3 ms·

The saying goes if you see a problem in everything perhaps the problem lies in your framing? If every country makes you lose hope when we live in the safest, we

The saying goes if you see a problem in everything perhaps the problem lies in your framing? If every country makes you lose hope when we live in the safest, wealthiest and longest life expectancy era in human history inspite of a global pandemic, then perhaps you need to examine your assumptions and framing? The fact that you can choose a country to settle in implies you either have means or talent or both. I would speculate that you have the potential to make manifold contributions. Please reconsider your conclusions in a more optimistic light.

reustle 6y ago
While I agree with you entirely, I'm very curious about this part "we live in the safest, wealthiest and longest life expectancy era in human history inspite of a global pandemic" Data may show this, but what about "happiest"? I wouldn't be surprised if we've seen a global decline in overall happiness, even if everyone is a bit richer.
- haltingproblem 6y ago
  Almost every era thinks they have achieved so much - prosperity, progress, knowledge, scientific temper but lost something ineffable - their happiness. Perhaps in our genes to forever feel cast out of the garden of eden and strive to get back there. Happiness is an internal state without an objective measure. Worse we don't know what makes us happy. Too little wealth ==> unhappy. Too much wealth ==> unhappy (maybe) but don't see many giving it up. I think I would be miserable without the internet, social media but I am happiest chopping vegetables and washing dishes. Maybe we all just need to go and wash some dishes.
fakedang 6y ago
> when we live in the safest, wealthiest and longest life expectancy era in human history inspite of a global pandemic Are we really in the safest era, when global warming, climate catastrophe and another cold war are looming around in the corner? Are we really in the wealthiest era when even in the richest countries of the world, a large and growing segment of the population remains increasingly unable to live independently, own a home or even live like their parents did back in their younger years? Are we really the healthiest generation, where in spite of the widespread technological advances we have made, a large portion of basic Healthcare remains inaccessible to the world's population? Sure, it's easy to pontificate about how great it is, especially in the West - and even easier to forget about the developing world. Unfortunately (or not), in an increasingly globalized world, that's where our supply chains begin, and that's why it's on us to ensure we move forward together, leaving no one behind, instead of taking an idiosyncratic approach towards progress. Please reconsider your conclusions in a more realistic light.
- manigandham 6y ago
  The answer to all that is yes. These are objective facts so it doesn't get more realistic than that. There are far worse times in history for just about every aspect of human life. It doesn't mean everything is perfect today, just that it's better than it's ever been before.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    No, the answer to all of that isn't yes. For most people in the West, their parents' generation had it best. That era is past now, almost a decade back.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ramraj07 6y ago
I could indeed be considered someone with means and talent, and if I follow my colleagues I'll definitely lead a very luxurious lifestyle after moving to SV or a tech hub in the US. However I have also witnessed enough suffering in not just India but also in the US to not buy into the "safest wealthiest longest life expectancy" era. Averages can lie and here I think they lie real bad indeed. I don't believe that The majority of the people today in India and Us are better off today than they were say in the eighties. If you include all other countries sure the average might look positive; but my working hypothesis is that this just a metric that's lagging behind trigger events that have already been set in motion. With the erosion of fact-based argumentation and the invasion of climate change induced instability I don't think the world is rosy by any measure compared to what my parents grew up in. Given that I am not someone who can't make a difference, my argument is that I should try my level best to make a difference, which is what you are sounding like you are suggesting as well.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  QoL for the bottom 90% and top 0.1% are improving YoY, they're grabbing the vast share of gains relative to the 0.2-10% which most of us exist in and have until recently / historically grabbed a disproportionate share. From this perspective things do look bleak because our foreseeable mobility window will remain in this diminishing cohort. >lagging behind trigger events I think so too. Productivity and growth increase YoY, in theory there is potential for net good to be generated if distributed fairly (and in a sense it is for the bottom 90%). But geometric growth is not sustainable, the ceiling feels close (global warming), and eventually growth will slow down to the point where competition for resources and privileges becomes essentially zero sum. Or worse if population outstrips the productivity + 0.1% continues to aggregate a disproportionate share.
tarsinge 6y ago
It used to be true for older generations, but the problem is that that safety, wealth and life expectancy is on a near certain track to not continue in the future decades due to climate warming. It’s not a problem of framing and optimism anymore, the younger generations have a real existential threat to their lifestyle coming (or be wealthy enough to watch the world burn from a comfortable place, but that’s the problem of consciousness mentioned). I would love to be wrong of course.

