• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Rorschach said:
Well there are a few out there already but I can't comment a whole lot on how well they are viewed. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) and Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) are two. Whatever takes hold in place of GDP, which is only about 80 years old itself, will not find easy adoption. We've all been brainwashed into assuming growth and measuring a country's production equates to quality of life.

We will need to step away from the production and consumption model (@Gutter Boy will be glad to hear I espouse this view too) into something more sustainable before we're all dead. Kate Raworth's book is on my list and on the face of it it sounds like a good model to adopt.
Click to expand...

Will check out these metrics! SOunds good.

Not sure how we step away from production and consumption 'model'. Not only is it a model we've been following for 100 years in the west, it is possibly something that is fundamental to being human. Possibly a more realistic path is to evolve and develop consumption. And maybe the seeds of it are already here. What is the ultimate in consumption? ...more of less. You could say it is the last stage of consumption. For example, what do many wealthy people choose as their style of interior design? Minimalism. Give me more of less.

There is a natural instinct from people where they want cleaner and more simplistic consumption. Local, organic food. Clean living with fewer objects and clutter. So I think humans can evolve their consumption fashions, to become more sustainable, and this is more realistic than ripping up and starting again, which probably won't happen.
 
Rorschach said:
GDP is a very poor measurement of what's actually important to people. As part of its totting up, GDP agregates the sum of all human suffering in a country. More pollution, crime, obesity, mental illness, all directly or indirectly contribute to the GDP figure. The country with the highest per capita GDP also leads in inequality and social problems. Past time we came up with something new.
Click to expand...
Inequality is another pointless measure with no actual value.
 
Rorschach said:
GDP is a very poor measurement of what's actually important to people. As part of its totting up, GDP agregates the sum of all human suffering in a country. More pollution, crime, obesity, mental illness, all directly or indirectly contribute to the GDP figure. The country with the highest per capita GDP also leads in inequality and social problems. Past time we came up with something new.
Click to expand...
They already exist - the Lorenz curve and the GINI coefficient.
They just need to be presented in a different way. GDP is a relic of the boom times where money is all that matters - only a change in politics will change the measure.
 
scaramanga said:
Surely having more should be more important to everyone than others having less.
Click to expand...
Only is your value system is based on possessions making and you are happy for other humans to disproportionately suffer for it.

If you are comfortable with the inequality that facilitates your wealth, then they speaks to your morals.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at measuring that inequality and decide as a society that we would prefer less human suffering.
 
monkeybarry said:
Only is your value system is based on possessions making and you are happy for other humans to disproportionately suffer for it.

If you are comfortable with the inequality that facilitates your wealth, then they speaks to your morals.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at measuring that inequality and decide as a society that we would prefer less human suffering.
Click to expand...
It works both ways.

I'd like to own a few islands and a collection of classic cars. I'd like my wife to have more of the bags and shoes she loves. I'd like to be able to eat at the Berkeley every night and fly around in a private jet. I can't afford to but I don't begrudge those who can for a second.
 
monkeybarry said:
They already exist - the Lorenz curve and the GINI coefficient.
They just need to be presented in a different way. GDP is a relic of the boom times where money is all that matters - only a change in politics will change the measure.
Click to expand...
More a relic of WWII when production for the war effort needed a measurement, though it predates that. These other two you mention are also just different ways to measure wealth. These are better but my point was more that the richest country is not always the best, and these metrics say nothing of the quality of life in those countries.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Will check out these metrics! SOunds good.

Not sure how we step away from production and consumption 'model'. Not only is it a model we've been following for 100 years in the west, it is possibly something that is fundamental to being human. Possibly a more realistic path is to evolve and develop consumption. And maybe the seeds of it are already here. What is the ultimate in consumption? ...more of less. You could say it is the last stage of consumption. For example, what do many wealthy people choose as their style of interior design? Minimalism. Give me more of less.

There is a natural instinct from people where they want cleaner and more simplistic consumption. Local, organic food. Clean living with fewer objects and clutter. So I think humans can evolve their consumption fashions, to become more sustainable, and this is more realistic than ripping up and starting again, which probably won't happen.
Click to expand...
Yes. we consume but currently in an unstainable way. This is what we need to change and honestly I don't we can do it. The weather may eventually force us to by cutting supply chains and but as of now it still cheaper to buy something new than get something repaired in a lot of instances.
 
monkeybarry said:
They already exist - the Lorenz curve and the GINI coefficient.
They just need to be presented in a different way. GDP is a relic of the boom times where money is all that matters - only a change in politics will change the measure.
Click to expand...

monkeybarry said:
Only is your value system is based on possessions making and you are happy for other humans to disproportionately suffer for it.

If you are comfortable with the inequality that facilitates your wealth, then they speaks to your morals.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at measuring that inequality and decide as a society that we would prefer less human suffering.
Click to expand...
Inequality is such a thoroughly pointless measure though.

What's better, a society where everyone is equally poor and can't afford to eat, or a society where everyone has a house and enough food, but the poorest earn a fraction of what the richest do?
 
scaramanga said:
Inequality is such a thoroughly pointless measure though.

What's better, a society where everyone is equally poor and can't afford to eat, or a society where everyone has a house and enough food, but the poorest earn a fraction of what the richest do?
Click to expand...
Neither of those options - they are myopic.
A society that is well informed and well balanced so you prosper, but not at too great of an expense to others. This would reduce the kind of greed that acts to suppress the "lower end" factors of production and takes account of how happy the overall actions of society make that society, not just the few with money and power.
 
monkeybarry said:
Neither of those options - they are myopic.
A society that is well informed and well balanced so you prosper, but not at too great of an expense to others. This would reduce the kind of greed that acts to suppress the "lower end" factors of production and takes account of how happy the overall actions of society make that society, not just the few with money and power.
Click to expand...
It's not a zero sum game. There's no reason why some prospering and others not has to be at their expense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back