4 ms·

The vastly overwhelming body of evidence clearly indicates that today humanity is materially and by nearly all concrete measurements of human well-being better

The vastly overwhelming body of evidence clearly indicates that today humanity is materially and by nearly all concrete measurements of human well-being better off than at any time in all its long history. This paints a powerful case for humanity also being psychologically and emotionally better off, on average, than at any older time in history since, as should be obvious, dodging starvation, random war, plague and een minor medical problems becoming deadly isn't exactly conducive to being as happy as you could be without these things. If you want to make a case for the "natural" life of simple pleasures, sure, it could be attractive contrasted against the cacophony of modern digital and other distractions, but here's a basic thing: If you want that kind of life today, within the relative safety net of modern medicine and economic support in a wider sense, you're free to pursue it as intensely as you like, and more safely than you ever could have before. If on the other hand, you, living in some grimmer, dirtier past, wanted any other sort of life, the choice didn't even really exist unless you were one of an incredibly tiny minority that formed the elites of society. And even among these people, the slightest infection could randomly kill you, losing your eyesight with age was a gradual sentence into blindness, and god help you if you ever were to have any major dental or surgical needs that are today fixable with little fuss. Whatever you might think of Steven Pinker, the guy's fundamental argument is broadly true even if some specific details might be cherry-picked(and i'd like to see which one's you're referring your suspicion to) Again though, feel free to list the stuff we've lost. I'd love to see what you refer to and balance it against what we've gained.

