3 ms·
I might disagree with his conclusion which seems to be that things are just as bad now, or worse than they were say 70 years ago. I would argue the problems we
by hpoe 7y ago
I might disagree with his conclusion which seems to be that things are just as bad now, or worse than they were say 70 years ago. I would argue the problems we face have changed, and that some of the big problems we dealt with 40 or 70 years ago are substantially smaller now then they were then.
That being said that doesn't mean our problems are any less real now but for example, lynching is much less of a problem in the US then it was 100 years ago, and the risk of someone losing a limb during a blogging accident is substantially smaller than the risk of someone losing a limb whilst working with heavy manufacturing equipment. Over course I don't mean this in every case, but across the board many of these conditions have improved.
Now it seems that many of the problems we face are much more mental and emotional than physical, That doesn't make the suffering they present any less real for those experiencing it but it does mean in some ways things have gotten better, even if we now face different problems.
- whatever_dude 7y ago> I might disagree with his conclusion which seems to be that things are just as bad now, or worse than they were say 70 years ago. I'm not sure it's his conclusion. From the article: > This is also why I am wary whenever people start boasting about how much better we’re doing than back in the bad old days. That precise statement seems to in fact be true. But people have a bad tendency to follow it up with “And so now most people have it pretty good” I think his point is that things might be better, subjectively, but they're still not that good, objectively.