[FredPret]

OK, here's just such a scenario:

Our example community used to have ten children total, and one died of hunger. The the industrial revolution happened. Now we have 300 children, and two died of hunger.

That's 288 children living materially much more abundant lives. 288 lives that wouldn't have existed. One of them might be a key scientist / entrepreneur that launches us to 1000000 kids and zero dying of anything.

[gapan]

Please don't sensationalize your example, it doesn't help your argument and others can play that game too *.

While it's true that the industrial revolution has led to significant economic growth, I don't think that justifies the fact that two children died of hunger in your example community. Every child deserves to live a life free from hunger and poverty, regardless of the overall economic situation. It's not a zero-sum game where we have to choose between economic growth and the well-being of the most vulnerable members of society. And I'm not convinced by the argument that the potential benefits of economic growth outweigh the cost of individual lives. We should be working to create a world where every child has access to the resources they need to thrive, not justifying the deaths of children as a necessary cost of progress.

* In your example, one of the two kids that dies is your son. The other one is the kid who's death is going to launch his best friend in a downward spiral that will eventually lead him to push the button and start global nuclear war that kills everyone and everything on the planet.

[FredPret]

You're ignoring the fact that modern technological society unlocked hundreds of lives that wouldn't otherwise have existed. Turning our backs on the industrial revolution would, in effect, "kill" these people by preventing their chance at life.

> We should be working to create a world where every child has access to the resources they need to thrive, not justifying the deaths of children as a necessary cost of progress.

> It's not a zero-sum game where we have to choose between economic growth and the well-being of the most vulnerable members of society.

The deaths of the two children aren't "justified" and neither is the "death" of the hundreds who didn't get to live in the first place. We have to minimize deaths and maximize life.

You're right that it's not a zero-sum game. The best thing for everybody is maximum growth. In the year 1800 there was approximately zero concern for the welfare of the poor, and yet the breakneck growth in that century gave the poor vastly higher wages and made left-wing, pro-worker ideas like workplace safety and the weekend practical for the first time.

Sacrificing growth for a softer approach to life gives you neither.

The best way to ensure every kid has the resources they need is to first become a rich society. The second step is to ensure your society stays rich by focusing on getting richer. When you're tapping an exponentially growing system to feed the poor, your first priority is to keep that system growing as fast as possible, not to throw a wrench into it.

[gapan]

I never supported the idea that we should turn our backs on modern technological advances. Of course these have improved our lives.

But going back to your example, why are you trying to rationalize the fact that now two children are dead from hunger? If anything, the overall economic growth in your example and all the additional available resources should have made certain that not even a single child died.

And yet, here we are, with more that 8 billion people on the planet, all our technological advances and all the resources that we have and still, 1 out of every 10 people on the planet faces hunger. There is no sugar coating this. It is a tragedy.

[FredPret]

They're only dead because they got to be born first. It's not like modern agriculture reached out and killed them on purpose.

Richer mothers are better able to plan their families and tend to restrict it to a number of kids they can feed. The answer is, and always will be, exponential growth.