Why should you care about the well-being of people half a globe away?
Kurzgesagt Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/cRUQxz
Support us on Patreon so we can make more videos (and get cool stuff in return): https://www.patreon.com/Kurzgesagt?ty=h
Kurzgesagt merch: http://bit.ly/1P1hQIH
The music of the video here:
THANKS A LOT TO OUR LOVELY PATRONS FOR SUPPORTING US:
Flavio Storino, Alice Balcon, Hari Krishnan, Warren Wiscombe, Sara Zeglin, Asiryan Alexander, maarten sprengers, William Northern, Kerem Mimaroglu, Yana Kultysheva, Josh, Keaton Anderson, Croconaw, Peter Steinberger, Jonathan Diamond, Troy McConaghy, Paddy, Darko Sperac, Peter Burkhalter, Chris Amaris, Tyler Lovell, John Ruble, Chase Henson, Arpita Singh, Edward C.P., Andreas Edlund, Ryan Bubinski, Paul Greyson, Jerry Ding, Austin Sundquist, Daniel Link, Tim Johnson, kayleigh dreste, Johan Sjöblom, Max Stuart, Mush Rain, Andor Baranyi, Eduardas Afanasjevas, Bill Clem, Jake Smith, Stephen Woerner, Jeff Sorensen, Christopher Damsgaard, Eduardo AV, Michael Gawenka, Florian Hoedt, Lucas Nyman, Nathanael Baker, Martin Wierzyk, Mauricio Streb, Karl, Rameet Chawla, Joachim Andersen, Avinash, Erik Golden, Glenn Stoltz, Elliott Nelson, Andrew Averett, Ben Wei
Help us caption & translate this video!
A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place
I never click the like button on YouTube videos but this video expressed the ideas so well that I had to start liking videos starting with this one. Thanks for the awesome video. I'll forward this to some people who believe that a trickle down approach to economies works.
The basic idea is correct, but it would only work in collaborative spaces. And our competitive capitalistic space won't distribute. That's why the positive sum won't reach everybody. Plus the surplus is mainly on cost of natural resources and paid slavery. Innovation can only enhance the surplus by polishing efficiency.
If you think about it all altruism is kinda egoistic. Among things said in the video, there is also social status to be gained by being good and giving to others, being seen as a good person, being treated better because of it, etc. Even at a basic level, why do you help people? You help people because you want to, maybe it makes you feel good. If you didn’t want to help people, you wouldn’t. That means everyone has at least a basic self interest in helping others.
What is the true ratio of people that are "better off" now? How is "better off" quantified? Is there even enough technology and resources for everyone to be "better off"? What is the golden ratio of people worse off to better off? What is this video even about? is this political, humanitarian, or universally objective???? If the universe had its way, all particles would be evenly spread and zero kelvin would be the norm.
A really fascinating video, but it seems that egoistic altruism has its own problems. More people having more may not always be the way forward. Nowadays there are growing obesity rates, the population growth even though it seems to have peaked is starting to become a problem with the amount of natural resources we have as well putting a pressure on the environment. While innovation and an advance in technology can help us solve a lot of issues, it is creating issues we are simply not capable of handling yet. When nuclear energy was invented, is was a great step forward in delaying the inevitable energy crisis but nowadays its weaponisation is threatening the world. Thanks for sparking a lot of thoughts :)
Positive sum game, but limited by natural resources.
Exponentially-increasing consumption per person is not sustainable. It inevitably causes damage to the environment, causing serious problems for the future.
We do not need more economic growth.
We do not need more jobs or more work hours.
We need an economy that encourages people to DO MORE WITH LESS.
This point of view is wrong
the reason why some countries are prospering is because of the developing countries that make goods cheaper.
positive sum world?
im sorry but in poor countries are suffering for the sake of 1st world countries
saying that everyone is well off now is totally wrong.
The more we pollute, overpopulate and exhaust the earth's recources, the better it is for me? No, this is a selfish argument for ruining the earth. And leaving our descendants with scraps and a ruined earth. Civilization is why mother nature will kill us all off.
I like the video but I have many disagreement with the idea of innovation
the example show that if we invested more in one aspect, it would be highly innovated and advance
but at the same time, this mean that we are taking away investment to other aspect
the focus on agriculture needed tools, tools need materials, materials needed effective production line so that in a way, focus on the agriculture help industrial revolution
we need to have a base of focus to grow an advancement. Now that everyone has their own interest, it's hard to focus on something because medial technology and media technology is not exactly the same. Meanwhile, it was easier back then because the choice of profession was every limited and so the general investment into it was larger.
I think I may be kinda award in my statement and the logic was conflicted but to sum up is I think that the world current condition can not entirely be interpret base on what happen thousand of years ago
I realize it is a huge topic, but it is a fascinating one, and one that really needs more accessible explanations like your wonderful videos.
And, A: yes, that is a wide net, but I think you could trim it down to a couple core concepts,
B: those cores (I think) would be economic applications, decisions, ...essentially throw a fundamentals of logic in there too, and then the philosophical side of things: applying this to real life issues ranging from psychology to, well, games, to war, and overall "conflict resolution." (Like how The Art Of War or The Book Of Five Rings work for arguments, struggling to pay rent, all kinds of things as well as violence, because they are fundamentally about resolving CONFLICT, which can be soooo many things.
Studying these things my whole life has been an enormous gift to understanding and coping with every type of problem imaginable, but I REALLY struggle to explain it succinctly when I make a new friend who didn’t have that education or upbringing.
So it would be WONDERFUL if you could help your millions of viewers understand at least the gist too! Problem solving skills are ...well, it’s that whole "teach a man to fish..." idea.
