If we could quantify an individual's suffering, then we could look at two metrics: the sum of all suffering on the planet, and the average individual suffering on the planet. While I would probably agree that for 1st-world countries these numbers have gone down, I'm just not sure if the same can be said for the global population. It's also unclear whether technology was just ineffective here or actually contributed to the problem.

Even as far as our current dreams of technotopia are concerned, it's important not to forget just how dependent they are on people working and living in what many of us consider abhorrent conditions.

If our use of technology made it so that every human on the planet had to do less work overall then I might be convinced that it was "good" as opposed to "hard to say", but it seems like we want ourselves to do as much if not more work with each new advance, as if work and production of stuff is the ultimate measure of our lives.

You have got to be kidding. What we call "extreme poverty" today would have seemed like luxury to almost every human being who has ever lived. The difference today is not that there are a billion people who live in extreme poverty; it's that there are a billion who are living at a first world standard of living. That is a far higher fraction of humanity than ever before; I would be surprised if even a small fraction of a percent of all of humanity in 1800 lived at what would then have been considered a "first world" standard of living. (Not to mention that what qualifies as a first world standard of living today has, in many respects, never existed before--what qualified as "first world" in 1800 would, in many respects, be considered "extreme poverty" today.)

How do you think people lived in sub-Saharan Africa in 1800? Living at bare subsistence level is exactly how almost all humans who have ever lived, lived.

Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does."

That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. It's because Europe (and America) have gotten enormously richer through huge increases in productivity. As in, now 1/7 of humanity gets to live in "first world" conditions, in--wait for it--Europe and America.

Do you have any references for that claim?

My understanding is that whereas (sub-Saharan) African people by and large used to be farmers and were generally able to grow enough food, drink enough water, build adequate shelter, and make enough clothes, that since colonization (which got going in earnest in 1880) the continent was basically shoehorned into modern industrial society and that now many Africans are dependent on whatever foreign aid they can get and are no longer self-sufficient.

What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly, but again, if you have a reference that says colonization (or its later rejection) did nothing to change poverty in Africa it would be interesting to read it.

The lack of self-sufficiency in Africa, where it exists, is not a product of colonialism; it's a product of post-colonialism. It's not politically correct to say so these days, but you can see from the Wikipedia page that yummyfajitas referenced that Africa's GDP was basically constant until 1820, then grew at an increasing rate up until 1973, and is now tapering again. I.e., it grew fastest under colonialism. What stopped the growth was that when colonialism was stopped, nothing workable was put in its place; instead Africa was handed over to corrupt dictators who had no ability to or interest in governing properly.

There's another factor too: if you just have a plot of land that is able to provide food, water, clothing, and shelter for yourself without any actual registered trade you actually contribute nothing to the GDP. My understanding is that this self-sufficiency was basically destroyed by colonists.

If GDP has grown, which means the sub-continent is largely more productive now in capitalist terms, and therefore self-sufficiency levels have not changed but rather increased, why is it so dependent on foreign aid when it wasn't - as far as I am aware - in 1800?

Also, while post-colonialism obviously left the place in ruins, I think it's quite clear that you can't have post-colonialism without colonialism.

I guess at the end of the day I don't consider poverty to be measured in dollars and cents but in actual day-to-day quality of life, and I have a hard time believing that for the percentage of the population living in "extreme poverty" (less than $1.25 per day - note that dollars and cents matter more when you don't have other ways to provide for yourself), things were as bad when they had their own land and were self-sufficient. Unless you have something that clearly says, "No, life there has always been hell." It's not that I'm unwilling to believe something different, it's just that I want to hear it from someone who really knows about the history of how people lived at the time.

You might be surprised to discover that people don't actually like "self sufficiency" very much. In fact, they attempt to escape it as fast as they can, typically by migrating from rural areas to urban slums. Strangely, Africans enjoy capitalist luxuries like mobile phones and antibiotics just as much as westerners do.

Africa is "dependent" on foreign aid simply because they nowadays their population desires colonial luxuries like education and running water, whereas before colonialism they didn't know such things existed.

I think there's a bit more to it than that. If African countries were governed competently, they would need much less foreign aid in order to have education and running water and mobile phones and antibiotics and so on. The reason they aren't governed competently is, as I said before, that the people who got rid of colonialism didn't put anything else working in its place.

(Note: I was not one of the downvoters; I don't have enough karma to downvote, but even if I did, I would not have downvoted your post. I didn't see yummyfajitas' posts as being condescending, but "condescending" is subjective, so I would have left it to yummyfajitas to respond if he felt so inclined.)

