6 ms·

I don't know if he's the originator, but Penn Jillette said one of my favorite quotes: "Everyone always thinks the world is getting worse, but the world is alw

I don't know if he's the originator, but Penn Jillette said one of my favorite quotes: "Everyone always thinks the world is getting worse, but the world is always getting better."

antarrah 10y ago
Not really in every aspect. Frank Sinatra was replaced by Justin Bieber. How is that better? :)
- agumonkey 10y ago
  Bieber is there to make this generation feel a void so they can make a new Sinatra in the future.
- johnwheeler 10y ago
  No, pretty much in every aspect. If you're living in the U.S. or Europe today, your lifestyle likely surpasses that of the royalty and robber barons of 150 years ago.
  - antarrah 10y ago
    I'd also be owning a house or a farm not renting.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    What does "better" mean? If we mean that to be afforded more technological luxury is to live better, then sure, no people has ever lived better. Are we happier and more fulfilled than ever before? I don't know, but I doubt it. Also, while the royalty and robber barons didn't have the internet or chemotherapy, they had servants to do all the menial chores most of is still have to do today, so in that respect we haven't totally surpassed them.
    - johnwheeler 10y ago
      > Are we happier and more fulfilled than ever before? I don't know, but I doubt it. I'd say large swaths of the population definitely are not, but we're all responsible for making our own happiness. No one owes us anything. We definitely have the platform and infrastructure to be happy. They're just easy to take for granted because they're so good they support us even when we do. > They had servants to do all the menial chores most of is still have to do today, so in that respect we haven't totally surpassed them. That's a myopic view. What do you call robots and computers that operate at orders of magnitudes of efficiency?
      - Amezarak 10y ago
        > I'd say large swaths of the populace definitely are not, but we're all responsible for making our own happiness. No one owes each of us anything. That may be the case, but the way society functions in general, social norms, trust, community, and the like have a massive impact on individual happiness. We "make" our happiness within that framework. Individual choices and failings are part of, say, the misery associated with opiate epidemics, but the conditions for them don't occur in healthy societies. > We definitely have the platform and infrastructure to be happy. But do we, to a greater extent than ever before in human history? Does social media make people happier? Cellphones? Modern family law and norms? An economy that encourages people to move across the country in search of new jobs? Are industrial societies more or less happy than agricultural societies? Postindustrial societies? Is our 'infrastructure' for 'better' lives really that which promotes happiness more than any other in human history? > What do you call robots and computers that operate at orders of magnitudes of efficiency? Incredible achievements based on the hard work and genius that have revolutionized the modern economy and made many things possible that were once impossible. That doesn't mean they make life better (depending on your definition of better) or people happier (relative to what?) A 'robber baron' was rich enough to do whatever they wanted. They never had to do a single menial chore in their lives, if they did not want to. No dishwashing, no food preparation, no clothes folding, no babysitting, no grass cutting. They didn't have a boss who could tell them what to do and threaten them with the loss of their livelihood. They could work as little or as much as they wanted, with no effect on their lifestyle unless it was truly extravagant. They had unlimited, truly free time. I don't