4 ms·

> But we are eating more fruit, so I guess on the balance everything is fine. Nowhere did the post claim this. Intake of fresh fruits/vegetables is associated

> But we are eating more fruit, so I guess on the balance everything is fine. Nowhere did the post claim this. Intake of fresh fruits/vegetables is associated with a meaningful decrease in mortality rate, and are increasingly seen as the best way to promote a healthy gut/microbiome (vs. taking probiotics). If you interpret this post as "n reasons that everything is fine", then you might be right - everything is definitely not fine. But if you interpret this post as "in a world where a lot is going wrong, and that's usually all we hear about, here are n things going right", it's a more useful read. To me, this falls into a category similar to the book Factfulness [0], which seeks to correct misconceptions about the state of the world by examining certain areas of progress over a broader historical context. Personally, I think an occasional break from the doom and gloom to focus on "here are some things that have improved" is necessary. That doesn't have to mean that everything is fine. - [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34890015-factfulness

jjoonathan 4y ago
An honest analysis would weight its concerns by importance. This was not an honest analysis.
- haswell 4y ago
  I don't think you or I can issue judgements about honesty without understanding the author and their motivations. We can conclude that the analysis is poor, or misses key factors, or is only useful when answering a narrow set of questions, or requires additional disclaimers / context. But concluding that the author is dishonest takes us in a direction that is no longer focused on how the analysis can improve, and instead seeks to question motives directly, instead of expanding our shared understanding of the subject. I do think the glaring issue with the piece is that we (the royal we) have not agreed on the list of factors that should be measured when examining living standards, nor the weights of those factors. The post doesn't really attempt to justify its chosen measures either, and would carry more weight if based on earlier scholarly attempts to quantify quality of life.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    We can judge the title, the thesis, and how it focuses attention away from the problems.
    - haswell 4y ago
      > We can judge the title, the thesis That is essentially what I said above. There are plenty of ways to pick this apart, and I have plenty of questions/issues with the content. I'm just saying we don't have to use ad hominem attacks to do so. > and how it focuses attention away from the problems An article titled "24 charts that show we’re (mostly) living better than our parents" is probably going to skew towards the things that are going well - that's kind of the point. That doesn't automatically imply everything is awesome, and you might take issue with such an examination and argue it does not give enough airtime to other systemic issues, and indeed this is where I'd focus. But that is a different kind of conversation than one that disagrees with the conclusions about each of those 24 things. Speaking of which, what are those primary problems from your perspective?
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
>But if you interpret this post as "in a world where a lot is going wrong, and that's usually all we hear about, here are n things going right", it's a more useful read. "This is fine!" No, it's not OK for an occasional break, the world is going to burn. It makes no difference if I can eat more blueberries now if my kids won't have any water left in the future to grow them. Knowing the reality of climate change, I am sorry, there is no way I can be glad we are eating more blueberries. It cannot enter my mind at all. If it can enter your mind you do not know the scope of what we are facing.
- haswell 4y ago
  > "This is fine!" Why would anyone conclude this? There are things in this world that are fine, and things that are not. To conclude that acknowledging the things that are fine is equivalent to concluding that everything is fine just doesn't track. > No, it's not OK for an occasional break Are you arguing that the only acceptable way to live life is to remain focused on everything that is going wrong, at all times? If we do not examine what's going right, how are we to identify (and prioritize) the areas that require attention? How does one learn from the things that have been successful so as to apply that success elsewhere? But more glaringly, how does one achieve any level of satisfaction in life if all they do is ignore everything good? The mental health impact of such negative focus seems far more likely to immobilize someone and lead to a nihilistic/fatalistic outlook. If the future generation is fucked, and there's literally nothing we can do, why do anything? (this is not what I'm advocating for, btw). I'm not attempting to downplay the seriousness of climate change or the magnitude of the problems the world is currently facing, but if the only way forward is to stay mired in negativity and to ignore the good things in life, truly what is the point of living?
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    > Are you arguing that the only acceptable way to live life is to remain focused on everything that is going wrong, at all times? If my car is about to go off of a cliff I am not going to be happy about all the blueberries I just bought at the supermarket. You are not giving the appropriate weight to these things. > But more glaringly, how does one achieve any level of satisfaction in life if all they do is ignore everything good? There is plenty I find good, non of which was included in that article. It was fully materialistic but for the parents spending more time with their kids which I do not see as a positive. And his "carbon release vs carbon graph" is just pure useless crap. The satisfaction I get in life is by trying to fix big problems. It is not nihilist, it is hopeful. A nihilist eats blueberries while the world is burning.
cudgy 4y ago
But today’s fruit costs much more and doesn’t taste as good.