harimau777 2y ago
Speaking from a US perspective, a lot of people have lost their connection to society and to a sense of meaningful cultural identity. There's a crisis of singleness that hasn't been present in much, although not all, of human history. Home ownership is way down. At various points throughout human history it was common for people to own their own homes. Most people have very little autonomy in their day to day work. In the past most people worked on small scale farms and cottage industries where they didn't have layers upon layers of middle managers micromanaging them.
- DaoVeles 2y ago
  John Michael Greer has a great term for this. Lenocracy. The first part of that word comes from leno, the Latin term for a pimp. https://www.ecosophia.net/beyond-lenocracy/ https://www.ecosophia.net/beyond-lenocracy/ Like most of Greers writing, it makes you think and also wonder what is in the water at his house.
  - mjamesaustin 2y ago
    Interesting to find the author focus almost entirely on the public sector aspect of this. When I read the definition, my mind went immediately to the private sector and how almost every startup or big tech success story is chasing the ideal of being a pimp. The service economy is all about taking a whopping cut of everyone else's work, and it seems like venture capital is only interested in funding companies who will be able to do that. Uber, Doordash, Task Rabbit, the App Store, etc.
    - DaoVeles 2y ago
      Yeah, JMG's writings are fascinating but don't take them too seriously. Generally seem to lean a lot more right wing as time progresses. Also on his other blog a lot of anti-vax and occult magic stuff. Never have I come across an author I simultaneously agree and disagree with.
- deanCommie 2y ago
  At various points throughout human history it was also common for people to forage/hunt/grow their own food, too. I resonate with the rest of your post - I do think having a connection to society is vital, and I also think that the US has become too much of a me-first, get-ahead-at-all-costs hustle culture that devalues social bonds. But I see people still forming very deep cultural identities. I also agree with you that pride in one's accomplishments and a sense of purpose is important and home ownership is ONE way to achieve that - to have control over at least that facet of your life. But it's far from the only one.
- kiba 2y ago
  That is caused by people making decisions decades in the past, and the inertia persists to the present day. In other words, it didn't start with social media. Rather, social media exacerbate what was already happening for decades at this point.
mxkopy 2y ago
> Again though, feel free to list the stuff we've lost. The first thing that comes to mind is dependence on other people. Modern life has made it possible for the average person after a certain age to live without meaningful interaction with others. In the same vein one’s ability to choose one’s company has been greatly increased, which leads to superficial relationships and the isolation of those that no one chooses to be with. > This paints a powerful case for humanity also being psychologically and emotionally better off, on average, than at any older time in history This is not at all obvious for the reasons listed above, after a certain point material abundance does not cause psychological well-being. I’d argue that point was well within the reach of most of our ancestors, since we have had happy ancestors of modest socioeconomic status. > Whatever you might think of Steven Pinker, the guy's fundamental argument is broadly true The only broadly true statement that can be made about this topic is that modern life is generally incomparable how it was historically. I find that the sentiment underlying these arguments is usually masturbatory in nature.
- DaoVeles 2y ago
  > This is not at all obvious for the reasons listed above, after a certain point material abundance does not cause psychological well-being. I have been trying to find a news interview for years. It was on Fox news just before Christmas about 15 years back, they had someone from an anti-consumption group. Needless to say, the interviewer did not take kindly to the position they had "It's un american to not buy Christmas presents!". But the last point the interviewee made as they played the music over them was something along the lines of "Consumption is three times high per capita than the 1950's and we are no happier because of it!". Fair point to be made. > I’d argue that point was well within the reach of most of our ancestors, since we have had happy ancestors of modest socioeconomic status. While they aren't the only ones, folks like the Jainists, Taoists, all manner of Buddhists, Hindu's have lead very happy lives living on a tiny fraction of the material needs that we have. Not saying they didn't appreciate some of the new things but it isn't a case of living in squalor for millennia.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  [dead]
somenameforme 2y ago
This article is speaking of the distant past (and perhaps you are as well) but in relatively recent history, I think the losses can be clearly demonstrated. Near to every form of emotional and mental disorder is at record highs in most Western countries, including the US. [1] IQ levels, after increasing ever since it began being measured, have started declining. [2] Testosterone levels are plummeting, obesity is skyrocketing, social divides are reaching catastrophic levels (which I mention since I think it's viable that the digital age is meaningfully contributing to this), and so on. And yes I obviously see the argument re: obesity vs famine, but the issue is malnourishment. One can be obese or overweight and malnourished, and in fact most people suffering from malnutrition are. [3] Perhaps most importantly of all - fertility rates have fallen so low that we have created literally unsustainable societies. I don't think people realize how catastrophic our fertility rates have grown. You can estimate the impact of a fertility rate (once an entire population shares it) as being a factor of fertility_rate/2 applied every ~20 years to a population. So South Korea, with its 0.68 fertility rate, will eventually start losing about 66% of its population every ~20 years. And this will happen until they go extinct (which is surprisingly rapid at such a scale), or start having more children. And while they have, by far, the lowest fertility rate in the world, most of the world is on a trendline to follow right behind them. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/505745/depression-rates-reach-new-highs.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/505745/depression-rates-reach-n... [2] - https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-... [3] - https://cardiology.medicine.ufl.edu/2020/08/13/malnutrition-in-the-obese-commonly-overlooked-but-with-serious-consequences/ https://cardiology.medicine.ufl.edu/2020/08/13/malnutrition-...
- bsder 2y ago
  > but in relatively recent history, I think the losses can be clearly demonstrated. Maybe within the last 30 years but certainly not if you count even just prior to 1970 when heavy manufacturing still provided the primary jobs. Mill and mine jobs sucked worse than agriculture. Women had zero choice other than homemaker, teacher and secretary. Many Rust Belt men were basically functional alcoholics because life was so damn difficult. For example, a black humor joke at Bethlehem Steel was that nobody ever retired from the car shop (they manufactured railroad cars)--they died of some form of weird cancer long before that. People complain about how badly we deal with "mental health" now but everybody had to just suck it up and effectively smoked and drank themselves stupid to deal with it in the past. And prior to World War II and the broad distribution of antibiotics, basic physical health was a crapshoot let alone mental health. I'm not happy about IQ starting to trend down. However, IQ continuously increasing indicates that groups of people were still systematically malnourished up into the early 1990s. I may have a bunch of problems with the way things are going, but I'm having a tough time coming up with a time when it was that much better than things are right now. Certainly most of the people sitting here reading HN would have had a really shitty time in the 1950s and 1960s (and probably even 1970s). They've forgotten that smart people had a hard time escaping their local social area and were strongly ostracized up through even the 1980s.
hattmall 2y ago
>major dental or surgical needs that are today fixable with little fuss I guess perhaps that's true in some countries, but not for the US. People put off major medical needs for years and even decades to wait until they can get on medicare. Dental issues are even worse. Yes, the availability of the treatments is nice, but the majority of people are deeply stuck in modern society to have access to those treatments.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  Truly? You're comparing problems in access to smooth insurance coverage among a certain percentage of the U.S. population to a total lack of existence for anything resembling modern medical and dental care in the world of the pre-industrial era? I could make a large list of all the ways in which this comparison is laughable.
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    Dental insurance in the US is more like a subscription service than actual insurance. It only really covers preventative care, and only to a very limited extent. You should make a list. I would find it very helpful. The people claiming the world progresses in a single direction will eat their words one day.
    - southernplaces7 2y ago
      Dental care at least exists in the modern US, along with antibiotics and cavity fillings and of course, anesthesia. Comparing it, with its defects, to anything passing for dentistry or medicine from the preindustrial past is simply foolish. > The people claiming the world progresses in a single direction will eat their words one day. That's a completely unfounded assumption on your part. It may end up being true, since the future is uncertain at all times, but at least right now anyone can say that the world has improved for humans like never before in measurable ways from those of earlier. That's a hard fact.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
anal_reactor 2y ago
> Again though, feel free to list the stuff we've lost. I'd love to see what you refer to and balance it against what we've gained. The will to live. The depression is rampant. People are lonelier than ever, and they eventually kill themselves. Despite the fact that the world is objectively a better place to live, for the first time in history of any species people don't want to reproduce because it sucks. Human happiness is directly correlated with relationships. Not with technological progress. But with relationships. Which are under fire in modern society. But hey, here's a new iPhone. Go browse tiktok on it or something.
darby_nine 2y ago
> The vastly overwhelming body of evidence clearly indicates that today humanity is materially and by nearly all concrete measurements of human well-being better off than at any time in all its long history. I mostly agree, but my point was that materialist analysis has obvious limits. It also naturally favors industrial society as industrial society optimizes for material production (not necessarily material satisfaction, mind you, hence why I mostly agree) > If you want to make a case for the "natural" life of simple pleasures If you presume superiority by comparison to our modern "complex" pleasures, sure, you're not going to find much interesting in the past. > If you want that kind of life today, within the relative safety net of modern medicine and economic support in a wider sense, you're free to pursue it as intensely as you like, and more safely than you ever could have before. You will still be haunted by what you have seen of other humans and heard from their lips—there's no escaping that.

