3 ms·

If you want a book length answer to that question, Factfulness by Hans Rosling might be a good place to start. It shows all the ways that life has actually imp

If you want a book length answer to that question, Factfulness by Hans Rosling might be a good place to start. It shows all the ways that life has actually improved in the last 100 years across the world, for all people. There’s a reason that populations have risen sharply to all time highs during this period. Infant and maternal mortality have reduced, deaths from deadly diseases have reduced through proliferation of antibiotics and vaccines, people don’t die of starvation from famine anymore in most of the world. And you can actually see the effect of all of these things. When people are secure that their children will live to see adulthood, they drop from having 5-6 children to 1-2. Things aren’t perfect, but on that one heartbreaking metric - the % of parents who mourn the loss of a child - the progress is phenomenal. And that’s just one thing. I could give as many examples as you’d like, some of which might resonate more than others. Here are two more. - the existence of the internet, smartphones and software powering those phones. We can stay in touch with nearly anyone we want to. We can find communities of like minded people online. It’s safe to say there are many on HN who fit right in but might not fit in their physical neighbourhoods. Companionship and community are critical to our well being. - conscription is at an all time low. You, reading this, probably will never have to do military service or die for your country. Even many nations that do require service, like Finland, Singapore and South Korea have been at peace for a long, long time. Not dying in wars started by others is fantastic. - we have access to wider variety of foods - both ingredients and cuisines. Variety that previous generations could only have dreamed of. - we’ve never had more or better entertainment options. There are more movies, books, TV shows and video games than ever. Even if you felt they were better in the old days, you can enjoy all the entertainment from the old days on your smartphone for the cost of a cheap subscription. Life isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than it used to be. This idea that life sucks because billionaires exist is a sad, small minded philosophy.

notch656c 4y ago
I have "1-2" children in part because the costs have skyrocketed and also because the nanny state says I go to jail if my kid say walks alone to the playground, so there is no time to micromanage more than 1 or 2 people to the extent they can't even walk without supervision. If you read about "child abuse stories" where some evil villan allowed the kids to play outside it is almost invariably someone with 3+ children (and usually a single mom) because with that many kids it's impractical and possibly even impossible to follow the every wish and demand of every asshole with a cellphone in their hand and ready to call CPS at the drop of a hat.
- nindalf 4y ago
  You're kinda proving my point here. People will always focus on what they don't have, rather than what they do. You will likely never experience losing a child, something that was part of the human experience for all time, until the last 50 or so years. And yet, rather than enjoy that enormous privilege, you complain about the cost of child care. I don't blame you. You're acting exactly how most people act in most situations. Dwelling on what they don't have and getting angry about it. Even if you won the lottery and could afford to have 20 kids and a nanny for each one you still wouldn't be happy. Not because you're bad, but because that's how brain chemistry works. The hundreds of millions from the lottery starts to feel "normal" and you'd be complaining about something else. Like your yacht not being big enough or whatever. Ultimately the thing that is keeping you unhappy isn't the childcare cost or the spectre of CPS. You're unhappy because it's inherent in the human condition.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    You've shifted to why one is or isn't happy rather than factors leading to number of children.
jfengel 4y ago
This idea that life sucks because billionaires exist is a sad, small minded philosophy. It certainly would be. So I think you should consider why else people say what they say. People are more sensitive to changes, especially negative ones, rather than absolutes. It doesn't matter how many things are good. If things are wrong, they need to improve, and anything that impedes improvement is perceived as negative. If things get worse, that is a big negative score -- especially if somebody says "Hey, it was worse in the past, so be happy that it's not that bad". A number of things appear to be getting worse now, and a number of it has to do with the very wealthy: * We just had four years of a Presidency who was very intent on antagonizing his opponents. He is wealthy, and was supported by the party that appealed to the wealthy. * Even with him (temporarily) out of office, the impulse that put him there is still present. Those same smartphones bring us a constant stream of people who intend to aggravate -- not just bad news, but people who want them to be unhappy. * Some of that is driven by wealthy people who profit off that unhappiness. It drives engagement, and they sell attention. * A lot of people feel that their rights are decreasing. Sometimes it's literally true; sometimes it's merely a threat; sometimes it's engagement as in the last point. It doesn't matter, for example, that white people are in zero danger of becoming an oppressed minority; many are certain that it is, and that drives acting out in a way that is harmful. * It is difficult to ignore a threat with high consequences and low probability. It does no good to tell people that there's a 99.9999% chance that their children won't be shot today -- especially if it's coupled with people dismissing the ones who are shot. And so on. My point is that it is not "life sucks because billionaires", and in fact life sucks because people think that they only thing they're complaining about is "because billionaires". That means nobody is helping as things get worse, and even standing in the way.

