• binux@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Only if you’re basing your assertion on inherently biased criteria. For many in the west it’s better sure, but what about the majority of people in impoverished countries, or less fortunate people in general? How about non-human species that have been losing their natural habitats to pollution and global warming inch by inch, or just human interference in general? Or even species that have been outright driven to extinction by human activity?

    I’m not so sure any of that is worth it for a new smart phone every year with only marginally better features. And I hear the new hyped-up technology is pretty much the epitome of an infinite amount of monkeys on typewriters desperate to type up Shakespeare.

    • Miaou@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Of course these people benefited too. Why do you demography in Asia/Africa boomed over the last century?

      • binux@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Again, that’s only from your (biased) viewpoint. I’m sure you or I can say that with relatively little consideration from our cushy positions in wealthy countries, but try and get, say, the average Sudanese citizen to agree with that. It’s really not gonna work.

        Plus to agree with your sentiment is to say that capitalism is worth the suffering it causes. I’m gonna have to disagree with that on principle.

      • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Are you sure? There are an order of magnitude more people around now. And most are still not doing great. So now we have a massive explosion in the net amount of suffering in order to boost the joy of a few people by a few bits.