Meghan Saweikis wrote the following; I thought it was really excellent, so with her permission, I am posting it here. Maybe it should go to kragen-fw instead, but kragen-fw is mostly dead, really.
I think the issues touched on in this mail are among the most important issues for every human being to think about. --- I’ve been thinking a lot about what you said and about how I quantify “net positive” vs. “net negative” impact on the world. I agree with you that the objective level of suffering may be decreasing. I agree that there is increasing literacy, autonomy and access to basic health care services. I agree that these are positive things. I agree with you that humanity as a whole has accomplished these positive things. But, I think humanity as a whole has also created some significant problems (both for other humans and for the ecosystem). I’m not sure I think the benefits you mention are positive enough to suggest that humanity in general is a “net positive.” And even if humanity in general is a “net positive,” I don’t think that implies that any particular individual (being a part of humanity) would necessarily be a net positive. As far as literacy goes, I think literacy is often equated with opportunity and in many ways that is why increasing literacy has been so important. In the past, I think this was a relevant correlation because literacy was generally both necessary and sufficient to provide a living wage and economic opportunity. Currently in the US nearly 10% of individuals between 18-64 with basic literacy (measured as high school diploma) live in families with incomes below a living wage. I’m not certain that increasing literacy is still an indicator of increasing opportunity. The drastic changes in literacy rate over the past century has not correlated with changes in poverty rate (which is currently at a 50 year high in the US). I should add that I admit that I am not nearly as well traveled as many of my friends (including you) - so my perspective is significantly more limited and is very centered within the U.S. Literacy itself is a wonderful thing (my mom was a librarian and I distinctly remember that day when I turned five and was finally able to get my own library card - it was a bigger deal than my driver’s license when I turned 16). For me personally literacy has had numerous positive impacts. It has provided me with a means of self-expression, a valuable and virtually limitless learning tool, and a much needed escape from reality. But most importantly, it has provided me with a means of caring for myself and those who are important to me. Basic literacy is still generally necessary for economic mobility, but I don’t think it is sufficient. So I’m not sure that tracking increases in literacy rates necessarily demonstrates a decrease in human suffering. Disregarding participation in humanity as a whole, and looking at things on a more personal level, as an average US citizen I most likely produce 4.6 lbs of solid waste a day (not to mention gas, electricity, air-conditioning, sewage, etc). The clothes I’m wearing and the laptop I’m typing on impact an entire supply chain of people many of whom are not earning a living wage. I take four daily prescriptions supporting companies that use animal testing. The local, organic food I eat is probably from Monsanto seeds. There are a lot of really nasty impacts that I on the world both actively and passively. As an average citizen I also contribute a significant amount to taxes which are used for great things like literacy (but possibly cancelled out by not great things which are also paid for by taxes). A vast array of people are receiving free appropriate mental health care for sexual trauma in part because of my professional activities. I’m on the board of directors for a cat rescue where I manage a network of 30 foster homes. I personally have fostered over 20 cats in the past year. I’m on the leadership committee and serve as volunteer coordinator for a second rescue organization. Does this cancel out the negative? Maybe. Probably not. It is hard to quantify suffering. On a broader note, you mentioned that humanity overall was positive and I think that is very subjective. You suggested that the positive trend towards less suffering supported this. I don’t necessarily agree. If there are 50% content people and 50% suffering people (obviously a simplification) and through literacy and health care and other things we move to 60% content people and 40% suffering people that certainly means that there is a net positive change. But does that mean humanity as a whole has a net positive impact on the world? It may mean that the particular generation of humans has a net positive impact on humanity. But if there were no people there would be no suffering people. If there were no people, there might be fewer suffering animals. How many content people do we need before it is OK for those people to “create” one suffering person/animal? Is moving in the right direction good enough? How fast do we have to be moving? Does the fact that most people don’t seem to care (or even consider) their impact say something? I currently feel like humanity isn’t “net positive.” I don’t see any evidence that society is becoming more compassionate. And that makes me sad. -- To unsubscribe: http://lists.canonical.org/mailman/listinfo/kragen-tol