notch656c 4y ago

I have "1-2" children in part because the costs have skyrocketed and also because the nanny state says I go to jail if my kid say walks alone to the playground, so there is no time to micromanage more than 1 or 2 people to the extent they can't even walk without supervision. If you read about "child abuse stories" where some evil villan allowed the kids to play outside it is almost invariably someone with 3+ children (and usually a single mom) because with that many kids it's impractical and possibly even impossible to follow the every wish and demand of every asshole with a cellphone in their hand and ready to call CPS at the drop of a hat.

nindalf 4y ago
You're kinda proving my point here. People will always focus on what they don't have, rather than what they do. You will likely never experience losing a child, something that was part of the human experience for all time, until the last 50 or so years. And yet, rather than enjoy that enormous privilege, you complain about the cost of child care. I don't blame you. You're acting exactly how most people act in most situations. Dwelling on what they don't have and getting angry about it. Even if you won the lottery and could afford to have 20 kids and a nanny for each one you still wouldn't be happy. Not because you're bad, but because that's how brain chemistry works. The hundreds of millions from the lottery starts to feel "normal" and you'd be complaining about something else. Like your yacht not being big enough or whatever. Ultimately the thing that is keeping you unhappy isn't the childcare cost or the spectre of CPS. You're unhappy because it's inherent in the human condition.
- notch656c 4y ago
  You've shifted to why one is or isn't happy rather than factors leading to number of children.

jfengel 4y ago

This idea that life sucks because billionaires exist is a sad, small minded philosophy. It certainly would be. So I think you should consider why else people say what they say. People are more sensitive to changes, especially negative ones, rather than absolutes. It doesn't matter how many things are good. If things are wrong, they need to improve, and anything that impedes improvement is perceived as negative. If things get worse, that is a big negative score -- especially if somebody says "Hey, it was worse in the past, so be happy that it's not that bad". A number of things appear to be getting worse now, and a number of it has to do with the very wealthy: * We just had four years of a Presidency who was very intent on antagonizing his opponents. He is wealthy, and was supported by the party that appealed to the wealthy. * Even with him (temporarily) out of office, the impulse that put him there is still present. Those same smartphones bring us a constant stream of people who intend to aggravate -- not just bad news, but people who want them to be unhappy. * Some of that is driven by wealthy people who profit off that unhappiness. It drives engagement, and they sell attention. * A lot of people feel that their rights are decreasing. Sometimes it's literally true; sometimes it's merely a threat; sometimes it's engagement as in the last point. It doesn't matter, for example, that white people are in zero danger of becoming an oppressed minority; many are certain that it is, and that drives acting out in a way that is harmful. * It is difficult to ignore a threat with high consequences and low probability. It does no good to tell people that there's a 99.9999% chance that their children won't be shot today -- especially if it's coupled with people dismissing the ones who are shot. And so on. My point is that it is not "life sucks because billionaires", and in fact life sucks because people think that they only thing they're complaining about is "because billionaires". That means nobody is helping as things get worse, and even standing in the way.