4 ms·

But millions less than there were even a few decades ago. The world is making progress toward peace, health, safety, and a decent standard of living at an extra

by beat 8y ago

But millions less than there were even a few decades ago. The world is making progress toward peace, health, safety, and a decent standard of living at an extraordinary pace right now. This is not to say everything is hunky-dory. But it is to say that this is no longer World War II. edit: Where do you think all the Syrian and Lebanese restaurants in America came from? Refugees from the collapse of the Ottoman empire post-WWI. It was just as bad then as it is now. But it can get better, and I am totally convinced it will. Every wave of immigration that made America what it is today came from people fleeing poverty and violence. Hardly anyone emigrates away from a safe, comfortable life with family and friends and familiar sights nearby. In the 19th century, 20% of the population of Sweden came to the US to escape famine. Sweden was 90% illiterate, mired in extreme poverty, with a birth rate above 5. Now, it's... Sweden. The most civilized country in the world. If Sweden can evolve from an impoverished hellhole to being the epitome of modern civilization in a century, why can't the same thing happen to Syria? Or Sudan? Or Myanmar? I think it can, and it will.

e12e 8y ago
I certainly hope Syria will rise again - but I'd say it's a big difference between being well educated, functioning civil society bombed into the stone age - and being poor. Norway followed a similar path as Sweden - being quite well on its way even before we stole (negotiated for) most of the oil rights in the north sea. And like most countries after ww2 - while the devestation was great, the rebuild was rather quick. Once there was peace. And one important part of peace, was liberation and independence.
- kazen44 8y ago
  > And like most countries after ww2 - while the devestation was great, the rebuild was rather quick. Once there was peace. And one important part of peace, was liberation and independence. independence didn't happen for a majority of countries that fought in world war 2 however. Either they got locked behind the iron curtain after being litteraly level to the ground (poland), or had to fight a bloody long war for independance (vietnam, indonesia, most of africa). your comment is only really relevant for western europe in that sense.
  - e12e 8y ago
    I was indeed considering adding a caveat that I was comparing to the regions mentioned in the quote - but I suppose even for Germany, independence took quite a while. So thank you for pointing out my hypocrisy :)
  - beat 8y ago
    Yes, but... once some degree of peace and independence is achieved, social improvement happens at an astonishing rate. Take Iran. At the time of the Revolution in 1979, it was one of the poorest countries in the world. The birth rate was above 6 (I find birth rate is a very good proxy for economic/social progress). It dropped from above 6 to under 3 in just ten years - a feat that took England 95 years to accomplish. Today, Iran's birthrate is less than Europe. This is a result of (relative) peace and independence. China is a particularly wild example. Per capita income there has grown about 15,000% since 1952. That's crazy, but it happened.
merdreubu 8y ago
>If Sweden can evolve from an impoverished hellhole to being the epitome of modern civilization in a century, why can't the same thing happen to Syria? Or Sudan? Or Myanmar? I think it can, and it will. Except Sweden one hundred years ago was not an impoverished hellhole. In fact, it was one of the richest (maybe the richest) countries on earth, smack in the middle of the most developed, richest and urbanized part of Europe (the Baltic region) already enjoying a booming economy and 100 years of peace.
- jpatokal 8y ago
  Sweden in the 1920s was indeed in a comparatively sweet spot, but so was much of Western world before the Great Depression and WW2 hit. However, by modern standards, Sweden was still quite poor and agrarian: life expectancy for both men and women was under 50 years until the 1890s, and it was the last nation in Europe to experience a major natural famine in 1867-9, with ~15% of the population dying. http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/pong/tables-and-graphs/yearly-statistics--the-whole-country/life-expectancy/ http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subjec... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_famine_of_1867%E2%80%931869 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_famine_of_1867%E2%80%9...
- beat 8y ago
  Ok, how about 150 years ago? Poverty is poverty, famine is famine, illiteracy is illiteracy. For the average Swede - not the rich - life was as bad as it is in nations we considered desperately impoverished today. That's the point. There are people living well in Syria today, too. They're just a tiny sliver of elites, while ordinary people suffer. But back to my original point. Do you think that there are nations that can't or won't be able to modernize? Are there people or places that are just incapable of achieving peace and independence? Because I don't buy that. China has done it. Iran has done it. Syria can do it, too.
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
I'm not denying things have improved significantly and that we aren't making great progress, but there's still a long, long way to go.

by beat 8y ago

e12e 8y ago

I certainly hope Syria will rise again - but I'd say it's a big difference between being well educated, functioning civil society bombed into the stone age - and being poor. Norway followed a similar path as Sweden - being quite well on its way even before we stole (negotiated for) most of the oil rights in the north sea. And like most countries after ww2 - while the devestation was great, the rebuild was rather quick. Once there was peace. And one important part of peace, was liberation and independence.

kazen44 8y ago
> And like most countries after ww2 - while the devestation was great, the rebuild was rather quick. Once there was peace. And one important part of peace, was liberation and independence. independence didn't happen for a majority of countries that fought in world war 2 however. Either they got locked behind the iron curtain after being litteraly level to the ground (poland), or had to fight a bloody long war for independance (vietnam, indonesia, most of africa). your comment is only really relevant for western europe in that sense.
- e12e 8y ago
  I was indeed considering adding a caveat that I was comparing to the regions mentioned in the quote - but I suppose even for Germany, independence took quite a while. So thank you for pointing out my hypocrisy :)
- beat 8y ago
  Yes, but... once some degree of peace and independence is achieved, social improvement happens at an astonishing rate. Take Iran. At the time of the Revolution in 1979, it was one of the poorest countries in the world. The birth rate was above 6 (I find birth rate is a very good proxy for economic/social progress). It dropped from above 6 to under 3 in just ten years - a feat that took England 95 years to accomplish. Today, Iran's birthrate is less than Europe. This is a result of (relative) peace and independence. China is a particularly wild example. Per capita income there has grown about 15,000% since 1952. That's crazy, but it happened.

merdreubu 8y ago

>If Sweden can evolve from an impoverished hellhole to being the epitome of modern civilization in a century, why can't the same thing happen to Syria? Or Sudan? Or Myanmar? I think it can, and it will. Except Sweden one hundred years ago was not an impoverished hellhole. In fact, it was one of the richest (maybe the richest) countries on earth, smack in the middle of the most developed, richest and urbanized part of Europe (the Baltic region) already enjoying a booming economy and 100 years of peace.

jpatokal 8y ago
Sweden in the 1920s was indeed in a comparatively sweet spot, but so was much of Western world before the Great Depression and WW2 hit. However, by modern standards, Sweden was still quite poor and agrarian: life expectancy for both men and women was under 50 years until the 1890s, and it was the last nation in Europe to experience a major natural famine in 1867-9, with ~15% of the population dying. http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/pong/tables-and-graphs/yearly-statistics--the-whole-country/life-expectancy/ http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subjec... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_famine_of_1867%E2%80%931869 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_famine_of_1867%E2%80%9...
beat 8y ago
Ok, how about 150 years ago? Poverty is poverty, famine is famine, illiteracy is illiteracy. For the average Swede - not the rich - life was as bad as it is in nations we considered desperately impoverished today. That's the point. There are people living well in Syria today, too. They're just a tiny sliver of elites, while ordinary people suffer. But back to my original point. Do you think that there are nations that can't or won't be able to modernize? Are there people or places that are just incapable of achieving peace and independence? Because I don't buy that. China has done it. Iran has done it. Syria can do it, too.

ConceptJunkie 8y ago

I'm not denying things have improved significantly and that we aren't making great progress, but there's still a long, long way to go.