[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

This wasn't universal, as it depended on the moral values of each culture. There were cultures where altruism abounded, and war and slavery were either non-existent or not at all how you're depicting them.

You're falling prey to the "my aunt Sally" trap that allows someone to maintain cognitive dissonance. When I am speaking generally, I'm not talking about your aunt Sally who doesn't fit that generalization. If I say people have 10 fingers, you mentioning that aunt Sally has 11 doesn't dismiss the generalization.

If there's some tribe of 500 people on a tropical island that didn't war and engage in slavery, that doesn't mean they had amazing DNA that allowed superior moral character. It means they were isolated and didn't have to abide by the law of the jungle to keep invaders and marauders at bay.

Technology and industry have tried to limit our crimes and vices by offering us many more that do less harm to others, yet we also have fewer altruistic cultures as a result.

Altruistic cultures don't work, because it's not a thing. Communism advertises itself as altruistic, and thing commits the most horrific atrocities because that system is maladapted to humanity's selfishness. There might be a handful of people that behave relatively altruistically, but any system they impose on the mass of selfish people will become a murderous mess.

That's why free markets are the most functional form of commerce, because it assumes selfishness. Any system that doesn't assume the reality of human behavior will be outcompeted by ones that do.

Also, thinking that everyone suffered before the industrial revolution is just wrong. Most families did not have slaves. The world wasn't in a constant state of war either. There were many benefits to such a life style...

This is getting far off the topic of fossil fuels having been responsible for more people and more prosperity than all negative externalities so far, which you have miserably failed to refute, and now you're changing topics.

It's despicable that you're intentionally misinterpreting what I said in a sorry attempt to make me look bad. Nowhere did I say everyone suffered (except 100% of people suffer, so I'm saying it now). Nowhere did I imply most families had slaves, and you're incorrect about constant state of war. There's war right now. The earth continuously has war somewhere. Prior to industrialization, war was confined to where people could walk to.

I suspect that as those who have more power find more ways to keep channeling more of the world's wealth into their pockets then the rest of the world will continue to make less and less until we're back to slavery once again.

Your premise is incorrect- world GDP per capita has been increasing. "Aunt Sally" makes less now is not a refutation of this.

Even if your premise was correct, it does not follow that someone having a lot of money would turn someone else into a slave. Elon's wealth has nothing to do with my wealth (except I bought 1 share of Tesla as a joke). In other words, there's no mechanism where at some level of wealth that my earning approaches zero.

And besides, getting back to the point of climate change, even if the only downside to industrialization were climate change due to tons of CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere, there's no reason why we can't look for and try out alternatives that lower or eliminate that.

Bad ideas are spewed, CO2 is exhausted or exhaled. Where did I say we should not pursue alternatives? In fact, I said the ONLY way CO2 emissions will be curtailed is to find better energy alternatives, and alternatives to the millions of products we consume.