I left Reddit much too late. I guess some habits can be hard to break.
Btw I’m a non-binary trans person [they/she/he].
Economic growth makes us all better,
No. Economic growth under capitalism is the problem. Capitalism requires infinite growth on a finite planet, and this is what got us here in the first place. So this is not a sustainable economic system.
I’m not really sure what the proper definition of a robot is tbh. Apart from that, the article does talk about sensors.
Each device would be equipped with biodegradable sensors for collecting environmental data like water pH, temperature, pollutants, and the presence of microorganisms, which could be read out after collection or by remote sensing.
Edit: I took a look in wiki and I think it tracks?
A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. (…)
If I understand you correctly in the part you talk about labor, robotics and AI, it reminds me of what was said by capitalists when automations started being employed in factories, meaning many, many decades ago.
At the time the capitalist narrative was saying to workers stuff like “we know you work hard, but thanks to the technological advancements in automations your children will work less and have a better life”. We very well know this never happened, only the rich got richer, to the detriment of everybody else and the planet as a whole.
So, allow me to say, this approach is not new.
I was wondering if anyone here has read it as well. And what your take is.
Personally, I will not read it because:
James Arbib is a technology investor and the founder of Tellus Mater, an independent philanthropic foundation dedicated to exploring the impacts of disruptive technology and its potential for solving some of the world’s most challenging problems.
Tony Seba is a world-renowned thought leader, author, speaker, educator, investor and Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
In relation to the content of the book, I wouldn’t be too surprised if these two capitalists suggest misleading technological “solutions” to a problem that is not technological in nature, but systemic. Meaning, the problem is the eternal growth of the capitalist system on a finite planet, and there is no techno-fix for that. Also, I’m pretty sure they are making baseless claims about humans and human societies to back their proposals.
Anyways, now that I said all that, may I suggest another reading? Totally free and priceless :)
Let’s not forget an important factor: within the span of 30 years.
I spent too many hours yesterday trying to find the relevant info without taking this into consideration.
I just realised that we should also keep in mind that the time-frame of this study is several decades, so we are talking about about an average through the decades.
I’m afraid you are right. I fell into a rabbit hole yesterday trying to find were the claim of this article came from. I looked into the study itself, and didn’t manage to find how they defined the 10%. If I missed it, please point it out to me.
I copy-paste bellow a comment of mine on this, from another community:
The closest thing I managed to find was saying that 16.3% of adults worldwide have wealth of 100k to 1m, in 2023 [source: Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS, see The global wealth pyramid at p23] but this is not what the article says.
Somebody suggested the World Inequality Database but on this topic, the results come by country and/or stats.
If anyone has a decent link to share on this topic, please do.
I totally tried and then decided to ask here.
The closest thing I managed to find was saying that 16.3% of adults worldwide have wealth of 100k to 1m, in 2023 [source: Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS, see The global wealth pyramid at p23] but this is not what the article says.
Somebody suggested the World Inequality Database but on this topic, the results come by country and/or stats.
Thank you very much but it looks like they don’t have what I am looking for. I followed several path in More Indicators and Other Indicators but everything that comes out is by country and/or percentages and at my most hopeful moment I got:
This indicator has no data for this selection. Please select another one.
Anyways, thanks again!
I know that in the article they mentions €42,980 and I appreciate carbon brief. Still, I tried to find in the study itself how they calculated it, but somehow I didn’t manage to. This is why I asked for another link.
Do you have a decent link to corroborate that?
Do you have any decent link that supports this?
I didn’t manage to spot in the study itself, how they calculate this number. If anyone has, please share this part.
I don’t think so. I have the impression that the introduction part was talking in general, mainly because it says The amount varies by location and local wage trends, and then it talks about the US, specifically.
Appart from that, in page 23 of the Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS in The global weath pyramyd 2023 it also says saomething similar, that 16.3% of adults have wealth in USD of 100k to 1m.
Did I get something wrong?
Edit: At the bottom of the investopedia article, they have the sources and since they only have references about the US, I believe I can safely say that I my assumption that the intro was talking about the entire world was wrong.
The calculations in the site you linked is more of a creative accounting approach for feel good purposes. Nothing serious there imo.
Partially, I agree your conclusion, but I believe some clarifications could help on the math part, because minimum wage will never put you in the top 10% of world income.
From investopedia 2024:
How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?
Individuals in the top 10% earn at least six figures annually. In some areas, those in the top 1% must make over $1 million per year, while in others, the threshold is lower.
If I understand you correctly, for you research is something that only scientist do, but it’s not the case. Research takes place in uncountable fields.
From wiki:
Research is creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge.
The problem is
The problem is capitalism with its embedded goal of growing profit. It took capitalists some time and a lot of propaganda to convince people to shift to single-use plastics instead of reusable containers (i.e. glass bottles for milk). It is not profitable for this economic wasteful system of production to change back, and it doesn’t need to, because this system is backed by governments all over the world. So, the solution can only come from a systemic change.
a couple decades of temporary mitigation would save hundreds of millions of lives
We cannot know that. There are too many unintended consequences on too many levels, that derive from geoengineering.
A couple of quick notes & downsides of this vid:
But I thought it was worth sharing because it is recent and has a lot of info on how this research is going on several fields.