4 ms·

I like positivism. And I think given what we see in the news all the time it's important to promote good things. But stating "best decade in human" history is

I like positivism. And I think given what we see in the news all the time it's important to promote good things. But stating "best decade in human" history is really tongue in cheek. You could has well hand pick other indicators and state "end of the world signs were clear starting from 2010": - The biggest economical power in the world, China, is now turning into 1984 - 60 % of the insect species considered extinct, and because of us - Micro plastics everywhere - USA general opioid addiction - For the first time literacy, IQ and lifespan decrease in some occidental countries - Obesity and diabetes epidemics - Highest difference between rich and poor in centuries, while the former never paid such low taxes. - Mass surveillance and black torture sites are now considered standard practice - Extremism rising - Mega corporations now have more economical power than some small countries - Ads, ads everywhere. Comments are ads. Articles are ads. The entire internet has been sold to PR companies. - Huge revealed scandals (panama papers, PRISM, Epstein, snowden, equifax...) ended up with no consequences for the criminals, screaming to the world that the powerful can actually do whatever they want - Health care and justice systems in rich countries are saturated - Jails are businesses, filled mostly with males from a few minorities. - The population is violently divided on major political issues: Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK, Gilets Jaunes in France, Hong Kong in China... - Privacy is at a all time low with the rise of IoT and smart speakers/cameras to complement the already omnipresent internet trackers and ubiquitous phones - Star Wars 9

papito 7y ago
I would add to that, complete collapse in civilized political discourse, fueled by social media. Post-shame, post-fact world.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Isn't people calling the other side names like "post fact" and "post shame" the very collapse of civilized discourse you're lamenting?
  - mistermann 7y ago
    No side was specified. There's typically no shortage of untrue words on either side of any divide.
tucaz 7y ago
“ Highest difference between rich and poor in centuries” What’s inherently bad with differences between poor and rich people? The poorest people in the planet today have access to more resources than the greatest king had 500 hundred years ago. Are you saying you would like all of us to be equally poor? To me this sounds more like jealousy and virtue signaling than anything else. We should be sad that we have poor people. Not rich. Wealth is not a 0 sum game.
- sametmax 7y ago
  It's not a matter of morality, politic leaning or envy. We collectively agree, as a human specy, that fairness, equality and democracy are quality we want to cultivate. A high difference between rich and poor is a sign of power concentrating, which is the opposite of what you want for democracy. It also means resources are getting less and less evenly distributed. If you aim for more fairness and equality, you need the reversed trend. Eventually, it means exhibit symptoms of being optimized for economic efficiency and a certain part of the population, while we know monoculture is not in favor of the specie on the long run.
- scroot 7y ago
  > What’s inherently bad with differences between poor and rich people? This is not the argument. Concern rests on the size of the gap, rather than the fact of differences. Greater inequality is associated with many negative properties, such as decreased social trust, declining mortality rates, political instability, etc. > The poorest people in the planet today have access to more resources than the greatest king had 500 hundred years ago. Is the new bar going to be 500 years ago? > Are you saying you would like all of us to be equally poor? ...What? > To me this sounds more like jealousy and virtue signaling than anything else. Are you suggesting that a concern for mounting inequality is a form of jealousy? And to the extent that what you say about signaling is true, I'd take a whole heaping pile of "virtue signaling" over bad faith reactionary arguments to very real and very dangerous social problems.
- matthewmacleod 7y ago
  First off, you’re wrong. “The poorest people on the planet” in no way have access to “more resources than the greatest king had 500 years ago”. It’s self-evidently nonsense. Second, massive inequality between rich and poor is a signal that something has gone horribly wrong with the distribution of wealth generated by society. That does not mean that “all of us need to be poor”. It does indicate that the rewards of civilisation have been unevenly distributed.
flavor8 7y ago
> I like positivism. Not disagreeing with your main point, but positivism doesn't mean what you think it does (you wanted "positivity" instead.) noun: positivism 1. a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism. a humanistic religious system founded on positivism. another term for logical positivism. 2. the theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid because they are enacted by authority or derive logically from existing decisions, and that ideal or moral considerations (e.g., that a rule is unjust) should not limit the scope or operation of the law.
- sametmax 7y ago
  Thanks. French here, I need this.
thu2111 7y ago
The article starts out by addressing the very point you're making here: what about bad things that happened in the last decade? His answer is that things can get better in big ways, such that things that get worse in small ways don't counterbalance them. I guess also the problem here is that many statements about things getting worse are very subjective, whereas the article tries to focus on objective metrics like absolute poverty, metals usage, etc. And it takes a global view. Your list is pretty large but, for instance, you say "ads everywhere". The internet has been funded by ads for decades. Did it objectively get moreso in the past decade? And if so, isn't the worseness of this purely subjective given that many services we enjoy may not exist without ads or, possibly, would be charged for and thus available only to the rich, in rich countries? This is highly debatable. Whereas "child mortality is at record lows" is metric-based and objectively good. Also many of these are very USA specific, but the worst places to live are really outside the USA. If your child died of TB "too many ads" and "the rise of smart speakers" is going to seem really trivial in comparison. No quantity of ads will counterbalance even a small rise in child mortality as a problem.

