3 ms·
Unless you can prove that humans are becoming more content or happier, then I don't think this proves anything. If we have massive advancements in technology bu
by kenforthewin 10y ago
Unless you can prove that humans are becoming more content or happier, then I don't think this proves anything. If we have massive advancements in technology but we're all still angry, xenophobic, selfish, etc, nothing is getting better
- epistasis 10y agoYou're arbitrarily choosing the axes of "angry, xenophobic, selfish" as the only ones that have meaning. Even if we're exactly the same amounts of angry, xenophobic, and selfish, it's still a better world if my (hypothetical) child has a much greater chance of surviving into adulthood, and not having to deal with that loss. I would challenge you to somehow defend the notion that it isn't. Or how about the axis of freedom? Even if we're the same amount of angry, xenophobic, and selfish, but are more free, that's still a better world. If you're going to prioritize just a few very narrow aspects of life, you need to at least explain why these other measurable things have no significance.
- kenforthewin 10y agoEveryone defines "better" slightly differently. No definition is scientifically plausible. the problem is all definitions are arbitrary.
- kenforthewin 10y agoby the way, I'm not implying things are getting worse for humanity... imo things stay pretty constant for the human condition. They just get better toys.
- epistasis 10y agoThat is a hugely callous and offensive way to view the death of children.
- mjohn 10y agoSo you don't think the humans are better off if there is declining child mortality? And you don't think people now earning $2 a day are happier than when they were earning $1?
- ctdonath 10y agoDo the child mortality rates include abortion?
- kenforthewin 10y agoI really don't think people are happier. Money isn't a basic need. People want their fears affirmed and addressed. People want to feel meaningful. etc etc