harimau777 2y ago

Speaking from a US perspective, a lot of people have lost their connection to society and to a sense of meaningful cultural identity. There's a crisis of singleness that hasn't been present in much, although not all, of human history. Home ownership is way down. At various points throughout human history it was common for people to own their own homes. Most people have very little autonomy in their day to day work. In the past most people worked on small scale farms and cottage industries where they didn't have layers upon layers of middle managers micromanaging them.

DaoVeles 2y ago
John Michael Greer has a great term for this. Lenocracy. The first part of that word comes from leno, the Latin term for a pimp. https://www.ecosophia.net/beyond-lenocracy/ https://www.ecosophia.net/beyond-lenocracy/ Like most of Greers writing, it makes you think and also wonder what is in the water at his house.
- mjamesaustin 2y ago
  Interesting to find the author focus almost entirely on the public sector aspect of this. When I read the definition, my mind went immediately to the private sector and how almost every startup or big tech success story is chasing the ideal of being a pimp. The service economy is all about taking a whopping cut of everyone else's work, and it seems like venture capital is only interested in funding companies who will be able to do that. Uber, Doordash, Task Rabbit, the App Store, etc.
  - DaoVeles 2y ago
    Yeah, JMG's writings are fascinating but don't take them too seriously. Generally seem to lean a lot more right wing as time progresses. Also on his other blog a lot of anti-vax and occult magic stuff. Never have I come across an author I simultaneously agree and disagree with.
deanCommie 2y ago
At various points throughout human history it was also common for people to forage/hunt/grow their own food, too. I resonate with the rest of your post - I do think having a connection to society is vital, and I also think that the US has become too much of a me-first, get-ahead-at-all-costs hustle culture that devalues social bonds. But I see people still forming very deep cultural identities. I also agree with you that pride in one's accomplishments and a sense of purpose is important and home ownership is ONE way to achieve that - to have control over at least that facet of your life. But it's far from the only one.
kiba 2y ago
That is caused by people making decisions decades in the past, and the inertia persists to the present day. In other words, it didn't start with social media. Rather, social media exacerbate what was already happening for decades at this point.

