Laying Blame: Population vs. Consumption

[NoOneMan]

31. I'm not really using an established western definition of "well-being" to be honest

If I was, I couldn't question the concept of "progress" in the first place. While longevity may be a component to the "happiness question", we must consider if its cost brings more suffering (IOW, quality vs quantity).

BTW, from my experience, I've meant few people in first world nations that are exceptionally "happy" despite what many would call incredible "well-being".

There is absolutely no question that overall, we're living longer, happier, healthier lives because of technology and "industrialization".

Even those in the Congo? Everywhere? Everyone? Healthier than 10K years ago (before famine, epidemics, and affluent malnutrition)? Happier? Despite the prevalence of mental health issues in the first world and misery in the third world? Really? Are you sure your culture isn't selling you a "story" that reinforces itself, which may not have any bearing on those suffering in other parts of the world?

Do you really feel that aboriginal people are more miserable than today's average human because of our progress? How do you know this view isn't derived from ethnocentrism. Are the Bushpeople "unhappy"? Are the Hadza "unhappy"?

the percentage of people in the world who qualify as "undernourished" has been halved in that same amount of time

What percentage are you using? As far as I've read in multiple studies, 4 billion suffer a chronic deficiency in at least one required nutrient and 850 million are starving to death. In addition, over a billion people do not even have access to fresh water? Are you suggesting it used to be twice this amount?

And further, presuming this is all true what you say, are we not to consider this "progress" against billions of deaths that ecological disaster will bring because of it (assuming its dependent upon production and this production causes climate change)?