You can take this to further lengths to demonstrate the shortsightedness:
Why should we worry about fixing up the problem with lead in drinking water in Flint as long as there's people there living in poverty and starving? We should just let everyone drink leaded water until the poverty problem is fixed.
Why are we wasting money on developing more efficient farming techniques as long as there's people starving?
That money should be spend on feeding people instead.
---
This is basically what the article is arguing: that we shouldn't develop new technologies as long as there's people living in poverty. Never mind that the new technologies developed improve the economy greatly and help life more people out of poverty.
Comments
Save the Whales? Why, if there are people starving? Preserve Yellowstone? Why, if there are people starving?
You can take this to further lengths to demonstrate the shortsightedness:
Why should we worry about fixing up the problem with lead in drinking water in Flint as long as there's people there living in poverty and starving? We should just let everyone drink leaded water until the poverty problem is fixed.
Why are we wasting money on developing more efficient farming techniques as long as there's people starving? That money should be spend on feeding people instead.
---
This is basically what the article is arguing: that we shouldn't develop new technologies as long as there's people living in poverty. Never mind that the new technologies developed improve the economy greatly and help life more people out of poverty.