know that I'd be happier in that case, but sitting here now I feel pretty confident I could exchange Netflix, Hacker News, my cell phone, and transcontinental flights for that in a heartbeat. Maybe even advanced medical care. I don't want to hold robber barons up as living a lifestyle we should aspire to. I'm simply saying that yes, in many ways, their lives were better in simply material terms than the way the average person lives today; it is nice to have a dishwasher, but it is even better to not have to wash dishes. It is nice to not be a chimney-sweep, but unlimited free time is better than 40-80 hours a week devoted to keeping yourself employed.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  That's focusing too much on one data point, the popular "teen idol" singers of the day. :) Overall we have far more ability to chose the music that fits you personally. If some people chose Bieber, that's fine. I happen to not chose Bieber, and there's plenty of ways of creating playlists on Spotify / listen to the Pandora stations I like / surf Youtube videos / etc. where I never have to hear a Bieber. In Frank Sinatra's day, you were limited to live performances, kind of lousy sounding radio transmissions, and kind of lousy sounding 78s. Even modern compressed music sounds better than that and there's plenty of music options in full fidelity. There's even people picking up the crooner torch these days. Some of them have a pretty decent career doing it (I'm thinking of the Michael Bubles and Harry Connick Jrs of the world). And if you want to listen to Frank, it's easy to very quickly do that too. For the consumers, today is probably worse only in the fact that many people don't like too much choice (http://www.economist.com/node/17723028 http://www.economist.com/node/17723028). The part I see arguing with more justification is that it's probably worse for many musicians overall. Music never has been a great path to wealth (unless you are lucky to become a superstar) but my impression is that a lot of the jobs "in the middle" (your local cover bands and recording studios and whatnot) are either suffering from the same wage stagnation affecting other jobs in the middle, or are gone altogether due to technological advances.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Justin Bieber can sing at least as well as Sinatra. They are about equal in prickishness. Bieber is still alive, so he wins.
greendragon 10y ago
It's really technology that is always getting better. It has been so successful that it's hard to see the decline in so many other things. Factor out technological advances when answering these questions. Are our universities really better than they were 100 years ago? Even just 50? Are our political systems any better than 100 years ago? 2000 years ago? Are our stories any better? Are our People any better? Is our art better? Are humanity's cultures better? I can find points of these where I can argue some aspect is better now than before (but that's usually due to technology -- e.g. the whole genre of sci fi first demands, well, science), and some I could argue for overall being about equal, but for any of those being overall better, I find it a hard claim to make.
- nowayyeah 10y ago
  I always wonder: how could we improve humans? (including me). How to detect bullshit. Make logical choices. Be respectful, etc.
- taurath 10y ago
  For someone like say an LGBT person, western society/culture is objectively less harmful now than ever. Many more examples
  - gtirloni 10y ago
    Compared to the last 100 years or so? It seems some ancient cultures didn't have a problem with it at all (google "homosexuality in ancient times").
    - legodt 10y ago
      Sure but that isn't an intersectional perspective. Ancient societies also had more oppressive gender roles than today
- johnwheeler 10y ago
  Your points all touch on human nature, and no, that never changes over time.