Of course I realize you are very busy, have lots of other videos you want to do, and this would be its own, like, 12-part miniseries, but I wanted to share my two cents on an issue/topic that has consumed my whole life, and one I strive to help others understand, so it might build a better zeitgeist for all humanity. And because apparently I can’t teach martial arts=logic=math=conversation very easily. And I lack cute animations for my teaching. :)
But hey, I’d be delighted to help if asked. And I really do think it could be a wonderful thing for millions and millions of people around the world, regardless of circumstance like job, gender, geography, etc.
Food for thought for you, and thank you for giving me so much to think about!
the money is 7 times fold already...in the hands of some who try to make us work 7 times fold...it's the money that should create what needed not people working more for it :) except those who have it don't wanna use it...hmmm
How many brainless racists pretending to be 'special smart peoples' can comment on one video?
Judging by the comments, all of them.
Tip: segregation and nationalism lead to no positive end. Think I'm wrong? Cite a SINGLE historical advancement that resulted from it in a SINGLE culture.
Oh, right. There's zero.
And how about when cultures intermingle?
Suddenly the numbers are so high they cannot be counted.
But hey. Let's all be nationalist. In fact, let's make a time machine to make sure everybody ever was a racist/nationalist. I'd love to see the outcome if the man who single handedly drove our nuclear program to succeed had remained a German loyalist in the years before the Cold War started. We wouldn't have any White Nationalist Americans, I can assume that much.
If you are a nationalist or a racist, you are quite literally the definition of retarded. And yes, "literally" was used in its literal sense there, in case you were too slow to catch it. And no amount of stamping like a toddler will ever convince anyone who doesn't share your inherent defect otherwise.
It could also create more future enemy s though, why should we help them if they aren't under our control and thus can't profit off the products of their well being. I mean sure maybe one of their innovations will help us, but that's not likely. Why should they help us.
Tell that to the big corporations, who are actually benefiting from keeping people poor. The weapon industry that are amassing billions and billions through giving arms to war-torn countries, creating more and more conflict and keeping the people poor undeveloped ignorant week and in need of their weapons creating a vicious cycle.
Plus there have been numerous claims that the cure for cancer is being hidden in order to keep pumping billions of dollars through research and the high cost of a cancer patient's treatment.
If this is really your belief, then you're perhaps against immigration. As an engineer, some of the best in brightest people who work in my company are from India. As they tell me, there is a way higher standard and amount of work to get a degree/transfer to the United States to get an education. They are far more highly motivated than most of my colleagues. By my personal observations of how education and general societal norms are degrading into absolute stupidity (to the point where people will watch your videos and actually think this is a legitimate source of information), we are in a downward spiral, and 2nd and 3rd world countries will surpass us in science and industry in just a few decades.
Why does the video ignore the opportunity cost of investing in the development of less well-off countries? The same argument that says that a broader number of well-off people could invest more in cancer research also says that a limited number of well-off people could invest the same amount in cancer research if they weren't investing elsewhere with no change in the return. This is worth addressing because it's one of the greater practical problems with globalized development - its not in the immediate economic interest of people in already developed areas to pour money and resources into less developed areas on the promise of future payoff somewhere at some point down the line, especially since most of those who pay in (in the forms of taxes) are not going to see the pay out. Also, the video massively oversimplifies the complexity of technological innovation, particularly in medical fields since there's no direct correlation between the amount of money spent on, say, cancer research and actual progress towards a cure. This has been one of the major points of criticism towards cancer research in the West, which sees a lot of the resources granted for cancer research squandered on redundant testing because there's no unifying oversight of research, Making the Pie larger is GENERALLY better, but it takes much more than that to effect actual change, otherwise we'd have fixed the problems in Africa by now through just dumping money on the continent.
The problem with this is that resources are limited and it's avoiding the fact that I don't want eg China or North Korea to be a major center for innovation because they might use it for bad ends and I don't want to live under a totalitarian regime.
I also don't want countries except the EU, North America and other fully democratic nations like it colonizing other planets though, because again, they might become powerful enough to oppress me.
If someone finally cure the cancer, and that one person demand to the world every money to pay for him? That is how capitalism works now. That 'pie' producing acceleration is decreasing, because most of the pie are only belongs to the greedy pie makers' bosses.
The problem of overpopulation would most likely become worse in the beginning of working towards an all-educated world. Once the concept was set in place and everyone was well off the system would most likely work towards everyone's interest. However, until we get there, differing personal interests of cultures, economic interests of companies, and political interests of countries would most likely make the change from our current system to the described system impossible. It would take a uniform effort from every individual to change but in the current state, the people's interests around the world aren't all that uniform due to varying levels of wealth accompanied by differing personal needs. Nonetheless, the descibed state of the world is indeed desirable, nice video.
But there's a problem. Even though that what it's shown it's nice, we can't expect that it would work in the actual system. In order to richness to exist, it needs the poverty to exist, not just for reference, it because that's how materials get their value. If all have the same opportunities (translated to money) objects will lose their monetary value, because all can have access to them, so either way it's all free or it's all incredible expensive, causing a collapse in the system. So it's not a problem of the idea, it's a problem of the system. That's what i think
We are not a positive sum game because we are hitting the threshold where our population size is depleting global supplies and the wars just get bloodier because the "pie slices" being fought for are so big. We did not change the 0 sum aspect we just changed the scale at which it is applicable.
I usually like your videos, but this one is so bad... I love how all the third world countries will become full of Inventors, researchers, engineers, and thinkers if they only had more access to resources. Just like Saudi Arabia is, I mean they are famous for their great thinkers and innovations. Just recently they innovated the radical idea to permit women to drive.
Yeah right, the point of this video is to feel well even when the amount of rich people grows slow, but the poor population grows faster.
And individual interest are now bloking the development of new technology, cures and vacines, because it means that you no longer had to take pills for the rest of your life.
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.