@root0cosmo now, part of this increased productivity is the introduction of the potatoe. that one's really important. but that's adapting a crop, not exploiting the americas and didnt require murdering and expelling any native americans, right?
@root0cosmo also this:
https://t.co/MlGiVefwle
population growth providing a cheap workforce that would become the proletariat is probably due to increased productivity in britain, not the americas feeding europe. don't think that was a thing in the 1700s.
@root0cosmo colonies, when they were even profitable, shipped mostly "dense" luxury stuff like silver, sugar, coffee, pelts, some manufactured goods back home. (also i forgot to mention cotton earlier sorry but afaik that wasnt that important to the industrial revolution)
@root0cosmo from what i remember from econ history, mass importation of "food+materials" became possible only after the industrial revolution bc sailships cant profitably transport stuff like potatoes or wood, it's not "dense" enough. what may have mattered was the columbian exchange
@Ferdinand98xd@FortIS_55 absolutely not. for example in britain the number of days over 30°C has tripled even compared to 1960-90, in france they've broken average heat records multiple years in a row now, in Germany the top 10 hottest years on record, so since like 1880, are all after the year 2000...
@Blizzox2@dukakis88 Is there any way of solving that problem fully(it is partially solved by jailing post-crime, right?) of post-crime punishment without harming many people who wouldnt actually have committed any crimes? Pre-crime intervention seems really, really hard to do in a remotely just way
@nmslag@maiamindel ok but why should we choose among them? we're locking ourselves out of all the distributions that are not PE, what if any of those are better?
@maiamindel so far what ive seen pareto effficiency really used for is kind of just to go "yeah so this thing im proposing is pareto efficient so we don't have to think about distributional concerns here, isn't that nice and easy"
@maiamindel who exactly doesnt want to admit this? I'm not sure i've ever even seen fully neoliberal economists say anything like "this policy has to be rejected in principle bc someone is worse off here"
@maiamindel probably the first german philosopher anyone thinks of is a man who fully went insane towards the end and it certainly shows in his writing. at least it's a good read
@Fearthecow93@lullabystarlust Marriage is a big package deal, it's completely reasonable to keep it going for the lifelong partner and emotional support and economic benefits and kids etc even if the sex has stopped being good. And this seems common enough w/o "the marriage failing"
@lullabystarlust@EvilOni That's easy, right? These guys just want any kind of sex and settle for the passionless bad kind. I'm sure they'd much prefer their wife was extremely into it, no?
French solution: tacitly approved swx outside the marriage where everyone is enthusiastic about it
@jediporkchop1@LinkofSunshine In that case, utilitarianism wouldn't work. But I'm pretty sure no one fully believes utility can't be compared - the fine details maybe can't, but person A's 'utility' for not starving vs person B's for 1 coffee? Would anyone argue it's impossible to know which is greater?
@GlenntheGolden1@twelveautumns It's not necessarily the best gm move, but you could do that, sure! Failing to win people over even though the argument is very good happens all the time irl.
What'd the point of that be? Hm, well, chance is exciting+failure potentially interesting?