What does it mean to "believe in climate change"?

[Petminder]

You're suggesting that the world go back to subsistence farming? What the actual [expletive deleted]!

They did not have clean water. They died more often than not before reaching adulthood, had no access to medical care at all and were lucky to make it to 40.

 

Have you hit your head or are you just drunk?

 

No I'm suggesting that 7 billion people can't live a life equal to the life we have in the UK, for us to live the lives we live in a world of over 7 billion people the majority must remain poor.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 14:14 ----------

 

Didn't answer my question I see...or is that a roundabout way of saying you think that there would be less poverty if the west was also poor.

 

Your question was about absolute poverty and I have been talking about poor people, because you argued that we could have a world without poverty one in which everybody will have a good standard of living.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Petminder

[Robin-H]

No I'm suggesting that 7 billion people can't live a life equal to the life we have in the UK, for us to live the lives we live in a world of over 7 billion people the majority must remain poor.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 14:14 ----------

 

 

Your question was about absolute poverty and I have been talking about poor people, because you argued that we could have a world without poverty.

 

My question was not about absolute poverty, why do you think that?

 

I will repeat it. Do you think without the development and technological advances that have happened in the west and first world countries, that the rates of global poverty would be higher or lower than they are now?

[unbeliever]

No I'm suggesting that 7 billion people can't live a life equal to the life we have in the UK, for us to live the lives we live in a world of over 7 billion people the majority must remain poor.

 

In 1900 absolutely nobody had a standard of living such as we have in the UK today. Now billions of people have a higher standard of living that the British people typically enjoyed in 1900 even though the world population is 6 times larger.

Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

 

The evidence of history is absolutely at variance with what you assert. I don't understand why you don't see that.

[Petminder]

My question was not about absolute poverty, why do you think that?

 

I will repeat it. Do you think without the development and technological advances that have happened in the west and first world countries, that the rates of global poverty would be higher or lower than they are now?

 

There would be fewer people and less poverty.

[unbeliever]

I will repeat it. Do you think without the development and technological advances that have happened in the west and first world countries, that the rates of global poverty would be higher or lower than they are now?

 

So you're using relative poverty, which means that in the absence of fundamentalist global socialism you automatically declare defeat.

[Robin-H]

There would be fewer people and less poverty.

 

Wow, so you think if the western world was poorer, there would be less poverty. Strange.

 

Why on earth would there be fewer people? You do realise that it is the developed and rich countries that have the lowest birthrates right?

[Petminder]

In 1900 absolutely nobody had a standard of living such as we have in the UK today. Now billions of people have a higher standard of living that the British people typically enjoyed in 1900 even though the world population is 6 times larger.

Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

 

The evidence of history is absolutely at variance with what you assert. I don't understand why you don't see that.

 

Yes we have increased the worlds population and increased the total number of wealthy people, but at the same time we have also increased the number of poor people and health problems associated with wealth.

[unbeliever]

Yes we have increased the worlds population and increased the total number of wealthy people, but at the same time we have also increased the number of poor people and health problems associated with wealth.

 

That's non-responsive.

I'll say it again.

 

In 1900 absolutely nobody had a standard of living such as we have in the UK today. Now billions of people have a higher standard of living that the British people typically enjoyed in 1900 even though the world population is 6 times larger.

 

You argue that technological advancement does not improve the lot of the poor.

But by modern standards, in 1900 almost everybody was poor. Now on a fraction of the people of the world are. Each year the fraction of poor people goes down and as it does so the rate of population growth stabilises.

 

Do you not value evidence at all as part of the reasoning process?

[Petminder]

Wow, so you think if the western world was poorer, there would be less poverty. Strange.

 

Why on earth would there be fewer people? You do realise that it is the developed and rich countries that have the lowest birthrates right?

 

The global population was stable at 1 billion until the industrial revolution and the advent of cheap fossil which did indeed make some lives better, but at the same time it made the lives of some people much worse.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 14:33 ----------

 

That's non-responsive.

I'll say it again.

 

In 1900 absolutely nobody had a standard of living such as we have in the UK today. Now billions of people have a higher standard of living that the British people typically enjoyed in 1900 even though the world population is 6 times larger.

 

You argue that technological advancement does not improve the lot of the poor.

But by modern standards, in 1900 almost everybody was poor. Now on a fraction of the people of the world are. Each year the fraction of poor people goes down and as it does so the rate of population growth stabilises.

 

Do you not value evidence at all as part of the reasoning process?

 

There are more poor people globally than existed in 1900.

 

2.8 billion people live on less than $2/day, I would say that makes them poor, 80% of the worlds population live on less than $10, I would say that makes them poor. The majority of the worlds population, don't have cars, washing machines, fridges, because they are poor.

[Robin-H]

The global population was stable at 1 billion until the industrial revolution and the advent of cheap fossil which did indeed make some lives better, but at the same time it made the lives of some people much worse.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 14:33 ----------

 

 

There are more poor people globally than existed in 1900.

 

2.8 billion people live on less than $2/day, I would say that makes them poor, 80% of the worlds population live on less than $10, I would say that makes them poor. The majority of the worlds population, don't have cars, washing machines, fridges, because they are poor.

 

How many people have a better quality of live now than in 1900?

 

Also, the global population wasn't 'stable at 1 billion before the industrial revolution'.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Population_curve.svg

Edited November 3, 2016 by Robin-H