5 ms·

I think that's wholesale falsehood. The wins in the last 200 years are so dramatic for the average person, especially in the West. Infant mortality rate and the

I think that's wholesale falsehood. The wins in the last 200 years are so dramatic for the average person, especially in the West. Infant mortality rate and the chance of survival to adulthood alone are such glorious victories against Death that I would gladly vote for any system that would give us those wins and create a trillionaire. All that wondrous science has come from this system. No. Evidence is evidence. This thing works, and works dramatically well. We live like Gods compared to people of the 1800s. My wife and I noticed this the other day. They fought wars back in the day for a fraction of the spices that I buy ethically today. No retvrn. Forward only.

acjohnson55 3y ago
At the scale of 200 years, you have some absolutely staggering human atrocities, fueled by technology. Colonialism, modern warfare, carpet bombing/nukes, industrialized genocide, truly ghastly urban factory life. We can maybe look at the past few decades as the point at which most of the world finally began to enjoy the effects of the industrial revolution. Although the cost may be the collapse of the carrying capacity of the earth for humans and many, many other species. There's maybe a world in which we select for the biggest wins for human lifespan, like modern medicine, and filter out the parts that are destructive. But that's not the world we live in.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  It is possible, in this world, for you to move to a less civilized part of the world and emulate the life of 200 years ago. We can have both if we so desire. But your children will almost all die before they see 5 winters. Behave in line with your convictions if you so desire.
  - adrianovaroli 3y ago
    You do understand that the countries "stuck in the life of 200 years ago" aren't stuck there just because they don't want to go on, right? Right? Colonization and resource extraction were a thing.
onion2k 3y ago
We live like Gods compared to people of the 1800s. Some of us do. If you're at the poorer end of society things are still pretty damn bleak. People live with long term treatable illness. People don't have basic necessities like shelter or food or water. People live with very little prospect of escaping a life of drudgery. Sure, those of us who can afford them have lots of shiny gadgets that save us from a bit of manual labor, but that's not really worth much if stepping outside of your front door means you're scared of being mugged. I'm not saying I'd give any of it up. Hell no. I'm saying that a few less rockets and a few more homeless shelters might go some way to helping balance things out a little.
- nickpp 3y ago
  > Some of us do Almost every single one of us does. The great, huge, gigantic majority of us does. Few realize it though.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > People live with long term treatable illness. None of what were treatable at the 1800. > People don't have basic necessities like shelter or food or water. In relative terms, almost none. I'm not sure how they compare in absolute terms, but just the answer not being obvious while the population increased by an order of magnitude already makes your claim quite bad. > People live with very little prospect of escaping a life of drudgery. And nobody had no prospect back them. You can complain that there are some people living almost as badly as people lived in the 1800s. But it's not the majority by far, and you can't claim they are currently living worse. And, of course, none of that is reason to not demand better things.
  - helboi4 3y ago
    As many have pointed out, technological advancement is pointless without social advancement. We have learnt how to treat diseases 10 times over at this point, and yet people still live with them. That is a failure at engineering our social system. Social change is the decisive factor. Technological change without social change is just giving the rich new ways to subjugate or ignore the poor.
miguelazo 3y ago
>This thing works, and works dramatically well Really? It has produced a climate destabilization that may well destroy civilization within the next decade or two.

acjohnson55 3y ago

At the scale of 200 years, you have some absolutely staggering human atrocities, fueled by technology. Colonialism, modern warfare, carpet bombing/nukes, industrialized genocide, truly ghastly urban factory life. We can maybe look at the past few decades as the point at which most of the world finally began to enjoy the effects of the industrial revolution. Although the cost may be the collapse of the carrying capacity of the earth for humans and many, many other species. There's maybe a world in which we select for the biggest wins for human lifespan, like modern medicine, and filter out the parts that are destructive. But that's not the world we live in.

renewiltord 3y ago
It is possible, in this world, for you to move to a less civilized part of the world and emulate the life of 200 years ago. We can have both if we so desire. But your children will almost all die before they see 5 winters. Behave in line with your convictions if you so desire.
- adrianovaroli 3y ago
  You do understand that the countries "stuck in the life of 200 years ago" aren't stuck there just because they don't want to go on, right? Right? Colonization and resource extraction were a thing.

onion2k 3y ago

We live like Gods compared to people of the 1800s. Some of us do. If you're at the poorer end of society things are still pretty damn bleak. People live with long term treatable illness. People don't have basic necessities like shelter or food or water. People live with very little prospect of escaping a life of drudgery. Sure, those of us who can afford them have lots of shiny gadgets that save us from a bit of manual labor, but that's not really worth much if stepping outside of your front door means you're scared of being mugged. I'm not saying I'd give any of it up. Hell no. I'm saying that a few less rockets and a few more homeless shelters might go some way to helping balance things out a little.

nickpp 3y ago
> Some of us do Almost every single one of us does. The great, huge, gigantic majority of us does. Few realize it though.
marcosdumay 3y ago
> People live with long term treatable illness. None of what were treatable at the 1800. > People don't have basic necessities like shelter or food or water. In relative terms, almost none. I'm not sure how they compare in absolute terms, but just the answer not being obvious while the population increased by an order of magnitude already makes your claim quite bad. > People live with very little prospect of escaping a life of drudgery. And nobody had no prospect back them. You can complain that there are some people living almost as badly as people lived in the 1800s. But it's not the majority by far, and you can't claim they are currently living worse. And, of course, none of that is reason to not demand better things.
- helboi4 3y ago
  As many have pointed out, technological advancement is pointless without social advancement. We have learnt how to treat diseases 10 times over at this point, and yet people still live with them. That is a failure at engineering our social system. Social change is the decisive factor. Technological change without social change is just giving the rich new ways to subjugate or ignore the poor.

miguelazo 3y ago

>This thing works, and works dramatically well Really? It has produced a climate destabilization that may well destroy civilization within the next decade or two.