this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
126 points (98.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43606 readers
2035 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] essell@lemmy.world 49 points 5 days ago (3 children)

There's fewer people in poverty now than at any point in history.

The world has always been getting better in global measures of health, food and education if you consider all of humanity.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Fewer people in poverty" seems unlikely.

Now, a lower percentage of people seems like a given

[–] essell@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Statistically, it's both

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 15 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I don’t think that’s actually true. Have the metrics for what we consider poverty changed and adapted with inflation and the perfecting of corporate wealth hoarding? “Poverty” is an ambiguous term, and relative poverty is real. That doesn’t show in a standard-line “poverty” metric. What was considered “extreme poverty” is the lowest, but that’s people living on under $1.90/day. I couldn’t even find information on that metric being updated to reflect the current high inflation and profit-explosion landscape.

Also: if you technically pull people out of poverty by outsourcing to the lowest paying, least labor regulated parts of the world, is the fact that extreme poverty went away in those areas even a good thing?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

if you technically pull people out of poverty by outsourcing to the lowest paying, least labor regulated parts of the world, is the fact that extreme poverty went away in those areas even a good thing?

Yes. Your prospects of a healthy life increase when going from not being able to provide for yourself to being barely able to provide for yourself by working in fantastically poor conditions.

If a sweatshop didn't provide more worker value than extreme poverty, people just wouldn't work there.

The bare minimum of improvements is still an improvement, and that we should strive for better than the bare minimum doesn't make the bare minimum worthless to the people who got it.

Check out Factfulness by Hans Rosling

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] essell@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yup.

They were geographically limited and not as dark as reported

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

In general or about the dark ages?

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Fiction: If you’re in for a multi-book series, I recommend the Amber chronicles by Roger Zelazny.

Dark Ages related: The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450-751 or The Long Morning of Medieval Europe

Spiritual/Philosophical: Audiobook of The Art of Mindful Living by Thich Nhat Hanh

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I’ve read the Amber Chronicles, although it’s on my re-read list. Is the Dark Ages non-fiction?