I actually think that the fact that they used critical theory in a non-moral context is very serious evidence that this article is a hit piece, and the claim that there is no objective evidence is a favorite claim of people who’s beliefs wouldn’t stand up to the objective evidence that doesn’t favor their argument.
Essentially, what this post is done is come in with an argument against EA and capitalism with the bottom line precomputed already, then denies that objective evidence can exist, probably because the evidence that is there doesn’t support his thesis that capitalism is bad, and supports the opposite thesis that capitalism is good. It’s a hit piece against EA.
I actually think that the fact that they used critical theory in a non-moral context is very serious evidence that this article is a hit piece, and the claim that there is no objective evidence is a favorite claim of people who’s beliefs wouldn’t stand up to the objective evidence that doesn’t favor their argument.
Essentially, what this post is done is come in with an argument against EA and capitalism with the bottom line precomputed already, then denies that objective evidence can exist, probably because the evidence that is there doesn’t support his thesis that capitalism is bad, and supports the opposite thesis that capitalism is good. It’s a hit piece against EA.
See these links for more details: A note is that if we consider all sentient beings, the curve of welfare does turn severely negative for animals under capitalism thanks to factory farming and habitat destruction, and without massive change the conclusion that capitalism has harmed sentient life outside humanity would probably hold. I do think there will be massive change, but unfortunately this century may not change much. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/089533003769204335 https://www.cold-takes.com/has-life-gotten-better-the-post-industrial-era/