News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty by ljcn on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @06:34AM (#19142666)
You misunderstood - the user wrote that the improvement probably won't continue due to climate change (which is expected to negatively impact developing countries more than developed).
Re:A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty by benj111 on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @07:03AM (#19142811)
I reread and don't think I have.

The parents contention is that climate change will prevent these countries becoming first world/that it will interrupt their growth. I'm saying even without climate change they won't become first world. Certainly not on the timescale suggested. Now I agree, climate change won't help. But the reason CAR isn't (now or in 50 years) a first world country is not down to climate change, its because they don't have any of the myriad things needed to support that type of economy.

Re:A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty by marcus_holmes on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @06:51AM (#19142749)
this is the difference between ecologist thinking and economist thinking.

economists think in curves - starting from a low base it's very easy to improve fast, but the rate of improvement drops off as it nears the global average.

ecologists think in straight lines - the rate of improvement is x/year, so in 50 years the improvement will be 50x and they'll be richer than Sweden, who are only improving at (x/10)/year.

Re:A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty by pas on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @07:32AM (#19142952)
Why would ecologists think in straight lines? Don't they start with the Lotka-Volterra differential equations to model prey-predator population fluctuations? (Even if they learn just the concept, and not the underlying math.) Also, haven't they learn a bit about exponential bloom and decay of algae?