I don't know if he's the originator, but Penn Jillette said one of my favorite quotes: "Everyone always thinks the world is getting worse, but the world is always getting better."

antarrah 10y ago

Not really in every aspect. Frank Sinatra was replaced by Justin Bieber. How is that better? :)

agumonkey 10y ago
Bieber is there to make this generation feel a void so they can make a new Sinatra in the future.
johnwheeler 10y ago
No, pretty much in every aspect. If you're living in the U.S. or Europe today, your lifestyle likely surpasses that of the royalty and robber barons of 150 years ago.
- antarrah 10y ago
  I'd also be owning a house or a farm not renting.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Amezarak 10y ago
  What does "better" mean? If we mean that to be afforded more technological luxury is to live better, then sure, no people has ever lived better. Are we happier and more fulfilled than ever before? I don't know, but I doubt it. Also, while the royalty and robber barons didn't have the internet or chemotherapy, they had servants to do all the menial chores most of is still have to do today, so in that respect we haven't totally surpassed them.
  - johnwheeler 10y ago
    > Are we happier and more fulfilled than ever before? I don't know, but I doubt it. I'd say large swaths of the population definitely are not, but we're all responsible for making our own happiness. No one owes us anything. We definitely have the platform and infrastructure to be happy. They're just easy to take for granted because they're so good they support us even when we do. > They had servants to do all the menial chores most of is still have to do today, so in that respect we haven't totally surpassed them. That's a myopic view. What do you call robots and computers that operate at orders of magnitudes of efficiency?
    - Amezarak 10y ago
      > I'd say large swaths of the populace definitely are not, but we're all responsible for making our own happiness. No one owes each of us anything. That may be the case, but the way society functions in general, social norms, trust, community, and the like have a massive impact on individual happiness. We "make" our happiness within that framework. Individual choices and failings are part of, say, the misery associated with opiate epidemics, but the conditions for them don't occur in healthy societies. > We definitely have the platform and infrastructure to be happy. But do we, to a greater extent than ever before in human history? Does social media make people happier? Cellphones? Modern family law and norms? An economy that encourages people to move across the country in search of new jobs? Are industrial societies more or less happy than agricultural societies? Postindustrial societies? Is our 'infrastructure' for 'better' lives really that which promotes happiness more than any other in human history? > What do you call robots and computers that operate at orders of magnitudes of efficiency? Incredible achievements based on the hard work and genius that have revolutionized the modern economy and made many things possible that were once impossible. That doesn't mean they make life better (depending on your definition of better) or people happier (relative to what?) A 'robber baron' was rich enough to do whatever they wanted. They never had to do a single menial chore in their lives, if they did not want to. No dishwashing, no food preparation, no clothes folding, no babysitting, no grass cutting. They didn't have a boss who could tell them what to do and threaten them with the loss of their livelihood. They could work as little or as much as they wanted, with no effect on their lifestyle unless it was truly extravagant. They had unlimited, truly free time. I don't know that I'd be happier in that case, but sitting here now I feel pretty confident I could exchange Netflix, Hacker News, my cell phone, and transcontinental flights for that in a heartbeat. Maybe even advanced medical care. I don't want to hold robber barons up as living a lifestyle we should aspire to. I'm simply saying that yes, in many ways, their lives were better in simply material terms than the way the average person lives today; it is nice to have a dishwasher, but it is even better to not have to wash dishes. It is nice to not be a chimney-sweep, but unlimited free time is better than 40-80 hours a week devoted to keeping yourself employed.
soundwave106 10y ago
That's focusing too much on one data point, the popular "teen idol" singers of the day. :) Overall we have far more ability to chose the music that fits you personally. If some people chose Bieber, that's fine. I happen to not chose Bieber, and there's plenty of ways of creating playlists on Spotify / listen to the Pandora stations I like / surf Youtube videos / etc. where I never have to hear a Bieber. In Frank Sinatra's day, you were limited to live performances, kind of lousy sounding radio transmissions, and kind of lousy sounding 78s. Even modern compressed music sounds better than that and there's plenty of music options in full fidelity. There's even people picking up the crooner torch these days. Some of them have a pretty decent career doing it (I'm thinking of the Michael Bubles and Harry Connick Jrs of the world). And if you want to listen to Frank, it's easy to very quickly do that too. For the consumers, today is probably worse only in the fact that many people don't like too much choice (http://www.economist.com/node/17723028 http://www.economist.com/node/17723028). The part I see arguing with more justification is that it's probably worse for many musicians overall. Music never has been a great path to wealth (unless you are lucky to become a superstar) but my impression is that a lot of the jobs "in the middle" (your local cover bands and recording studios and whatnot) are either suffering from the same wage stagnation affecting other jobs in the middle, or are gone altogether due to technological advances.
oldmanjay 10y ago
Justin Bieber can sing at least as well as Sinatra. They are about equal in prickishness. Bieber is still alive, so he wins.

greendragon 10y ago

It's really technology that is always getting better. It has been so successful that it's hard to see the decline in so many other things. Factor out technological advances when answering these questions. Are our universities really better than they were 100 years ago? Even just 50? Are our political systems any better than 100 years ago? 2000 years ago? Are our stories any better? Are our People any better? Is our art better? Are humanity's cultures better? I can find points of these where I can argue some aspect is better now than before (but that's usually due to technology -- e.g. the whole genre of sci fi first demands, well, science), and some I could argue for overall being about equal, but for any of those being overall better, I find it a hard claim to make.

nowayyeah 10y ago
I always wonder: how could we improve humans? (including me). How to detect bullshit. Make logical choices. Be respectful, etc.
taurath 10y ago
For someone like say an LGBT person, western society/culture is objectively less harmful now than ever. Many more examples
- gtirloni 10y ago
  Compared to the last 100 years or so? It seems some ancient cultures didn't have a problem with it at all (google "homosexuality in ancient times").
  - legodt 10y ago
    Sure but that isn't an intersectional perspective. Ancient societies also had more oppressive gender roles than today
johnwheeler 10y ago
Your points all touch on human nature, and no, that never changes over time.