4 ms·

> The problem with Pinker's optimism isn't that > it's wrong. If you look at aggregate statistics > everything is getting better. The problem is > that th

by lhnz 9y ago

> The problem with Pinker's optimism isn't that > it's wrong. If you look at aggregate statistics > everything is getting better. The problem is > that the distribution of that wealth is shifting > toward an extreme hockey stick. A rising tide no > longer lifts all boats. There are fewer people living in poverty.

danharaj 9y ago
The definition of poverty is decided by people who have an incentive to say poverty is declining. It changes over time. Why do people take these definitions at face value without examining what they actually mean?
- thraway180306 9y ago
  But think of the children. I've heard all these metrics tend to correlate with infant mortality rates, so they all must be good. Never mind the affluent US which should be the reference of wealthy, has these things decoupled with mortality increasing.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  So your position is that here has not been a massive, species-wide reduction in poverty (and pretty much every other negative outcome) over the last 250 years?
  - danharaj 9y ago
    Mu.
api 9y ago
Depends on where you live. In developed nations there are now more people living in poverty. There's more unemployment, more people with no savings, more people in too much debt, and in the USA at least declining life spans among working class Americans. A lot of people in the developed world are going to see books like this as a lot of out-of-touch "why do they not eat cake?" and self-congratulation by educated elites who don't have to work two jobs to afford the ever-increasing rent. Keep in mind that anyone making over $80-$100k is "elite" by global standards. That would include probably 80% of the users on this board. Aggregate statistics can be extremely misleading. To give a wild example: if our understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is correct the entire universe is increasing in entropy. Does this imply that trees can't grow, cells can't divide, and factories can't operate? Aggregate trends do not imply much of anything at all about specific outcomes at a smaller scale.

by lhnz 9y ago

danharaj 9y ago

The definition of poverty is decided by people who have an incentive to say poverty is declining. It changes over time. Why do people take these definitions at face value without examining what they actually mean?

thraway180306 9y ago
But think of the children. I've heard all these metrics tend to correlate with infant mortality rates, so they all must be good. Never mind the affluent US which should be the reference of wealthy, has these things decoupled with mortality increasing.
toasterlovin 9y ago
So your position is that here has not been a massive, species-wide reduction in poverty (and pretty much every other negative outcome) over the last 250 years?
- danharaj 9y ago
  Mu.

api 9y ago

Depends on where you live. In developed nations there are now more people living in poverty. There's more unemployment, more people with no savings, more people in too much debt, and in the USA at least declining life spans among working class Americans. A lot of people in the developed world are going to see books like this as a lot of out-of-touch "why do they not eat cake?" and self-congratulation by educated elites who don't have to work two jobs to afford the ever-increasing rent. Keep in mind that anyone making over $80-$100k is "elite" by global standards. That would include probably 80% of the users on this board. Aggregate statistics can be extremely misleading. To give a wild example: if our understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is correct the entire universe is increasing in entropy. Does this imply that trees can't grow, cells can't divide, and factories can't operate? Aggregate trends do not imply much of anything at all about specific outcomes at a smaller scale.