jjoonathan 4y ago

An honest analysis would weight its concerns by importance. This was not an honest analysis.

haswell 4y ago
I don't think you or I can issue judgements about honesty without understanding the author and their motivations. We can conclude that the analysis is poor, or misses key factors, or is only useful when answering a narrow set of questions, or requires additional disclaimers / context. But concluding that the author is dishonest takes us in a direction that is no longer focused on how the analysis can improve, and instead seeks to question motives directly, instead of expanding our shared understanding of the subject. I do think the glaring issue with the piece is that we (the royal we) have not agreed on the list of factors that should be measured when examining living standards, nor the weights of those factors. The post doesn't really attempt to justify its chosen measures either, and would carry more weight if based on earlier scholarly attempts to quantify quality of life.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  We can judge the title, the thesis, and how it focuses attention away from the problems.
  - haswell 4y ago
    > We can judge the title, the thesis That is essentially what I said above. There are plenty of ways to pick this apart, and I have plenty of questions/issues with the content. I'm just saying we don't have to use ad hominem attacks to do so. > and how it focuses attention away from the problems An article titled "24 charts that show we’re (mostly) living better than our parents" is probably going to skew towards the things that are going well - that's kind of the point. That doesn't automatically imply everything is awesome, and you might take issue with such an examination and argue it does not give enough airtime to other systemic issues, and indeed this is where I'd focus. But that is a different kind of conversation than one that disagrees with the conclusions about each of those 24 things. Speaking of which, what are those primary problems from your perspective?

FollowingTheDao 4y ago

>But if you interpret this post as "in a world where a lot is going wrong, and that's usually all we hear about, here are n things going right", it's a more useful read. "This is fine!" No, it's not OK for an occasional break, the world is going to burn. It makes no difference if I can eat more blueberries now if my kids won't have any water left in the future to grow them. Knowing the reality of climate change, I am sorry, there is no way I can be glad we are eating more blueberries. It cannot enter my mind at all. If it can enter your mind you do not know the scope of what we are facing.

haswell 4y ago
> "This is fine!" Why would anyone conclude this? There are things in this world that are fine, and things that are not. To conclude that acknowledging the things that are fine is equivalent to concluding that everything is fine just doesn't track. > No, it's not OK for an occasional break Are you arguing that the only acceptable way to live life is to remain focused on everything that is going wrong, at all times? If we do not examine what's going right, how are we to identify (and prioritize) the areas that require attention? How does one learn from the things that have been successful so as to apply that success elsewhere? But more glaringly, how does one achieve any level of satisfaction in life if all they do is ignore everything good? The mental health impact of such negative focus seems far more likely to immobilize someone and lead to a nihilistic/fatalistic outlook. If the future generation is fucked, and there's literally nothing we can do, why do anything? (this is not what I'm advocating for, btw). I'm not attempting to downplay the seriousness of climate change or the magnitude of the problems the world is currently facing, but if the only way forward is to stay mired in negativity and to ignore the good things in life, truly what is the point of living?
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  > Are you arguing that the only acceptable way to live life is to remain focused on everything that is going wrong, at all times? If my car is about to go off of a cliff I am not going to be happy about all the blueberries I just bought at the supermarket. You are not giving the appropriate weight to these things. > But more glaringly, how does one achieve any level of satisfaction in life if all they do is ignore everything good? There is plenty I find good, non of which was included in that article. It was fully materialistic but for the parents spending more time with their kids which I do not see as a positive. And his "carbon release vs carbon graph" is just pure useless crap. The satisfaction I get in life is by trying to fix big problems. It is not nihilist, it is hopeful. A nihilist eats blueberries while the world is burning.

cudgy 4y ago

But today’s fruit costs much more and doesn’t taste as good.