4 ms·
The mean quality of life is sky high compared to 100 years ago and it is such thanks to the advancement made.
by yreg 3y ago
The mean quality of life is sky high compared to 100 years ago and it is such thanks to the advancement made.
- digdugdirk 3y agoThe mean quality of life is irrelevant if the mode quality of life is only a tenth of that.
- didibus 3y agoAnd honestly the range matters a lot here as well. The mean just isn't a useful metric for human emancipation.
- jacquesm 3y ago> The mean just isn't a useful metric for human emancipation. For those at the top of the foodchain it is a very useful metric: it allows them to sleep at night.
- vikinghckr 3y agoThe median quality of life is MUCH higher today than 100 years ago. And bottom 1%-tile quality of life might be 1000 times better. All thanks to advance in technology and increased productivity.
- yreg 3y agoThe mode quality of life is also sky high compared to 100 years ago. So is the median quality of life. Mode and median were raised even faster than the average. Humanity managed to uplift a huge fraction of people out of extreme poverty. In 1820s around 70-80% people lived in extreme poverty In 1920s it was around 60-70% In 2020s it's around 10% source: e.g. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e20f2f1a-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e20f2f1a-en https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e20f2f1a-en/index.html?i...
- vikinghckr 3y agoThat this even needed to be said on a forum like HN baffles me. I suspect it's a result of decades of mainstream political/cultural doom-and-gloom propaganda.
- nverno 3y agoThis quality of life metric is purely economic, but it is easy to read it as general life quality- personally, I'd swap now for 1820s homesteading out west in a heartbeat even though that would register as 'extreme poverty' on the economic scale.
- vikinghckr 3y agoWell, for a start, it's safe to assume you're not a woman or a minority. And even if you're a young healthy white male, your quality of life would be significantly worse in the 1820s. Not only would you lose access to a lot of the everyday conveniences of life today, you're also far more likely to die a young and painful death from any number of disease.
- nverno 3y agoConveniences don't make life worth living, and a long life doesn't mean a good life. Do you really think people, on average, enjoyed their lives less back then? I don't
- vikinghckr 3y agoWell, enjoyment or happiness is tricky to measure because happiness = reality - expectation. So people in the 1820s might've been "happy" enough because they simply didn't know a better life like today's was a possibility. There's no reason to think they were happier than today's population though. And certainly, you as someone who experienced today's conveniences will not be happy long term if all those were taken away suddenly.
- almost_usual 3y agoAnd as the Earth burns away and we choke on the smoke we rejoice as we have our AI entertainment and we can go quietly into the night.
- darawk 3y agoLol. Nobody is choking on smoke. The earth is fine. Humans may make life slightly more difficult for themselves in the next century or two due to global warming, but those difficulties will be more than offset by advances in technology, even under pessimistic assumptions.
- ThrowawayTestr 3y agoA good portion of NA is literally choked in forest fire smoke.
- coryrc 3y agoNo one except most Canadians, the West Coast, Midwest, and Northeast of the US. And Texas too apparently: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/environment/article/wildfire-smoke-deaths-houston-report-18208284.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/environm... Is there anywhere in the continental US not affected by wildfire smoke? Hawaii is probably doing alright.
- ChumpGPT 3y agoThey are getting choked by Chinese pollution.
- justinhj 3y agoWildfires are periodic and affected by forest management not just heat
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoDoing pretty well in Phoenix. For as long as the AC keeps up!
- 3y ago
- rolandog 3y agoThe mean quality of life can be skewed by outliers. I wonder if there are median quality of life indicators with the box-diagram of Upper and Lower Fence values based on the Inter Quartile Range
- jarjoura 3y agoActually, economists are now saying that the 20th century was an anomaly in terms of QoL and we're reverting back to U shaped distribution of wealth. It will be very interesting times when all that 20th century earned Baby Boomer wealth moves to the next generation and accelerates the shift even faster.
- nverno 3y agoDo you mean U-shaped on a wealth vs. age graph, or something else? I would imagine wealth distribution to look more like an exponential distribution.
- vbezhenar 3y agoWhat about quality of life compared to 50 years ago? I guess it depends on country but I feel like my parents generation lived better life compared to mine.
- vikinghckr 3y agoWhat did they have you don't?
- thatguy0900 3y agoMy parents bought a house and went on multiple family vacations every year and never really were too concerned about money, saving up a decent amount for retirement. My mom was a teacher in a poor inner city school and my dad was a low level insurance salesman. My mom never had to worry about student loans, they were easily paid off. I think trading fiscal peace and security for an iPhone is a bad trade.
- tomrod 3y agoNot sure, sounds like that is a baked measurement intended to superficially mollify people. Medicine and health costs more than ever. Inequality higher than ever. Sure, we can buy cheapish bread and occasional circuses, but is that a valid measure of life?