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

[unbeliever]

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.

 

 

Why are you determined to establish that the world is getting worse for the poor when all the evidence is that it is getting better?

 

Just because people don't own cars doesn't mean that they don't benefit from the existence of cars. You're determined to prove that which is false. Why?

[Petminder]

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

 

That's irrelevant to the discussion, I have not argued against the fact the Tech advances make the lives of some people better, I have said that they haven't made everyone's life better and that 7 billion people can't have the life you would like them to have.

Over 80% of the worlds population are poor when compared to the average UK resident, they don't have access to all this new Tech that makes our lives better, assuming we agree that getting fat makes for a better life.

[unbeliever]

That's irrelevant to the discussion, I have not argued against the fact the Tech advances make the lives of some people better, I have said that they haven't made everyone's life better and that 7 billion people can't have the life you would like them to have.

Over 80% of the worlds population are poor when compared to the average UK resident, they don't have access to all this new Tech that makes our lives better, assuming we agree that getting fat makes for a better life.

 

They do have access to it. They're behind, their access is limited, but they still have access to it.

Deny them what access they have and they will literally die.

[Robin-H]

That's irrelevant to the discussion, I have not argued against the fact the Tech advances make the lives of some people better, I have said that they haven't made everyone's life better and that 7 billion people can't have the life you would like them to have.

Over 80% of the worlds population are poor when compared to the average UK resident, they don't have access to all this new Tech that makes our lives better, assuming we agree that getting fat makes for a better life.

 

You seem to be arguing (indeed you have stated it outright) that the world would be better off and have fewer poor people if the west hadn't advanced and become developed, which quite frankly is absolutely bizarre.

[Petminder]

Why are you determined to establish that the world is getting worse for the poor when all the evidence is that it is getting better?

 

Just because people don't own cars doesn't mean that they don't benefit from the existence of cars. You're determined to prove that which is false. Why?

 

How is the life of today's bottom 10% better than the life of the bottom 10% from the 1800's. They suffer the consequences of the existence of cars in the form of climate change and poor air quality.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 14:53 ----------

 

You seem to be arguing (indeed you have stated it outright) that the world would be better off and have fewer poor people if the west hadn't advanced and become developed, which quite frankly is absolutely bizarre.

 

Nope, I countering your assertion that everyone can have a good quality of life, I fully accept that for 7 billion people to live some have to remain poor.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 14:55 ----------

 

They do have access to it. They're behind, their access is limited, but they still have access to it.

Deny them what access they have and they will literally die.

 

Being alive isn't the same as having a good quality of life, we can indeed use all our tech to keep people alive, but we can't use it to give them all the same quality of life that we enjoy.

[Robin-H]

How is the life of today's bottom 10% better than the life of the bottom 10% from the 1800's. They suffer the consequences of the existence of cars in the form of climate change and poor air quality.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 14:53 ----------

 

 

Nope, I countering your assertion that everyone can have a good quality of life, I fully accept that for 7 billion people to live some have to remain poor.

 

I asked '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?' and you said..

 

'There would be fewer people and less poverty'.

 

That, to me, is an absolutely bizarre thing to say.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 15:01 ----------

 

How is the life of today's bottom 10% better than the life of the bottom 10% from the 1800's. They suffer the consequences of the existence of cars in the form of climate change and poor air quality.

 

 

Live expectancy. That is a general good indicator of overall access to health, child mortality rates, and a better quality of life.

 

Malawi is the poorest country in the world. In 1970 the average life expectancy was around 40 years old. It is now above 55 years old.

 

That is just from 1970 to now, I expect the change to be even greater when going all the way back to 1800s.

[Petminder]

I asked '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?' and you said..

 

'There would be fewer people and less poverty'.

 

That, to me, is an absolutely bizarre thing to say.

 

Its a fact that without the technological advances of the past few hundred years there would be fewer people and less poverty. The advances we have made allowed us to consume the worlds resources at an unsustainable rate which allowed us to increase the worlds population and in doing we increased the total number of poor people. But Technology won't allow 7 billion people to live the kind of lives we live here in the UK, it would have allowed 1 billion people to live very good lives.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 15:21 ----------

 

 

Live expectancy. That is a general good indicator of overall access to health, child mortality rates, and a better quality of life.

 

Malawi is the poorest country in the world. In 1970 the average life expectancy was around 40 years old. It is now above 55 years old.

 

That is just from 1970 to now, I expect the change to be even greater when going all the way back to 1800s.

 

You confusing life expectancy with quality of life, 40 years of good quality life and a quick death would in my opinion be much better than 60 years of poor quality life just living above the bread line.There is no doubt that we have the ability to keep people alive that would have died centuries or even decades ago.

[unbeliever]

How is the life of today's bottom 10% better than the life of the bottom 10% from the 1800's. They suffer the consequences of the existence of cars in the form of climate change and poor air quality.

 

Longer lofe expectancy. Higher standard of education. better housing. Better infrastructure. Support in lean years. Cheaper food, clothing etc in real terms.

 

 

Being alive isn't the same as having a good quality of life, we can indeed use all our tech to keep people alive, but we can't use it to give them all the same quality of life that we enjoy.

 

So that confirms it. You think they should be a dead. That explains a lot.

[Robin-H]

 

You confusing life expectancy with quality of life, 40 years of good quality life and a quick death would in my opinion be much better than 60 years of poor quality life just living above the bread line.There is no doubt that we have the ability to keep people alive that would have died centuries or even decades ago.

 

I'm not confusing them no. Like I explained, life expectancy is one measure of quality of life, as it correlates to access to health care, childhood mortality, etc etc. You think the Malawians had a good quality of live in the 1970s (or the 1900s), and so would prefer to live the 40 years they lived then, than the 55 years they live now?

[Petminder]

Longer lofe expectancy. Higher standard of education. better housing. Better infrastructure. Support in lean years. Cheaper food, clothing etc in real terms.

 

 

 

 

So that confirms it. You think they should be a dead. That explains a lot.

 

But not for everyone and I don't think anyone should be dead, I think we can keep billions more people alive, but what is impossible is to give them all the good quality of life that we in the UK enjoy.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 16:12 ----------

 

I'm not confusing them no. Like I explained, life expectancy is one measure of quality of life, as it correlates to access to health care, childhood mortality, etc etc. You think the Malawians had a good quality of live in the 1970s (or the 1900s), and so would prefer to live the 40 years they lived then, than the 55 years they live now?

 

No it isn't, quality of life is nothing at all to do with life expectancy, there are people with no access to health care that have a much better quality of life than some people that do have access to good health care.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Petminder