aabeshou

Disparities in wealth in Latin America and Africa can be traced directly to their history of exploitation and colonization. That there are other countries that have had brutal occupations and have prospered more is irrelevant to this fact. Myriad historical factors, including the other ones that I cited in my comment (such as treatment in global trade, ongoing exploitation, allyships with dominant powers, etc), still distinguish these countries and their histories. There is no checklist approach to history, the details matter and when you look at the history of impoverished areas in Latin America and Africa, it is plain to see the connection to their present circumstances.

The imperialism that has transpired in Latin America and Africa is different from that in Asia, so the consequences have been different. Some areas of difference include: the degree of plunder and destruction; how the occupying country treats the colonies; the degree of future exclusion in global trade; which dominant powers it finds among its allies.

If we don't consider a country's history of being exploited and oppressed, then we are in danger of creating an ignorant and bigoted explanation for the differences in outcomes.

My comment describes the damage that imperialism has done and the consequences it's had for global wealth distribution.

You say that Cuba has done bad things too.

Therefore imperialism doesn't have consequences?

Can you fill in the blanks for me in your nonsequitur?

South Africa has the single worst inequality in the world [0], and up until very recently there was apartheid ruled by the descendents of dutch colonizers. This still fits the pattern of imperialists coming in, and enriching themselves at the expense of local populations. It's just that in this case the occupying population hung around permanently. But they're still hoarding the wealth.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/africa/south-africa-elections...

how about the history of imperialism where some countries came in, exploited the local population and their natural resources, and reaped the benefits of historical, compounding wealth?

how about the history of how those wealthy countries then turned around and squashed democratic uprisings in order to install oppressive, right-wing regimes that were more friendly to their interests?

how about the history of trade sanctions which further cripple countries which are already disempowered and exploited?

these social darwinist explanations always seem to miss the simple facts of history

thats genuinely hilarious, money well spent

yeah I would feel sad for someone who's not rich who paid thousands for a shoutout from someone

Is everyone insane or is there something I'm missing.

in a sense, much of the world is insane because they pursue narcissistic types of social status.

but I also do think this is just fun - putting aside the idea of getting a cameo as a status symbol, it's just fun to get a message from some public figure whose work you admire.

wow these are literally good!

Id be surprised if you get much signal out of demographic info.. but I would think music correlates more with general aesthetic taste which may transfer.

I agree. I think it's definitely worth trying and maybe you can update the algorithm later to take advantage of the domain correlations you find.

It's an interesting idea. Do you have reason to believe that people's preferences in different areas are correlated? Not saying they're definitely not, but that's my first skeptical thought.

thanks, that was interesting. i'm still curious about why maillard reacted food is more nutritious/bioavailable, that article didn't seem to address that. the OP may have but i got exhausted scrolling

this article was terribly written. totally meandering, unorganized, rambling. I was desperately curious to understand it but it barely explained anything and went around in circles, with gratuitous jokes that just served to further delay the info.

thats awesome! what technology are people using these days to make "flash" games?

the choice of metric that defines "how the world is" is where the subjectiveness lies, as my comment explains. the article was generally about "how bad the world is." if you find some result specifically about people's estimates of specific metrics, e.g. child mortality, poverty, etc, then we can have the discussion you're trying to have.

you absolutely should not expose yourself in a way that harms you excessively. noone is helped by your torment.

I like Dr. Bronner: "1st: If not for me, who am I? Nobody! 2nd: Yet, if I’m only for me, what am I? Nothing!"

I think we all have to find an appropriate personal balance.

it's inherently a subjective question, based on what you value. if you value access to technology, then you'll think things are better than ever. if you enjoy arguments based on "average" and "median" then you might find some data to support an optimistic worldview. but if you look at the lot in life of those who suffer most, you will find a different story. if you value access to healthcare, access to leisure time, access to peace, you will find a different story. everyone has to make their own judgment of the world but in my opinion the articles tone is inappropriately optimistic

police disproportionately harass and kill black people, and unarmed black people, and you can find this in about 2 seconds in a google search

EDIT: apology for the personal attack, I have deleted it.

that's why I say self-care is important. there's no point in torturing yourself over everything. we have to vary how much responsibility we want to take based on how hopelessly things feel outside our control. but deluding yourself into thinking the world isn't bad is just putting your head in the sand. yeah, it sucks, but we're all in this together. By being aware, if the opportunity arises to do something about it (e.g. by lobbying a presidential candidate, or a president), then you will be able to. If you don't know about it, you can't do anything even if some opportunity arises.

that's why I say self-care is important. we can't take too much individual responsibility for the world's issues. and if we don't let ourselves enjoy life when we can, then there's no point in even saving this world. but that's different from saying "the world is actually better than we think it is." the world is actually terrible. but we can still carve out some joy for ourselves when we can without deluding ourselves.

