5 ms·

It's not just "on average", people are materially better off today than at any other period in history, at all levels. The poorest people today are better off

by JackFr 9y ago

It's not just "on average", people are materially better off today than at any other period in history, at all levels. The poorest people today are better off than the poorest people at any previous era.

xkarga00 9y ago
That's the problem, we are only _materially_ better. It is sad we still cannot figure that out.
- BuckRogers 9y ago
  Yup you nailed it. In many ways like work-life balance, times are worse than the middle ages. Also material betterment doesn't scale, we can't focus on material betterment for all because until we figure out fusion and get our own Dyson Sphere going, we have finite resources.
  - cholantesh 9y ago
    >In many ways like work-life balance, times are worse than the middle ages. Is this actually established? It's my understanding that the work-leisure dichotomy didn't really exist in medieval Europe. Also, considering how much of the fruit of your labour ended up supporting local and distant aristocracy, I can't imagine mental health being particularly high for a lot of people.
    - goodJobWalrus 9y ago
      Anthropologists seem to agree* that hunter-gatherers (our ancestors, but also ones living in modern times) worked a little less than 8 hours a day. * For source, I've seen Yuval Noah Harari and Peter Gray writing about it.
      - ue_ 9y ago
        Although I don't think it's very wise to say we should try to reach for the ideal of the hunter-gatherer society, but it's undeniable that the combination of (i) overproduction and (ii) machinery being used for short-term profit rather than meaning people have to work less is causing a lot of time used working when it could, in a society not driven by profit, be used for various kinds of fulfillment and sharpening one's intellectual faculties. As Oscar Wilde put it: Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism – are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation.
      - cholantesh 9y ago
        GP specifically mentions the middle ages, though; I think 8 hours would have been considered pretty light by then.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        It would have been light in some parts of the year, but long in others. In addition to natural seasonality in agricultural work, simply the availability of light limits many kinds of labor until you have something better (both in light quality and resource, including labor, cost for the light provided) than firelight.
        cholantesh 9y ago
        Makes sense - sounds like a lot of trades today, albeit a bit better (maybe) because you had one client and they provided for you during the off season.
      - taw55 9y ago
        I might be wrong, but I think agricultural societies had very long working days at harvest time but relatively short ones on average. During the transition of feudalism to industrialism working hours rose significantly (as did productivity, but kept churning due to new class relationships).
lawless123 9y ago
The poorest today and the poorest in this era are often slaves and often starving. That hasn't changed. If you're referring to the poorest in your particular nation state, consider they're probably not the poorest in the world, which we're all using in some way.
- JackFr 9y ago
  No - I am explicitly considering the world. There are fewer people (as a percentage) starving and in bondage than in any prior era. I don't think I have an overly rosy picture of the present. Rather I think your picture of the past is too romantic.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >There are fewer people (as a percentage) starving There are more people (in real numbers) starving than ever before. Looking at this in terms of percentages is misleading
    - pixl97 9y ago
      >Looking at this in terms of percentages is misleading Um, per capita is the important metric. If there are 2 million people on your planet and 1 million of them are starving, then in a few generations there 100 million people and 2 million of them are starving you have drastically reduced the rate of starvation. Malthusian predictions of the past have said that the rate of starvation/bad things happening would increase as the population increased. It has not.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        >Um, per capita is the important metric. The true number of starving people is not an important metric?
atlih 9y ago
You do realize that your argument also works flawlessly for Kim Jong-un in North Korea, right?

by JackFr 9y ago

xkarga00 9y ago

That's the problem, we are only _materially_ better. It is sad we still cannot figure that out.

BuckRogers 9y ago
Yup you nailed it. In many ways like work-life balance, times are worse than the middle ages. Also material betterment doesn't scale, we can't focus on material betterment for all because until we figure out fusion and get our own Dyson Sphere going, we have finite resources.
- cholantesh 9y ago
  >In many ways like work-life balance, times are worse than the middle ages. Is this actually established? It's my understanding that the work-leisure dichotomy didn't really exist in medieval Europe. Also, considering how much of the fruit of your labour ended up supporting local and distant aristocracy, I can't imagine mental health being particularly high for a lot of people.
  - goodJobWalrus 9y ago
    Anthropologists seem to agree* that hunter-gatherers (our ancestors, but also ones living in modern times) worked a little less than 8 hours a day. * For source, I've seen Yuval Noah Harari and Peter Gray writing about it.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      Although I don't think it's very wise to say we should try to reach for the ideal of the hunter-gatherer society, but it's undeniable that the combination of (i) overproduction and (ii) machinery being used for short-term profit rather than meaning people have to work less is causing a lot of time used working when it could, in a society not driven by profit, be used for various kinds of fulfillment and sharpening one's intellectual faculties. As Oscar Wilde put it: Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism – are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation.
    - cholantesh 9y ago
      GP specifically mentions the middle ages, though; I think 8 hours would have been considered pretty light by then.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        It would have been light in some parts of the year, but long in others. In addition to natural seasonality in agricultural work, simply the availability of light limits many kinds of labor until you have something better (both in light quality and resource, including labor, cost for the light provided) than firelight.
        cholantesh 9y ago
        Makes sense - sounds like a lot of trades today, albeit a bit better (maybe) because you had one client and they provided for you during the off season.
    - taw55 9y ago
      I might be wrong, but I think agricultural societies had very long working days at harvest time but relatively short ones on average. During the transition of feudalism to industrialism working hours rose significantly (as did productivity, but kept churning due to new class relationships).

lawless123 9y ago

The poorest today and the poorest in this era are often slaves and often starving. That hasn't changed. If you're referring to the poorest in your particular nation state, consider they're probably not the poorest in the world, which we're all using in some way.

JackFr 9y ago
No - I am explicitly considering the world. There are fewer people (as a percentage) starving and in bondage than in any prior era. I don't think I have an overly rosy picture of the present. Rather I think your picture of the past is too romantic.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >There are fewer people (as a percentage) starving There are more people (in real numbers) starving than ever before. Looking at this in terms of percentages is misleading
  - pixl97 9y ago
    >Looking at this in terms of percentages is misleading Um, per capita is the important metric. If there are 2 million people on your planet and 1 million of them are starving, then in a few generations there 100 million people and 2 million of them are starving you have drastically reduced the rate of starvation. Malthusian predictions of the past have said that the rate of starvation/bad things happening would increase as the population increased. It has not.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      >Um, per capita is the important metric. The true number of starving people is not an important metric?

atlih 9y ago

You do realize that your argument also works flawlessly for Kim Jong-un in North Korea, right?