3 ms·

"This is the worldview that enabled the Brexit to happen and fueled the rise of many populist politicians in the world." Isn't that very simplifying? This is n

"This is the worldview that enabled the Brexit to happen and fueled the rise of many populist politicians in the world." Isn't that very simplifying? This is not about a 10 % cheaper t-shirt. To state that the world in fact has gotten much better is not a "worldview". It is a fact (as long as you accept the idea of healthier, longer and safer lives as "better"). And it extends far beyond the "usual suspect" data from developing countries that indeed people in the rich countries affected by these changes don't care about too much. 50 years ago, people even in the Western countries were living under much worse conditions, they were exposed to much more health and safety risks, watched black & white tv (if they even had a tv), they ate worse, they smoked and drank like there was no tomorrow and so on. There is enough data on the improvements (whether the tv is an improvement is of course a philosophical debate, which I guess we shouldn't have here right now). But people forget. Like they forget that their ex-partner who cheated on them or beat them was an asshole. And that needs to be said and repeated over and over again. Just as a reminder for people who start to romanticize a past which, in 90 % of the aspects, was not better for most people. Even if it feels that way today. Nevertheless, obviously there is a substantial, systemic problem. Which is what I describe in the beginning of the post. What, in my opinion, drove the populism is not the acknowledgement of overall improvements until today, but the "let's carry on" mentality of the well-off. In my post I tried to make clear that this is not what I am in favor of. I acknowledge the problem, and I want a change. But not a change backwards. I do not see a conflict in stating that things have been improving until very recently, as long as one acknowledges that the path that led us to prosperity until recently might not continue to do so.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> To state that the world in fact has gotten much better is not a "worldview". Not when you're viewing at it from a psychological perspective. For several decades after WWII, you had a reasonable expectation that you would make a decent living, and that you'd be reasonably employed. These days, everything is in flux, and life expectancies in the United States actually decreased in 2015 (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/50466760...). > I acknowledge the problem, and I want a change. But not a change backwards. That's the sort of mind set I'm talking about. Increasingly, the opponents of globalism have been attacked as backwards thinking, short sighted, uneducated, and even racist. Fortunately or unfortunately, we live in a democracy, where demonizing members of the electorate doesn't help your cause.
- imartin2k 10y ago
  "These days, everything is in flux, and life expectancies in the United States actually decreased in 2015" Indeed. Which is why my last comment clearly states that I also think that the path that brought us a lot of success might not work anymore. But there is plenty of empirical evidence of that nationalism and isolationism increases chances for violent conflicts in between countries (informative book about it, you might know it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...). If people ignore this fact (and history) and happily walk down a road which increases the chances for bad outcomes for everyone, how can one not call it "short sighted backwards thinking"? Hating the label does not mean it is wrong. That being said, it gets obvious that your response is not to me specifically but rather to who you think I represent. Which is why you mention "racist" which is really not what I am talking about here. You are apparently quite fed up and you probably have your reasons. It's my failure then that you got the impression that I belong to the "opposite" group. I don't, I try to not see things black and white. But I don't see the same from you.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > I also think that the path that brought us a lot of success might not work anymore. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth right now. One of the paths that brought us a lot of success is globalism and economic free trade. Maybe it's time for that to end. > If people ignore this fact (and history) and happily walk down a road which increases the chances for bad outcomes for everyone, how can one not call it "short sighted backwards thinking"? That's another example of what I'm talking about before. Maybe in previous history, that's what caused violent conflicts. But with things in a state of flux, maybe nationalism and isolationism is the answer these days. > Which is why you mention "racist" which is really not what I am talking about here. I never said you were. I did say that people who argue for more globalization and free trade do talk about the same talking points you do, about society as a whole and "the world getting better". I'm not fed up with things, I'm just wondering who you're writing to. By simply labeling thoughts and ideas as "shorted sighted backwards thinking", it makes it very easy to dismiss ideas out of hand. > But I don't see the same from you. That is simply not true. Pointing out the fact that globalism actually does cause the quality of life (in the short term and sometimes long term) of certain demographics to suffer is a true statement.

jimmywanger 10y ago

> To state that the world in fact has gotten much better is not a "worldview". Not when you're viewing at it from a psychological perspective. For several decades after WWII, you had a reasonable expectation that you would make a decent living, and that you'd be reasonably employed. These days, everything is in flux, and life expectancies in the United States actually decreased in 2015 (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504667607/life-expectancy-in-u-s-drops-for-first-time-in-decades-report-finds http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/50466760...). > I acknowledge the problem, and I want a change. But not a change backwards. That's the sort of mind set I'm talking about. Increasingly, the opponents of globalism have been attacked as backwards thinking, short sighted, uneducated, and even racist. Fortunately or unfortunately, we live in a democracy, where demonizing members of the electorate doesn't help your cause.

imartin2k 10y ago
"These days, everything is in flux, and life expectancies in the United States actually decreased in 2015" Indeed. Which is why my last comment clearly states that I also think that the path that brought us a lot of success might not work anymore. But there is plenty of empirical evidence of that nationalism and isolationism increases chances for violent conflicts in between countries (informative book about it, you might know it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...). If people ignore this fact (and history) and happily walk down a road which increases the chances for bad outcomes for everyone, how can one not call it "short sighted backwards thinking"? Hating the label does not mean it is wrong. That being said, it gets obvious that your response is not to me specifically but rather to who you think I represent. Which is why you mention "racist" which is really not what I am talking about here. You are apparently quite fed up and you probably have your reasons. It's my failure then that you got the impression that I belong to the "opposite" group. I don't, I try to not see things black and white. But I don't see the same from you.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > I also think that the path that brought us a lot of success might not work anymore. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth right now. One of the paths that brought us a lot of success is globalism and economic free trade. Maybe it's time for that to end. > If people ignore this fact (and history) and happily walk down a road which increases the chances for bad outcomes for everyone, how can one not call it "short sighted backwards thinking"? That's another example of what I'm talking about before. Maybe in previous history, that's what caused violent conflicts. But with things in a state of flux, maybe nationalism and isolationism is the answer these days. > Which is why you mention "racist" which is really not what I am talking about here. I never said you were. I did say that people who argue for more globalization and free trade do talk about the same talking points you do, about society as a whole and "the world getting better". I'm not fed up with things, I'm just wondering who you're writing to. By simply labeling thoughts and ideas as "shorted sighted backwards thinking", it makes it very easy to dismiss ideas out of hand. > But I don't see the same from you. That is simply not true. Pointing out the fact that globalism actually does cause the quality of life (in the short term and sometimes long term) of certain demographics to suffer is a true statement.