| 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. |
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.