>my consumption is maybe 2 orders of magnitude higher than that of my grandparents at my age
That might be precisely part of the problem. We are just starting to be seriously concerned about the externalities of this increase in consumption, and a good deal of it is conspicuous or with things people often regret (over)consuming (like soft drinks, addictive stuff, or just time spent in social media) - while a lot of people still starve.
I think I don’t follow your point. If I understand correctly, the linked paper (at least from the abstract, I have not read it) talks about population-size variation, which has an intuitive/near-tautological relationship with increased risk of extinction, rather than variation overall.
That might be precisely part of the problem.
Sorry can you specify more what the problem is? If you mean that the problem is an inefficient distribution of limited resources, I agree that it’s morally bad that I have access to a number of luxuries while others starve, and the former is casually upstream of the latter. However, in the long run we can only get maybe 1-2 orders of magnitude gains from a more equitable distribution of resources globally (though some rich individuals/gov’ts can create more good than that by redistributing their own resources), but we can get much more through other ways to create more stuff/better experiences.
We are just starting to be seriously concerned about the externalities of this increase in
>with more material prosperity and better physical health* than ever before
I agree. But you see, in some population dynamics, variation is correlated with increased risk of extinction.
>my consumption is maybe 2 orders of magnitude higher than that of my grandparents at my age
That might be precisely part of the problem. We are just starting to be seriously concerned about the externalities of this increase in consumption, and a good deal of it is conspicuous or with things people often regret (over)consuming (like soft drinks, addictive stuff, or just time spent in social media) - while a lot of people still starve.
Thanks for your comment!
I think I don’t follow your point. If I understand correctly, the linked paper (at least from the abstract, I have not read it) talks about population-size variation, which has an intuitive/near-tautological relationship with increased risk of extinction, rather than variation overall.
Sorry can you specify more what the problem is? If you mean that the problem is an inefficient distribution of limited resources, I agree that it’s morally bad that I have access to a number of luxuries while others starve, and the former is casually upstream of the latter. However, in the long run we can only get maybe 1-2 orders of magnitude gains from a more equitable distribution of resources globally (though some rich individuals/gov’ts can create more good than that by redistributing their own resources), but we can get much more through other ways to create more stuff/better experiences.
Who’s this “we?” :P