mxkopy 2y ago

> Again though, feel free to list the stuff we've lost. The first thing that comes to mind is dependence on other people. Modern life has made it possible for the average person after a certain age to live without meaningful interaction with others. In the same vein one’s ability to choose one’s company has been greatly increased, which leads to superficial relationships and the isolation of those that no one chooses to be with. > This paints a powerful case for humanity also being psychologically and emotionally better off, on average, than at any older time in history This is not at all obvious for the reasons listed above, after a certain point material abundance does not cause psychological well-being. I’d argue that point was well within the reach of most of our ancestors, since we have had happy ancestors of modest socioeconomic status. > Whatever you might think of Steven Pinker, the guy's fundamental argument is broadly true The only broadly true statement that can be made about this topic is that modern life is generally incomparable how it was historically. I find that the sentiment underlying these arguments is usually masturbatory in nature.

DaoVeles 2y ago
> This is not at all obvious for the reasons listed above, after a certain point material abundance does not cause psychological well-being. I have been trying to find a news interview for years. It was on Fox news just before Christmas about 15 years back, they had someone from an anti-consumption group. Needless to say, the interviewer did not take kindly to the position they had "It's un american to not buy Christmas presents!". But the last point the interviewee made as they played the music over them was something along the lines of "Consumption is three times high per capita than the 1950's and we are no happier because of it!". Fair point to be made. > I’d argue that point was well within the reach of most of our ancestors, since we have had happy ancestors of modest socioeconomic status. While they aren't the only ones, folks like the Jainists, Taoists, all manner of Buddhists, Hindu's have lead very happy lives living on a tiny fraction of the material needs that we have. Not saying they didn't appreciate some of the new things but it isn't a case of living in squalor for millennia.
southernplaces7 2y ago
[dead]

somenameforme 2y ago

This article is speaking of the distant past (and perhaps you are as well) but in relatively recent history, I think the losses can be clearly demonstrated. Near to every form of emotional and mental disorder is at record highs in most Western countries, including the US. [1] IQ levels, after increasing ever since it began being measured, have started declining. [2] Testosterone levels are plummeting, obesity is skyrocketing, social divides are reaching catastrophic levels (which I mention since I think it's viable that the digital age is meaningfully contributing to this), and so on. And yes I obviously see the argument re: obesity vs famine, but the issue is malnourishment. One can be obese or overweight and malnourished, and in fact most people suffering from malnutrition are. [3] Perhaps most importantly of all - fertility rates have fallen so low that we have created literally unsustainable societies. I don't think people realize how catastrophic our fertility rates have grown. You can estimate the impact of a fertility rate (once an entire population shares it) as being a factor of fertility_rate/2 applied every ~20 years to a population. So South Korea, with its 0.68 fertility rate, will eventually start losing about 66% of its population every ~20 years. And this will happen until they go extinct (which is surprisingly rapid at such a scale), or start having more children. And while they have, by far, the lowest fertility rate in the world, most of the world is on a trendline to follow right behind them. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/505745/depression-rates-reach-new-highs.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/505745/depression-rates-reach-n... [2] - https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-... [3] - https://cardiology.medicine.ufl.edu/2020/08/13/malnutrition-in-the-obese-commonly-overlooked-but-with-serious-consequences/ https://cardiology.medicine.ufl.edu/2020/08/13/malnutrition-...