"what you call ... the rest of the world calls"; "You might be surprised to discover"; "people don't actually"; "In fact"; "typically"; "Strangely"; I think you get the idea. All of this made me feel terrible.

At the end of the day, I basically am not convinced that life is as good or better than subsistence farming for the people in question. I was under the strong impression it was worse now because they don't have enough food and so it's below subsistence level (especially without foreign aid), but like you said elsewhere, I guess we can't know for sure. Anyway, thanks for your time pdonis, it was kind of you to respond here.

Matters for what? For looking at absolute wealth, it doesn't matter at all. Africa's GDP now is higher by a factor of almost 4, according to that Wikipedia page, than it was in 1820. The fact that Europe's is higher by a much larger factor doesn't change that.

For analyzing root causes, yes, the disparity matters a lot: it tells you that the "first world" has done a much better job of making people richer. Which might lead one to think about what that huge increase in GDP is built on. Perhaps a desire to have something more than bare subsistence, combined with an understanding of the kind of economic, social, and cultural environment that's needed to make that happen?

There's another factor too: if you just have a plot of land that is able to provide food, water, clothing, and shelter for yourself without any actual registered trade you actually contribute nothing to the GDP.

And you are also at bare subsistence level. Yes, you are providing food, water, clothing, and shelter for yourself; but you are providing nothing else. If you're satisfied with having nothing but the bare amount of food, water, clothing, and shelter necessary to sustain your life, then I guess you'd be OK with that. But if that were the case, how would you be able to post here?

My understanding is that this self-sufficiency was basically destroyed by colonists.

No, it was changed by colonialism from bare self-sufficiency to the ability to export large quantities of food and raw materials. When colonialism ended, all the infrastructure needed to continue that level of productivity was still there. The post-colonial governments squandered it.

I have a hard time believing that for the percentage of the population living in "extreme poverty" (less than $1.25 per day - note that dollars and cents matter more when you don't have other ways to provide for yourself), things were as bad when they had their own land and were self-sufficient.

You and I can't make this judgment. Only the people themselves can. As yummyfajitas points out, many of them appear to be opting for modern conveniences over bare self-sufficiency. That indicates to me that if they were dropped into the same circumstances as their ancestors in 1820, they would not be pleased.

http://www.theendofpoverty.com/poverty_persists_1.html

Wikipedia summarizes the conventional view. Africa's GDP increased 2x since the mid 1800's, Europe's increased by 20x.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...

See this book to see roughly how these estimates are computed: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9264022619/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly...

And if you go to Africa in 2012 you probably won't see this, although it was quite common worldwide in the 1800s. If you want to see this, you basically need to go to a war zone, the bush, or maybe Zimbabwe.

As, for example, in England or Europe in the early 1800's. (I believe that by the early 1800's this was already somewhat less common in the USA, but that is largely due to the fact that the population of the early USA was almost entirely self-selected immigrants who came there determined to be self-sufficient, and because the USA was so sparsely settled.)

There was no extreme poverty during the second half of the industrial revolution?

The Irish Great Famine never happened?

In the late 1800's, 16million people /didn't/ immigrate to America, because the jobs they had were better and paid more than the shit factory jobs we had?

The right way to put that is "Yet today only a billion people live in extreme poverty." What we call "extreme poverty" today was the norm throughout the world until the 20th century.

Bear-baiting is not coming back. If you don't know what it is, learning about it might upset you, which is my point.

Polio is confined to portions of the world instead of stalking the globe. Same with malaria. Smallpox is gone entirely.

Even more dramatic, there are places on the Earth now where people think it is a terrible, horrible tragedy if even a single child under three dies. Those people think it equally tragic if even a single mother dies in childbirth. Children in those regions are named before they're even born because it is expected as a matter of course that they will get to use those names!

It has been said that the past is a foreign country. Well, it is certainly inhabited by foreigners, people whose mindset was shaped by circumstances we shy from remembering. The mother of three children who gave birth eight times. The father of four children, the last of whom cost him his wife. Our minds are largely free of such horrors, and not inured to that kind of suffering. That is the progress of technology. That is what is improving the human race.

It is a long, long ladder, and sometimes we slip, but we've never actually fallen. That is our progress.

[0] One can make an argument about "economic bads", because economic growth isn't necessarily an indicator of humanitarian progress. However, I've seen no data to indicate that the proportion of economic bads has increased, so it wouldn't have a differential effect that would nullify observed growth.

Locally speaking, there are horrible uses of technology that occur all the time, but people have been doing awful things to each other since there were humans, and I think it's hard to blame that on technology itself. So what I'm really saying is more restricted: that the march of technical progress has been, for the world, positive more than negative over almost any measurable timescale.