I will blame countries for their population explosion just like you blame countries for colonialism. I don't buy the argument that some countries have all responsabilities and others have none.

As for "our" population explosion, France went from 26 millions in the 1700s to 66 millions today (and a good 5 to 10 millions come from immigration and not natural growth). That's just doubling population in 250 years. We're talking about countries getting five to ten times more populous in 70 years. So yeah, I'm already considering "ours". If the world had only doubled its population since the XVIIIth century, I don't think overpopulation would be a problem today.

It was a list of various things that started with colonialism and you thought I was saying only colonialism? Sorry I couldn't make it clear enough for you but |I'm not sure what would have worked.