Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Social Progression

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 2:17:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pareto-optimal economic growth.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 5:29:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 5:25:52 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/12/2013 2:17:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Pareto-optimal economic growth.

what?

What I mean is, do you really think that all these indicators - health, well-being, opportunity etc. - can be reduced to one dimension and compared? Have I understood you properly?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 5:35:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 5:25:52 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/12/2013 2:17:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Pareto-optimal economic growth.

what?

For example, here's a list of stuff.

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org...

There's mobile phone subscriptions, say, and CO2 emissions per capita, and tolerance for immigrants. Any measure of pareto-optimality involving these different indicators is going to be fairly arbitrary, isn't it? How could you possibly weight them? Although I suppose the people who put them together must have, because each country gets a number at the end.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 6:22:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 5:35:30 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/13/2013 5:25:52 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/12/2013 2:17:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Pareto-optimal economic growth.

what?

For example, here's a list of stuff.

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org...

There's mobile phone subscriptions, say, and CO2 emissions per capita, and tolerance for immigrants. Any measure of pareto-optimality involving these different indicators is going to be fairly arbitrary, isn't it? How could you possibly weight them? Although I suppose the people who put them together must have, because each country gets a number at the end.

Thanks for that link. I haven't checked it out thoroughly but it seems informative.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 6:49:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 5:29:52 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/13/2013 5:25:52 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/12/2013 2:17:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Pareto-optimal economic growth.

what?

What I mean is, do you really think that all these indicators - health, well-being, opportunity etc. - can be reduced to one dimension and compared? Have I understood you properly?

lol, I interpreted the OP to mean factors in social progression. Pareto-optimal growth would be one key factor.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 6:52:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 5:35:30 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/13/2013 5:25:52 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/12/2013 2:17:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Pareto-optimal economic growth.

what?

For example, here's a list of stuff.

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org...

There's mobile phone subscriptions, say, and CO2 emissions per capita, and tolerance for immigrants. Any measure of pareto-optimality involving these different indicators is going to be fairly arbitrary, isn't it? How could you possibly weight them? Although I suppose the people who put them together must have, because each country gets a number at the end.

Regardless of how much progress we achieve, given your list:

1) Mobile phone subscriptions - don't take any away from people who have them
2) CO2 emmissions - Keep CO2 emissions per capita at current levels or lower
3) Tolerance for immigrants - What? I don't see how this is social progress. What I would see as social progress is doing away with national borders.

Pareto growth achieved.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 6:58:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 5:29:52 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/13/2013 5:25:52 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/12/2013 2:17:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Pareto-optimal economic growth.

what?

What I mean is, do you really think that all these indicators - health, well-being, opportunity etc. - can be reduced to one dimension and compared? Have I understood you properly?

Pareto-efficiency could be the goal of any given indicator.

For instance, you look for a pareto-optimal solution to total health, pareto-optimal solution for well-being, etc, and try and find compatible ways for the policies to co-exist.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 6:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 6:52:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/13/2013 5:35:30 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/13/2013 5:25:52 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/12/2013 2:17:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Pareto-optimal economic growth.

what?

For example, here's a list of stuff.

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org...

There's mobile phone subscriptions, say, and CO2 emissions per capita, and tolerance for immigrants. Any measure of pareto-optimality involving these different indicators is going to be fairly arbitrary, isn't it? How could you possibly weight them? Although I suppose the people who put them together must have, because each country gets a number at the end.

Regardless of how much progress we achieve, given your list:

1) Mobile phone subscriptions - don't take any away from people who have them
2) CO2 emmissions - Keep CO2 emissions per capita at current levels or lower
3) Tolerance for immigrants - What? I don't see how this is social progress. What I would see as social progress is doing away with national borders.

Pareto growth achieved.

I was going to add:

Of course, you can always bicker about what indicators should have pareto-optimal growth.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:33:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But how could pareto-optimal growth be more than a fantasy?

For example, population growth leads to congestion. You can't have crowding-free population growth. And holding CO2 emissions stable means that people have to adjust their emission behavior in some undesirable (to them) way.

I can't help but think that according to this definition, women's rights, for example, could never be a sign of social progress because they do take away men's prerogatives in certain areas, which is a negative.

Aaagh. This is always what happens when I try to understand economics.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 8:53:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:33:04 PM, rross wrote:
But how could pareto-optimal growth be more than a fantasy?

For example, population growth leads to congestion. You can't have crowding-free population growth. And holding CO2 emissions stable means that people have to adjust their emission behavior in some undesirable (to them) way.

I can't help but think that according to this definition, women's rights, for example, could never be a sign of social progress because they do take away men's prerogatives in certain areas, which is a negative.

Aaagh. This is always what happens when I try to understand economics.

Hey, I'm not too attached to the idea, just explaining how it would be applied to indicators versus being an one-dimensional indicator.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:00:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:33:04 PM, rross wrote:
But how could pareto-optimal growth be more than a fantasy?

For example, population growth leads to congestion. You can't have crowding-free population growth. And holding CO2 emissions stable means that people have to adjust their emission behavior in some undesirable (to them) way.

Maybe technology comes to relieve the congestion and CO2 emissions. That would fulfill pareto-optimal growth.

I can't help but think that according to this definition, women's rights, for example, could never be a sign of social progress because they do take away men's prerogatives in certain areas, which is a negative.

You can say that as long as women don't earn less going forward, you achieve pareto optimal growth.

Basically, as long as the worst off of society is not worse off during times of growth, you achieve pareto-optimality.

Aaagh. This is always what happens when I try to understand economics.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 9:57:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 8:53:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:33:04 PM, rross wrote:
But how could pareto-optimal growth be more than a fantasy?

