I just realised that we should also keep in mind that the time-frame of this study is several decades, so we are talking about about an average through the decades.

I’m afraid you are right. I fell into a rabbit hole yesterday trying to find were the claim of this article came from. I looked into the study itself, and didn’t manage to find how they defined the 10%. If I missed it, please point it out to me.

I copy-paste bellow a comment of mine on this, from another community:

The closest thing I managed to find was saying that 16.3% of adults worldwide have wealth of 100k to 1m, in 2023 [source: Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS, see The global wealth pyramid at p23] but this is not what the article says.

Somebody suggested the World Inequality Database but on this topic, the results come by country and/or stats.

If anyone has a decent link to share on this topic, please do.

Exactly. For me, it was pretty clear that the title was not talking about outer space, but from somewhere in the atmosphere and downwards. So I don’t understand how this title can be considered misleading.

For more on this, I suppose we have to wait for part 3 of this three-part series articles

What you said reminded me of an argument that I recently heard and found quite interesting, as well as accurate.

It was saying that the developing countries are actually the colonising ones because they got prosperous from ferociously extracting the resources from the places they colonised. In the so-called “post colonial era”, theses western countries kept their development through economic exploitation of the same areas and people.

Edit: So the developed countries, should actually be called developing instead. And what we call now developing countries should be called exploited, abused or something similar.

Do you think that morality is relative to each person’s view point or do you think that moral facts do not exist at all?

I think that morality is relative to each person and in the same time it is shaped from social and cultural norms.

In relation to your answer to my question, I came to realise that I don’t think that I will get a satisfactory one, because of our different backgrounds. What I mean is that you talk with philosophical terms to a commoner. For example (and to my understanding) you talk about moral facts as a given term, and for me this notion doesn’t even exist. Don’t get me wrong, good for you!

Also, taking into consideration that our answers are getting longer and longer, maybe this could be a good exit point. So, I would like to thank you for the time you spent on this conversation, because I enjoy thinking and you gave me food for thought.

That was a close call for sure.

After reading your post I thought of sharing something that could be helpful. I understand that most probably you already know this stuff, but I see no harm in sharing this input.

Wildfires - Habitat Ready: Disaster preparedness for homeowners

Just to note that I found this article in this Disaster Response community.

I could easily live in a city with electric public transports in which cars would be banned, and replaces by bicycles.

I was not satisfied by my previous answer, so I thought of deleting it and giving it another try.

So your suggestion is that we can keep our moral judgments out of practical considerations without espousing the objective truth of moral facts?

Not at all. I would be extremely hesitant to suggest something on this topic, for all people. In a way, this is the reason why I talked about how I see things on a personal level, specifically.

About the category error, once more I don’t know the terms you use, so I will answer from what I understand by the way you describe them.

My question was related to a notion (objective morality), and not a physical object (i.e. a rock). Notions exist - to my understanding - because we use language, so we should be able to define them. An object like a rock, is there even if language is not used. So I don’t see where the category error could be.

Finally, I will rephrase my 2-part question for clarity, because only half of it got kind of answered:

Since you claim that morality is objective I would assume that you would be capable of tracing where this objectivity comes from, how it emerged, and how it stays that way. I’m not too sure how to phrase this as a question, but it’s something along those lines.

Also, if it were objective for all people, I imagine we would all know its content. But, for example, the terms morally good & morally bad even tho they are commonly used in modern languages, they often have different content. So, it seems clear to me that the terms morally good and bad are not objective. So which morality is objective? Please, describe the content of this notion you claim to be objective.

deleted by creator

I don’t know the term you mentioned so I’ll be talking about the points you made, not the term itself.

So, I don’t need morality to condemn the human suffering that slavery, female genital mutilation, or genocide creates. I don’t need a moral lens for this, just a practical one – out of solidarity, for freedom, equity, equality etc, for everyone on this planet. This is why it’s easy for me to justify any fight for social justice. These fights are by default systemic so against the status quo. I hope it is clear why I don’t need an objective moral truth.

I would like to ask you, when you say morality is objective who defines it and what is it?

The way I see things, there is nothing objective about morality because it is based on cultural principles, and these vary from place to place and through time as well.

Since this article is an adapted excerpt, of the book What a Bee Knows, perhaps one idea would be to download it and check out the bibliography for the relevant citations.

the author is suggesting that there are two different policies

The author describes the israeli apartheid in a deceitful way, which is very different to what you say. This is not an article that wants to draw attention to the Uyghur. It just tries to deflect the conversation from the Palestinian Genocide to something else.

Please see an article by Amnesty International from 2022, meaning before the current Genocide: Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity

A few more of the plenty deceitful aspects in this article are bellow:

The United States has tried to pressure China’s leadership to end the Uyghurs’ mistreatment—for instance, by barring companies from importing products that originate in Xinjiang into the U.S.

Talking about these imports is one thing. Why not also talk about the US arm exports that kills Palestinian civilians? Regardless of the Leahy Law.

Israel was formed by Jews

No, it was created by Zionists, not Jews. These two words are not interchangeable. There are many Jews who oppose Zionism (please see Jewish Voice for Peace)

Israel, from this viewpoint, is an outgrowth of European colonialism; it represses and displaces a local people,

There is a word for these people: Palestinians.

Also, represses and displaces a local people? If past tense was used, this sentence would have some merit. Since it uses present tense, I can only say: this is not how I would describe a Genocide.

Sorry but whataboutism has its limits.

Also, from the posted article:

The Israelis keep the Palestinians something of a people apart

Is this how we describe apartheid now?

Yeah, I see what you mean and on top of that you would need to pay for it.

That’s why I added in the description a link with instructions on the free tool designed by Amnesty International’s Security Lab.

Unfortunately, these are just articles that claim stuff, they do not include any actual and/or current researches. This is why they use terms like “trusted source”, or urge the reader to worry about something, instead of providing evidence and let the reader decide how to feel about these findings.

Also, they come from the mouthpieces that Zionist propaganda uses. Remember the debunked beheaded babies claims, or the weaponization of sexual violence claims, or the human shield claims - to name just a few that were covered by these media.

Still, thank you for taking the time.

Could you please share a link supporting your claim that doesn’t come from a zionist propaganda machine?

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn’t know the Mises caucus, and they sound terrible. Actually, I only knew of Mises and some other dudes from the Austrian school of economics and thought it would be a legit institute. Looks like that’s not the case.

if it is can we get a better source

That would be so great, I did look around for the “typical” western media but I didn’t find any outlet mentioning it. Maybe I missed it, I dunno. So If anyone spotted a recent relevant article, please do share.

We do know for sure that the 50-years petrodollar agreement that Nixon signed with Saudi Arabia ended this June.

‘MILESTONE’ PACT IS SIGNED BY U.S. AND SAUDI ARABIA - NYT - June 9, 1974