More and more of each day our current period reminds me of the 70’s. The degrowth topic is a direct knock off of Jimmy Carter’s favorite author, Eric Schumaker and his book Small is Beautiful. What a depressing concept.
When our political class fails, they redefine failure as success and success as failure. Except for them in their personal lives, of course.
I asked Chatgpt about the Carter-Schumacher link. Here's the reply:
>>
Jimmy Carter has expressed admiration for E. F. Schumacher's ideas, particularly regarding sustainable development and appropriate technology. While there is no explicit confirmation of Carter being a direct admirer of Schumacher, his actions and statements align with many of the principles advocated by Schumacher in "Small is Beautiful."
<<
I think the "Small is Beautiful" conference is not held in Davos.
I think I should write a response to SiB -- "Large is Useful".
> Early in this period, [Rosling] notes, “All countries were sick and poor.” Average income in the richest countries was less than $2,000 per year in today’s money. In some countries, it was in the range of $300-$400 per person per year. And, as his graphics vividly illustrate, life expectancy was less than 40 years everywhere.
That last point doesn't *completely* instantly discredit Rosling's presentation, but it's a huge red flag. Claiming that adult life expectancy was ever less than 40 years *anywhere,* (at least in normal society under non-extreme conditions,) is a clear sign that the person making the claim doesn't know what they're talking about and doesn't understand basic statistics.
It's a fundamental statistical error to skew an average by mixing together two completely distinct data sets with very different properties and calling them all the same group. But this is exactly where such claims come from: conflating adult life expectancy in with infant/early childhood mortality. Separate out child mortality, looking at those who survived through the first few difficult years as a distinct group, and you get a picture that's remained pretty consistent throughout the ages, that we're just recently beginning to improve on.
Thousands of years ago, the Psalmist wrote, "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." (Psalms 90:10) That ancient estimate of 70-80 years for an adult lifespan holds up pretty well to this day.
Yes, until quite recently infant mortality was a very real problem that we've largely conquered since the invention of vaccines and antibiotics. But that point, if it's going to be made, should be made in that way, not by making absurd claims implying the existence of elderly people in their thirties.
I'm going to side with Rosling in this case. Yes, "threescore years and ten" was a good estimate for the lucky ones. (My mother always recalled hearing that passage in synagogue and thinking, "Hey wait a minute ... I'm 72!") Go to this page: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy and scroll down to the graph marked "Survival Curve for England & Wales." In 1851, barely more than half made it past 40 (versus nearly 100% today). c.36% made it to 60 (versus c.93% today). c.24% made it to threescore and ten (versus c.84% today). And this was England and Wales--which started the 1800s as one of two outliers in longevity; and this graph is 25% of the way though Rosling's timeline. If you were looking at this chart for Africa or Asia, it would be terrifying. Yes, child mortality matters in that diagram. But you can still yank out some awful stats. Judging from this, in 1851, of those who made it 20, c.13% died by 30, c.22% died by 40; c.33% died by 50. In comparison, those figures would be well past 90% today. And again, this was the #1 or #2 country in life expectancy--a half-century into the Industrial Revolution that Rosling shows.
To me, these lyrics immediately evoke the feel of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow," "Castle On A Cloud," and "I'm Going To Go Back There Someday." And interestingly enough, all four examples place the location of the yearned-for Better Place somewhere high up in the air.
More and more of each day our current period reminds me of the 70’s. The degrowth topic is a direct knock off of Jimmy Carter’s favorite author, Eric Schumaker and his book Small is Beautiful. What a depressing concept.
When our political class fails, they redefine failure as success and success as failure. Except for them in their personal lives, of course.
Gotta hop on that LearJet to get to the next "Small Is Beautiful" conference.
I asked Chatgpt about the Carter-Schumacher link. Here's the reply:
>>
Jimmy Carter has expressed admiration for E. F. Schumacher's ideas, particularly regarding sustainable development and appropriate technology. While there is no explicit confirmation of Carter being a direct admirer of Schumacher, his actions and statements align with many of the principles advocated by Schumacher in "Small is Beautiful."
<<
I think the "Small is Beautiful" conference is not held in Davos.
I think I should write a response to SiB -- "Large is Useful".
> Early in this period, [Rosling] notes, “All countries were sick and poor.” Average income in the richest countries was less than $2,000 per year in today’s money. In some countries, it was in the range of $300-$400 per person per year. And, as his graphics vividly illustrate, life expectancy was less than 40 years everywhere.
That last point doesn't *completely* instantly discredit Rosling's presentation, but it's a huge red flag. Claiming that adult life expectancy was ever less than 40 years *anywhere,* (at least in normal society under non-extreme conditions,) is a clear sign that the person making the claim doesn't know what they're talking about and doesn't understand basic statistics.
It's a fundamental statistical error to skew an average by mixing together two completely distinct data sets with very different properties and calling them all the same group. But this is exactly where such claims come from: conflating adult life expectancy in with infant/early childhood mortality. Separate out child mortality, looking at those who survived through the first few difficult years as a distinct group, and you get a picture that's remained pretty consistent throughout the ages, that we're just recently beginning to improve on.
Thousands of years ago, the Psalmist wrote, "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." (Psalms 90:10) That ancient estimate of 70-80 years for an adult lifespan holds up pretty well to this day.
Yes, until quite recently infant mortality was a very real problem that we've largely conquered since the invention of vaccines and antibiotics. But that point, if it's going to be made, should be made in that way, not by making absurd claims implying the existence of elderly people in their thirties.
I'm going to side with Rosling in this case. Yes, "threescore years and ten" was a good estimate for the lucky ones. (My mother always recalled hearing that passage in synagogue and thinking, "Hey wait a minute ... I'm 72!") Go to this page: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy and scroll down to the graph marked "Survival Curve for England & Wales." In 1851, barely more than half made it past 40 (versus nearly 100% today). c.36% made it to 60 (versus c.93% today). c.24% made it to threescore and ten (versus c.84% today). And this was England and Wales--which started the 1800s as one of two outliers in longevity; and this graph is 25% of the way though Rosling's timeline. If you were looking at this chart for Africa or Asia, it would be terrifying. Yes, child mortality matters in that diagram. But you can still yank out some awful stats. Judging from this, in 1851, of those who made it 20, c.13% died by 30, c.22% died by 40; c.33% died by 50. In comparison, those figures would be well past 90% today. And again, this was the #1 or #2 country in life expectancy--a half-century into the Industrial Revolution that Rosling shows.
> “Somewhere there's another land
> Different from this world below
> Far more mercifully planned
> Than the cruel place we know
> Innocence and peace are there
> All is good that is desired
> Faces there are always fair
> Love grows never old or tired”
Huh.
To me, these lyrics immediately evoke the feel of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow," "Castle On A Cloud," and "I'm Going To Go Back There Someday." And interestingly enough, all four examples place the location of the yearned-for Better Place somewhere high up in the air.
Yeah, not too many songs in which the singer pleads to fate, "Please put me deep, deep, deep down under the ground."
Sounds like a good way to end up another day older and deeper in debt...
aaaaaand, I talk about that song here: https://graboyes.substack.com/p/gigs-jobs-and-smart-machines :)
Fun article! I saw that and left comments on it when it came out. 😁