reustle 6y ago

While I agree with you entirely, I'm very curious about this part "we live in the safest, wealthiest and longest life expectancy era in human history inspite of a global pandemic" Data may show this, but what about "happiest"? I wouldn't be surprised if we've seen a global decline in overall happiness, even if everyone is a bit richer.

haltingproblem 6y ago
Almost every era thinks they have achieved so much - prosperity, progress, knowledge, scientific temper but lost something ineffable - their happiness. Perhaps in our genes to forever feel cast out of the garden of eden and strive to get back there. Happiness is an internal state without an objective measure. Worse we don't know what makes us happy. Too little wealth ==> unhappy. Too much wealth ==> unhappy (maybe) but don't see many giving it up. I think I would be miserable without the internet, social media but I am happiest chopping vegetables and washing dishes. Maybe we all just need to go and wash some dishes.

fakedang 6y ago

> when we live in the safest, wealthiest and longest life expectancy era in human history inspite of a global pandemic Are we really in the safest era, when global warming, climate catastrophe and another cold war are looming around in the corner? Are we really in the wealthiest era when even in the richest countries of the world, a large and growing segment of the population remains increasingly unable to live independently, own a home or even live like their parents did back in their younger years? Are we really the healthiest generation, where in spite of the widespread technological advances we have made, a large portion of basic Healthcare remains inaccessible to the world's population? Sure, it's easy to pontificate about how great it is, especially in the West - and even easier to forget about the developing world. Unfortunately (or not), in an increasingly globalized world, that's where our supply chains begin, and that's why it's on us to ensure we move forward together, leaving no one behind, instead of taking an idiosyncratic approach towards progress. Please reconsider your conclusions in a more realistic light.

manigandham 6y ago
The answer to all that is yes. These are objective facts so it doesn't get more realistic than that. There are far worse times in history for just about every aspect of human life. It doesn't mean everything is perfect today, just that it's better than it's ever been before.
- fakedang 6y ago
  No, the answer to all of that isn't yes. For most people in the West, their parents' generation had it best. That era is past now, almost a decade back.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ramraj07 6y ago

I could indeed be considered someone with means and talent, and if I follow my colleagues I'll definitely lead a very luxurious lifestyle after moving to SV or a tech hub in the US. However I have also witnessed enough suffering in not just India but also in the US to not buy into the "safest wealthiest longest life expectancy" era. Averages can lie and here I think they lie real bad indeed. I don't believe that The majority of the people today in India and Us are better off today than they were say in the eighties. If you include all other countries sure the average might look positive; but my working hypothesis is that this just a metric that's lagging behind trigger events that have already been set in motion. With the erosion of fact-based argumentation and the invasion of climate change induced instability I don't think the world is rosy by any measure compared to what my parents grew up in. Given that I am not someone who can't make a difference, my argument is that I should try my level best to make a difference, which is what you are sounding like you are suggesting as well.

dirtyid 6y ago
QoL for the bottom 90% and top 0.1% are improving YoY, they're grabbing the vast share of gains relative to the 0.2-10% which most of us exist in and have until recently / historically grabbed a disproportionate share. From this perspective things do look bleak because our foreseeable mobility window will remain in this diminishing cohort. >lagging behind trigger events I think so too. Productivity and growth increase YoY, in theory there is potential for net good to be generated if distributed fairly (and in a sense it is for the bottom 90%). But geometric growth is not sustainable, the ceiling feels close (global warming), and eventually growth will slow down to the point where competition for resources and privileges becomes essentially zero sum. Or worse if population outstrips the productivity + 0.1% continues to aggregate a disproportionate share.

tarsinge 6y ago

It used to be true for older generations, but the problem is that that safety, wealth and life expectancy is on a near certain track to not continue in the future decades due to climate warming. It’s not a problem of framing and optimism anymore, the younger generations have a real existential threat to their lifestyle coming (or be wealthy enough to watch the world burn from a comfortable place, but that’s the problem of consciousness mentioned). I would love to be wrong of course.