I hate to use the word "privileged" because it is so loaded but I do think that this shows privileged thinking. "The world is great!" yeah because you have enough money/power to go about your life comfortably, and you're ignoring the plight of those that don't. "You only think the world is bad because of these cognitive biases".... lord take me now

Look, I am all for self-care and not overexposing yourself to terrible news all day every day. But to act like negative news is making us think the world is worse than it is is just sheltered.

The reality is the world has a lot of terrible things happening all day every day and humanity is basically not doing anything to stop it as of now. Here are a few:

(1) in the US, a lot of people don't get enough healthcare because they can't afford it, and just go bankrupt when they get cancer

(2) black people are still terrorized and murdered by police, who largely get off scot-free

(3) the US and its business partners perpetrate crimes against humanity in the middle east on a regular basis

(4) the daily gruesome reality of poverty in the US

(5) We continue our slow but sure march towards climate apocalypse which will largely affect the most vulnerable among us.

This idea that "the standard of living" is higher... well sure, if you have a certain amount of money. But many people don't get healthcare, don't have any leisure time, don't have money to travel. And yeah, there's peace here, but what about in Yemen? What about in Honduras? Iraq? Afghanistan? So what, because we have iPhones we're supposed to think everything's amazing?

That sounds plausible though I'm not educated enough to comment on that. But I do know that the question is separate from the Iraq War because the IW never truly aimed to establish an autonomous democracy.

The US military does not aim to install any regime, it aims to defeat the enemy's military.

If you look at U.S. foreign policy (covert and overt, CIA, military) over history, one consistent goal is to install regimes that are friendly to the U.S. and to topple regimes which are not. Defeating the military of the hostile regime can be part of that. But if that were it, then the U.S. would just leave once that had been accomplished, and that's not what happens.

The U.S. generally sticks around and tries to install a replacement, often undemocratically. On the occasion that they do implement democratic elections, any winner that is not sufficiently friendly to U.S. interests is undermined or even couped and a (usually right-wing) government is installed undemocratically.

Occasionally the U.S. will even undermine the democratic government of a country it hasn't even officially militarily engaged with, because the leader is threatening U.S. business interests. The history of U.S. relations with Latin America is littered with this type of illegal covert warfare, most recently in Bolivia with Evo Morales who was nationalizing natural resources that U.S. business wanted access to.

I think that Bush was sincere in his belief that bringing democracy to Iraq was a (if not the) primary goal of the Iraq War, and that doing so would be beneficial to the Iraqis.

I believe that Bush probably stroked himself thinking this way, as did virtually the entire media and political class. However I don't think it was anywhere close to a primary goal, as you say. More to the point: their actual conduct in the war does not indicate in any way that this was a genuine goal as opposed to a piece of propaganda.

While I wouldn't call it "allergic to democracy", I can also entertain arguments that successful democratic regimes have preconditions for their success that Iraq simply did not have.

Any citations for this notion? But to restate a point I made in another comment: the discussion of whether Iraq is ready for democracy is almost offensively inappropriate and nonsequitur, because the U.S. military does not aim to install democracy, it aims to install regimes that are friendly to U.S. military and business interests, regardless of the wishes of the local people who are governed.

To put it another way, we have no way of knowing whether Iraq is "ready for democracy" based on the Iraq War because the U.S. military did not act in a way to actually try to install democracy.

I don't know whether Iraq's current culture is amenable to democracy. However I don't know that the U.S.'s current culture is actually more amenable to democracy. Further, the idea that the U.S. military effort aims to install democracy has been disproven over and over again - the U.S. military generally aims to install regimes that are friendly to U.S. military and business interests, regardless of the wishes of the local people who are actually governed. This is the opposite of democracy. So it seems inappropriate and even offensive to bring up the question of whether Iraq is ready for democracy, though I don't think you intended to be offensive.

I also take it you concede that pursuing fairness leads to reduced efficiency?

Efficiency of what? Yes, it reduces the efficiency by which overall wealth is created (whatever that means). And yes, it enhances the effiency by which a society provides for the needs of all.

arguably, a business that pays someone less than a living wage doesn't deserve to operate, just as a business that can't exist without using slaves doesn't deserve to operate

The conduct of the Iraq War, for example, was substantially a result of a popular American myth/narrative about how other cultures are, deep down, like us, and democracy is the equilibrium every society gravitates towards.

can you please elaborate on this? it sounds like you're proposing the offensively wrong notion that the Iraq War was noble and well-founded, truly aimed at restoring democracy to Iraq, but went wrong because the Iraqi people are simply allergic to democracy