For example, population growth leads to congestion. You can't have crowding-free population growth. And holding CO2 emissions stable means that people have to adjust their emission behavior in some undesirable (to them) way.

I can't help but think that according to this definition, women's rights, for example, could never be a sign of social progress because they do take away men's prerogatives in certain areas, which is a negative.

Aaagh. This is always what happens when I try to understand economics.

Hey, I'm not too attached to the idea, just explaining how it would be applied to indicators versus being an one-dimensional indicator.

Oh! OK. Sorry. You're right.

Although, even in the case of health, or something, it would still be difficult to do. For example, what medicines don't have side effects? So I suppose any health indicator would have to be some kind averaged health score. And to do that you'd have to equate things like "chronic pain" with "reduced mobility" wouldn't you?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 10:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 9:00:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:33:04 PM, rross wrote:
But how could pareto-optimal growth be more than a fantasy?

For example, population growth leads to congestion. You can't have crowding-free population growth. And holding CO2 emissions stable means that people have to adjust their emission behavior in some undesirable (to them) way.

Maybe technology comes to relieve the congestion and CO2 emissions. That would fulfill pareto-optimal growth.

I can't help but think that according to this definition, women's rights, for example, could never be a sign of social progress because they do take away men's prerogatives in certain areas, which is a negative.

You can say that as long as women don't earn less going forward, you achieve pareto optimal growth.

Basically, as long as the worst off of society is not worse off during times of growth, you achieve pareto-optimality.

Aaagh. This is always what happens when I try to understand economics.

Really? So you think that there is no place for trade-offs and compromise in social progress? That a society that decides to forgo their SUVs in exchange for cleaner air and reduced emissions (for example) is not making social progress? What about a country that decides to give up their personal gun collections and enjoys, as a result, a reduced crime and murder rate (just a hypothetical)?

Any kind of tax on the rich to support universal education or healthcare could never be a sign of social progress?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 4:55:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pareto-optimal growth is, of course, necessarily going to be a sign of progression. However, it doesn't exist in equity debates, as literally anything is valuable. We may say that being able to survive comfortably by working 40 hours a week instead of 80 is undoubtedly better, but we sacrifice a work drive which others may value in a society. All economic growth in fact may be seen as bad by the environmentalist who sees economic growth as planetary imperialism. I'd question, then, whether there is a univocal understanding of social progression, and instead employ an Open Question Argument in response.

So it is either subjective to societies, or it is intuitive (it cannot be adequately defined, such as "yellow").
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 5:20:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 10:02:10 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/13/2013 9:00:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:33:04 PM, rross wrote:
But how could pareto-optimal growth be more than a fantasy?

For example, population growth leads to congestion. You can't have crowding-free population growth. And holding CO2 emissions stable means that people have to adjust their emission behavior in some undesirable (to them) way.

Maybe technology comes to relieve the congestion and CO2 emissions. That would fulfill pareto-optimal growth.

I can't help but think that according to this definition, women's rights, for example, could never be a sign of social progress because they do take away men's prerogatives in certain areas, which is a negative.

You can say that as long as women don't earn less going forward, you achieve pareto optimal growth.

Basically, as long as the worst off of society is not worse off during times of growth, you achieve pareto-optimality.

Aaagh. This is always what happens when I try to understand economics.

Really? So you think that there is no place for trade-offs and compromise in social progress? That a society that decides to forgo their SUVs in exchange for cleaner air and reduced emissions (for example) is not making social progress? What about a country that decides to give up their personal gun collections and enjoys, as a result, a reduced crime and murder rate (just a hypothetical)?

Any kind of tax on the rich to support universal education or healthcare could never be a sign of social progress?

Wait! I just read the whole thread again. One factor. Among many. Hehe just ignore all this ^
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 10:41:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 10:02:10 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/13/2013 9:00:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/13/2013 8:33:04 PM, rross wrote:
But how could pareto-optimal growth be more than a fantasy?

For example, population growth leads to congestion. You can't have crowding-free population growth. And holding CO2 emissions stable means that people have to adjust their emission behavior in some undesirable (to them) way.

Maybe technology comes to relieve the congestion and CO2 emissions. That would fulfill pareto-optimal growth.

I can't help but think that according to this definition, women's rights, for example, could never be a sign of social progress because they do take away men's prerogatives in certain areas, which is a negative.

You can say that as long as women don't earn less going forward, you achieve pareto optimal growth.

Basically, as long as the worst off of society is not worse off during times of growth, you achieve pareto-optimality.

Aaagh. This is always what happens when I try to understand economics.

Really? So you think that there is no place for trade-offs and compromise in social progress? That a society that decides to forgo their SUVs in exchange for cleaner air and reduced emissions (for example) is not making social progress?

If someone had to "forego" something to achieve progress, then that's not "beneficial.

However, if someone did not have to forego something to achieve progress, then that's beneficial.

What about a country that decides to give up their personal gun collections and enjoys, as a result, a reduced crime and murder rate (just a hypothetical)?

If they did not have to give up their guns and as a result we experienced reduced crime and murder rates, that would be pareto-optimal (if you go by strictly utility analysis, not exactly economics but close)

Any kind of tax on the rich to support universal education or healthcare could never be a sign of social progress?

If you could get that education with the same or lower tax rates, that would be pareto-optimal.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 3:01:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/11/2013 8:21:56 PM, pozessed wrote:
What do you consider to be beneficial social progression?

Anything that benefits the group and relationships within. As an antisocial person, I have no group. I just have half a dozen acquaintances spread across different demographics, and don't really care about social change because it doesn't affect me.