4 ms·

I don't think the people that are pessimistic about the future (The premise of the article) dispute or are ignorant of the fact that we are better than a centur

by return0 10y ago

I don't think the people that are pessimistic about the future (The premise of the article) dispute or are ignorant of the fact that we are better than a century ago or even a decade ago. I think the article is attacking a straw man: they were not asked if things got better in the past, but about the future. People don't see an optimistic narrative that they subscribe to anymore. The mantra "we 'll keep doing what we are doing and things will improve because it worked in the past" doesn't seem to catch on anymore. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

epistasis 10y ago
Most of the comments that I find odd here are the ones that dispute that we are better than a century ago. If they are saying one thing, but mean another (or another way of phrasing this, if I'm completely misinterpreting what their words mean), then that may explain what I find so odd. If its just that they don't see an optimistic narrative, that this trend will stop and no longer continue, then I would ask why they see it that way. What evidence do they have, and where does it come from? And if it's not evidence, and just ideology, what ideology is that and why do they subscribe to it? I'm genuinely curious.
mjohn 10y ago
Without knowing the future, I think the best we can do is look at historic trends to give us an idea of what is going to happen in the future. I agree 1800 is an interesting datapoint but probably not that relevant for the present day. Nonetheless, there appear to have been consistent improvements even in the past few decades, and there is still plenty of scope for improvement given almost 10% of the world population are in extreme poverty (about 700 million people). I think a lot of people answering the survey question: “All things considered, do you think the world is getting better or worse, or neither getting better nor worse?” focus on whether their world is getting better or worse, and not the whole world. Most of the improvements in the past few decades have been in developing countries, which have experienced dramatic improvements in standards of living (and developing countries are also home to the majority of the global population). Meanwhile standards may well have been relatively stagnant or declining for many people in developed countries. If we are talking about whether the world is getting better or worse, expectations based on experiences in India and China are far more pertinent than the recent history of the USA.
- return0 10y ago
  Predictably, Chinese are the most optimistic in that survey (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/05/chinese-people-are-most-optimistic-world/ https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/05/chinese-people-are-most...). Obviously everyone's subjective opinion is different and that's what the survey was seeking in the first place. Why would the experience of the Chinese be pertinent to people of the US or France, however? I don't think their economic regimes are transferable.
  - mjohn 10y ago
    The point of the article is that objectively the world, as a whole, is getting better, and in some cases improving quite dramatically. Personally, I don't think the survey quoted in the opening paragraph is really that interesting - it's not the least bit surprising that people replied subjectively rather than objectively. My point about the Chinese experience being more pertinent was regarding these objective measures not how people replied subjectively to a survey question. It's not that the Chinese experience is pertinent to someone in US or France, but that recent Chinese economic development has been more pertinent to whether or not the world has objectively gotten better. In the future we are also going to see far more reductions in poverty and child mortality in countries like India and China than in the USA, because the USA is so much wealthier. Additionally, if we want to understand how to improve the world in the future, I believe it's more important to look at countries that have recently improved standards of living, like China, rather than countries like the USA that experienced their most significant improvements in standards of living before the 1960s.
alehul 10y ago
Past performance doesn't guarantee future results, but the results/output are a direct product of the input (cultural factors, economic ones, etc.). Couldn't we say that past performance is a great indicator of future results as long as there hasn't been a dramatic shift in input that we can identify? If there's been such a change in a factor that would cause a substantial difference in the trend, what would you suggest it is?

by return0 10y ago

epistasis 10y ago

Most of the comments that I find odd here are the ones that dispute that we are better than a century ago. If they are saying one thing, but mean another (or another way of phrasing this, if I'm completely misinterpreting what their words mean), then that may explain what I find so odd. If its just that they don't see an optimistic narrative, that this trend will stop and no longer continue, then I would ask why they see it that way. What evidence do they have, and where does it come from? And if it's not evidence, and just ideology, what ideology is that and why do they subscribe to it? I'm genuinely curious.

mjohn 10y ago

Without knowing the future, I think the best we can do is look at historic trends to give us an idea of what is going to happen in the future. I agree 1800 is an interesting datapoint but probably not that relevant for the present day. Nonetheless, there appear to have been consistent improvements even in the past few decades, and there is still plenty of scope for improvement given almost 10% of the world population are in extreme poverty (about 700 million people). I think a lot of people answering the survey question: “All things considered, do you think the world is getting better or worse, or neither getting better nor worse?” focus on whether their world is getting better or worse, and not the whole world. Most of the improvements in the past few decades have been in developing countries, which have experienced dramatic improvements in standards of living (and developing countries are also home to the majority of the global population). Meanwhile standards may well have been relatively stagnant or declining for many people in developed countries. If we are talking about whether the world is getting better or worse, expectations based on experiences in India and China are far more pertinent than the recent history of the USA.

return0 10y ago
Predictably, Chinese are the most optimistic in that survey (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/05/chinese-people-are-most-optimistic-world/ https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/05/chinese-people-are-most...). Obviously everyone's subjective opinion is different and that's what the survey was seeking in the first place. Why would the experience of the Chinese be pertinent to people of the US or France, however? I don't think their economic regimes are transferable.
- mjohn 10y ago
  The point of the article is that objectively the world, as a whole, is getting better, and in some cases improving quite dramatically. Personally, I don't think the survey quoted in the opening paragraph is really that interesting - it's not the least bit surprising that people replied subjectively rather than objectively. My point about the Chinese experience being more pertinent was regarding these objective measures not how people replied subjectively to a survey question. It's not that the Chinese experience is pertinent to someone in US or France, but that recent Chinese economic development has been more pertinent to whether or not the world has objectively gotten better. In the future we are also going to see far more reductions in poverty and child mortality in countries like India and China than in the USA, because the USA is so much wealthier. Additionally, if we want to understand how to improve the world in the future, I believe it's more important to look at countries that have recently improved standards of living, like China, rather than countries like the USA that experienced their most significant improvements in standards of living before the 1960s.

alehul 10y ago

Past performance doesn't guarantee future results, but the results/output are a direct product of the input (cultural factors, economic ones, etc.). Couldn't we say that past performance is a great indicator of future results as long as there hasn't been a dramatic shift in input that we can identify? If there's been such a change in a factor that would cause a substantial difference in the trend, what would you suggest it is?