papito 7y ago

I would add to that, complete collapse in civilized political discourse, fueled by social media. Post-shame, post-fact world.

thu2111 7y ago
Isn't people calling the other side names like "post fact" and "post shame" the very collapse of civilized discourse you're lamenting?
- mistermann 7y ago
  No side was specified. There's typically no shortage of untrue words on either side of any divide.

tucaz 7y ago

“ Highest difference between rich and poor in centuries” What’s inherently bad with differences between poor and rich people? The poorest people in the planet today have access to more resources than the greatest king had 500 hundred years ago. Are you saying you would like all of us to be equally poor? To me this sounds more like jealousy and virtue signaling than anything else. We should be sad that we have poor people. Not rich. Wealth is not a 0 sum game.

sametmax 7y ago
It's not a matter of morality, politic leaning or envy. We collectively agree, as a human specy, that fairness, equality and democracy are quality we want to cultivate. A high difference between rich and poor is a sign of power concentrating, which is the opposite of what you want for democracy. It also means resources are getting less and less evenly distributed. If you aim for more fairness and equality, you need the reversed trend. Eventually, it means exhibit symptoms of being optimized for economic efficiency and a certain part of the population, while we know monoculture is not in favor of the specie on the long run.
scroot 7y ago
> What’s inherently bad with differences between poor and rich people? This is not the argument. Concern rests on the size of the gap, rather than the fact of differences. Greater inequality is associated with many negative properties, such as decreased social trust, declining mortality rates, political instability, etc. > The poorest people in the planet today have access to more resources than the greatest king had 500 hundred years ago. Is the new bar going to be 500 years ago? > Are you saying you would like all of us to be equally poor? ...What? > To me this sounds more like jealousy and virtue signaling than anything else. Are you suggesting that a concern for mounting inequality is a form of jealousy? And to the extent that what you say about signaling is true, I'd take a whole heaping pile of "virtue signaling" over bad faith reactionary arguments to very real and very dangerous social problems.
matthewmacleod 7y ago
First off, you’re wrong. “The poorest people on the planet” in no way have access to “more resources than the greatest king had 500 years ago”. It’s self-evidently nonsense. Second, massive inequality between rich and poor is a signal that something has gone horribly wrong with the distribution of wealth generated by society. That does not mean that “all of us need to be poor”. It does indicate that the rewards of civilisation have been unevenly distributed.

flavor8 7y ago

> I like positivism. Not disagreeing with your main point, but positivism doesn't mean what you think it does (you wanted "positivity" instead.) noun: positivism 1. a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism. a humanistic religious system founded on positivism. another term for logical positivism. 2. the theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid because they are enacted by authority or derive logically from existing decisions, and that ideal or moral considerations (e.g., that a rule is unjust) should not limit the scope or operation of the law.

sametmax 7y ago
Thanks. French here, I need this.

thu2111 7y ago

The article starts out by addressing the very point you're making here: what about bad things that happened in the last decade? His answer is that things can get better in big ways, such that things that get worse in small ways don't counterbalance them. I guess also the problem here is that many statements about things getting worse are very subjective, whereas the article tries to focus on objective metrics like absolute poverty, metals usage, etc. And it takes a global view. Your list is pretty large but, for instance, you say "ads everywhere". The internet has been funded by ads for decades. Did it objectively get moreso in the past decade? And if so, isn't the worseness of this purely subjective given that many services we enjoy may not exist without ads or, possibly, would be charged for and thus available only to the rich, in rich countries? This is highly debatable. Whereas "child mortality is at record lows" is metric-based and objectively good. Also many of these are very USA specific, but the worst places to live are really outside the USA. If your child died of TB "too many ads" and "the rise of smart speakers" is going to seem really trivial in comparison. No quantity of ads will counterbalance even a small rise in child mortality as a problem.