6 ms·

> I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. Y

> I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. These two statements do not contradict each other, at all. It is possible for two things to simultaneously be true: things are awful for many people, AND things overall are better than they used to be. People seem to hate Pinker because they interpret his words as saying their suffering doesn't matter. There is absolutely nothing about his argument that suggests this. It is exactly because suffering is so terrible that it is a good thing that there is less suffering now than in the past. Bill Gates gets lumped in with Pinker here, and Gates is literally putting his money where his mouth is on this. He wouldn't invest his massive fortune into improving the world if his position was "things are great now, stop complaining."

throwaway47861 8y ago
> It is possible for two things to simultaneously be true: things are awful for many people, AND things overall are better than they used to be. That is correct and I agree. What I am saying is that the global average getting better is a skewed and rather meaningless metric. The fact that 100_000 EU/USA citizes are slighly better off at the cost 1_000_000 asians -- random numbers to demonstrate how an imbalance can be evened out -- does not mean that humanity's economy is getting better. Not at all. We should strive for everybody to be ever so slightly better, not that the average people that are extremely poor number to go lower, because that doesn't mean anything as the author proved -- $1.90/day for food as a measure for poverty? Laughable and irresponsible. Please try it yourself for a month and let's talk again. Hence my angry reaction to the claim that the global average numbers are entirely pointless and non-informative. The world is too big, too much is going on. You cannot even know why something fell down by 0.1%. > People seem to hate Pinker because they interpret his words as saying their suffering doesn't matter. I am one of these people. And I will stand by it. Middle-class well-to-do authors do not belong in discussions like these. Go recruit people from the suffering countries. We the Westerners have almost zero credibility when talking about poverty. At least I am realistic enough to be acceptive of that.
- sullyj3 8y ago
  > What I am saying is that the global average getting better is a skewed and rather meaningless metric. The fact that 100_000 EU/USA citizes are slighly better off at the cost 1_000_000 asians -- random numbers to demonstrate how an imbalance can be evened out -- does not mean that humanity's economy is getting better. Not at all. I'm pretty sure Pinker doesn't use average income as a metric. I'm not really sure where you're getting that from. The relevant metric is number of people living below the poverty line, which is a metric which doesn't have the same issue.

throwaway47861 8y ago

> It is possible for two things to simultaneously be true: things are awful for many people, AND things overall are better than they used to be. That is correct and I agree. What I am saying is that the global average getting better is a skewed and rather meaningless metric. The fact that 100_000 EU/USA citizes are slighly better off at the cost 1_000_000 asians -- random numbers to demonstrate how an imbalance can be evened out -- does not mean that humanity's economy is getting better. Not at all. We should strive for everybody to be ever so slightly better, not that the average people that are extremely poor number to go lower, because that doesn't mean anything as the author proved -- $1.90/day for food as a measure for poverty? Laughable and irresponsible. Please try it yourself for a month and let's talk again. Hence my angry reaction to the claim that the global average numbers are entirely pointless and non-informative. The world is too big, too much is going on. You cannot even know why something fell down by 0.1%. > People seem to hate Pinker because they interpret his words as saying their suffering doesn't matter. I am one of these people. And I will stand by it. Middle-class well-to-do authors do not belong in discussions like these. Go recruit people from the suffering countries. We the Westerners have almost zero credibility when talking about poverty. At least I am realistic enough to be acceptive of that.

sullyj3 8y ago
> What I am saying is that the global average getting better is a skewed and rather meaningless metric. The fact that 100_000 EU/USA citizes are slighly better off at the cost 1_000_000 asians -- random numbers to demonstrate how an imbalance can be evened out -- does not mean that humanity's economy is getting better. Not at all. I'm pretty sure Pinker doesn't use average income as a metric. I'm not really sure where you're getting that from. The relevant metric is number of people living below the poverty line, which is a metric which doesn't have the same issue.