bsder 2y ago
> but in relatively recent history, I think the losses can be clearly demonstrated. Maybe within the last 30 years but certainly not if you count even just prior to 1970 when heavy manufacturing still provided the primary jobs. Mill and mine jobs sucked worse than agriculture. Women had zero choice other than homemaker, teacher and secretary. Many Rust Belt men were basically functional alcoholics because life was so damn difficult. For example, a black humor joke at Bethlehem Steel was that nobody ever retired from the car shop (they manufactured railroad cars)--they died of some form of weird cancer long before that. People complain about how badly we deal with "mental health" now but everybody had to just suck it up and effectively smoked and drank themselves stupid to deal with it in the past. And prior to World War II and the broad distribution of antibiotics, basic physical health was a crapshoot let alone mental health. I'm not happy about IQ starting to trend down. However, IQ continuously increasing indicates that groups of people were still systematically malnourished up into the early 1990s. I may have a bunch of problems with the way things are going, but I'm having a tough time coming up with a time when it was that much better than things are right now. Certainly most of the people sitting here reading HN would have had a really shitty time in the 1950s and 1960s (and probably even 1970s). They've forgotten that smart people had a hard time escaping their local social area and were strongly ostracized up through even the 1980s.

hattmall 2y ago

>major dental or surgical needs that are today fixable with little fuss I guess perhaps that's true in some countries, but not for the US. People put off major medical needs for years and even decades to wait until they can get on medicare. Dental issues are even worse. Yes, the availability of the treatments is nice, but the majority of people are deeply stuck in modern society to have access to those treatments.

southernplaces7 2y ago
Truly? You're comparing problems in access to smooth insurance coverage among a certain percentage of the U.S. population to a total lack of existence for anything resembling modern medical and dental care in the world of the pre-industrial era? I could make a large list of all the ways in which this comparison is laughable.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  Dental insurance in the US is more like a subscription service than actual insurance. It only really covers preventative care, and only to a very limited extent. You should make a list. I would find it very helpful. The people claiming the world progresses in a single direction will eat their words one day.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    Dental care at least exists in the modern US, along with antibiotics and cavity fillings and of course, anesthesia. Comparing it, with its defects, to anything passing for dentistry or medicine from the preindustrial past is simply foolish. > The people claiming the world progresses in a single direction will eat their words one day. That's a completely unfounded assumption on your part. It may end up being true, since the future is uncertain at all times, but at least right now anyone can say that the world has improved for humans like never before in measurable ways from those of earlier. That's a hard fact.
    - somenameforme 2y ago

anal_reactor 2y ago

> Again though, feel free to list the stuff we've lost. I'd love to see what you refer to and balance it against what we've gained. The will to live. The depression is rampant. People are lonelier than ever, and they eventually kill themselves. Despite the fact that the world is objectively a better place to live, for the first time in history of any species people don't want to reproduce because it sucks. Human happiness is directly correlated with relationships. Not with technological progress. But with relationships. Which are under fire in modern society. But hey, here's a new iPhone. Go browse tiktok on it or something.

darby_nine 2y ago

> The vastly overwhelming body of evidence clearly indicates that today humanity is materially and by nearly all concrete measurements of human well-being better off than at any time in all its long history. I mostly agree, but my point was that materialist analysis has obvious limits. It also naturally favors industrial society as industrial society optimizes for material production (not necessarily material satisfaction, mind you, hence why I mostly agree) > If you want to make a case for the "natural" life of simple pleasures If you presume superiority by comparison to our modern "complex" pleasures, sure, you're not going to find much interesting in the past. > If you want that kind of life today, within the relative safety net of modern medicine and economic support in a wider sense, you're free to pursue it as intensely as you like, and more safely than you ever could have before. You will still be haunted by what you have seen of other humans and heard from their lips—there's no escaping that.