13 ms·
2012 has been the greatest year in the history of the world
- d3ad1ysp0rk 14y agoOne of the worst offenders of making claims without citing any sources I've seen in months. This article is rubbish.
- jwoah12 14y agoAgreed. I really wanted to agree with it because it has a nice sentiment, but when the author claims that war has historically been mankind's biggest killer, I completely gave up hope.
- neilk 14y agoHe might be alluding to Steven Pinker's argument, which is about the decline of violence of all kinds, not just organized warfare.
- bryanlarsen 14y agoThe article has a good number of statistics that should be relatively easy to verify. That puts it a step above just about anything else you read in a newspaper. Sure it would be nice if they linked to sources, but that's not the standard for articles like this in newspapers like this.
- arrrg 14y agoThe article is rubbish if and only if the facts it names are wrong. It is not standard procedure for newspapers and magazines to name or even link sources. That’s sad, but that’s how it is.
- cgh 14y agoSeveral of the claims, such as the success of the UN's Millennium Development Goals project and the fact that we are currently living in a world free of war, are pretty easy to check for yourself. Viewed in terms of what really are some of humanity's big goals - reducing poverty, warfare and disease - we are living in a wonderful time. Unfortunately, the article soft-pedals the environmental stuff a bit.
- ucee054 14y agoWho exactly is living in a world free of war? Gaza? Congo? Yemen? Pakistan? Mali? Columbia? ... I can't be bothered to finish typing the list
- cgh 14y agoNearly all of humanity. If you think those are "wars", you should get some perspective. The Battle of Passchendaele alone killed roughly 600,000 men. Compare that to the total number of casualties in every one of the conflicts above. I'm not trying to minimise things, and I understand that those who face state violence have a rough time of it. But taken as a proportion of humanity as a whole, war is at an all-time low. That is something to celebrate.
- dougk7 14y agoYes we haven't had a "World war" and your intention isn't to minimise things but you've just minimised things - those wars are not simple conflicts. The second Congo war alone took more than 5 million lives. Although officially over, lives are still being lost everyday from its aftermath. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War - more recently, not even a month ago, there was another fight that saw a city fall in rebel arms and thousands of people flee from their homes.
- yen223 14y agoThis needs to be said a million times. I do not support wars. That said, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the Iraq war killed less people than the Vietnam War, which in turn killed less people than WW2. A mere 70 years ago, my country was occupied by some of the most brutal oppressors in the world. Now, our biggest problem is that we eat too much food. Most of my fellow countrymen will never have to know what it's like to be starving, to have our homes destroyed, our family members enslaved or worse. It truly is something to celebrate.
- Florin_Andrei 14y ago(sigh) It's an editorial, not an Arxiv paper. Neurotypicals do stuff like this, fuzzy and emotional; it's not all numbers for them.
- ErikAugust 14y agoGreatest year in the history of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- ErikAugust 14y agoWhat's with the downvotes? The notion of a "greatest year in the history of the world" is silly.
- AndrewDucker 14y agoHN tends to reward responses that clearly point things out in a non-silly manner, and punish purely silly responses, even if those responses were pointing out how silly something else was.
- ErikAugust 14y agoThanks for the explanation.
- rje 14y agoI looked up a couple of sources for the facts I was interested in. Extreme Poverty: “Progress is within our reach. Since 2000, extreme poverty has been halved. This proves that with political will and the joint commitment of States, outcomes can be achieved. To succeed, we must redouble our efforts to combat new forms of poverty and social exclusion. We must also understand all aspects of poverty in order to tailor our response appropriately.” [1] Life expectancy in Africa (2009): "... the increasing availability of antiretroviral therapy has reduced the spread of the epidemic, and the mortality due to HIV/AIDS has been decreasing since about 2005, allowing life expectancy at birth to increase again: average life expectancy at birth, in Africa, was 51 years in 2000, whereas it was almost 54 years in 2009." [2] [1]: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43307&Cr=poverty&Cr1=#.UMnvaXPjli5 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43307&Cr=po... [2]: http://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/life_tables/situation_trends_text/en/index.html http://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/life_tables/...
- bjhoops1 14y agoI think that it is more valuable to spend one's time focusing on problems and how they can be solved rather than celebrating the fact that things are better than they used to be in many, many ways. That being said, it is important to periodically remind one's self that things are generally getting better around the world. Failing to keep problems in perspective can not only be discouraging, but can skew your perception of how sever those problems are. Don't let yourself fall for the "Good Old Days" myth.
- illuminate 14y ago"celebrating the fact that things are better than they used to be in many, many ways." Yes, that's certainly an invitation to regression of all battles won for the better, with civil rights and other gains. We're not moving in any particular vector, necessarily, we have to actively ensure we're pushing to build on these victories and the victories of our predecessors.
- bjhoops1 14y agoyes good point - "progress" isn't quite single-dimensional. :)
- blindhippo 14y ago"The doom-mongers will tell you that we cannot sustain worldwide economic growth without ruining our environment. But while the rich world’s economies grew by 6 per cent over the last seven years, fossil fuel consumption in those countries fell by 4 per cent. This remarkable (and, again, unreported) achievement has nothing to do with green taxes or wind-farms. It is down to consumer demand for more efficient cars and factories." Statement is made that it's all because of capitalism - yet no evidence is cited or even presented. The chinese reference is amazing too, because we all know the Chinese government has had nothing to do with the economic boom they have undergone in the past decade. Let alone how nearly 2 generations have been raised to "reduce, reuse and recycle" through educational programs promoted by Government initiatives. But no... it's all consumer demand that fixed emissions issues. Simple arguments for simple minds.
- rayiner 14y agoNot to mention: "According to China’s 12th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2011-2015), the country will spend $473.1 billion on clean energy investments over the next five years. China’s goal is to have 20 percent of its total energy demand sourced from renewable energy by 2020." (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/07/27/china-leads-the-world-in-renewable-energy-investment http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/07/27/china-l...). Nope, government had nothing to do with this at all.
- digeridoo 14y agoI don't see any reason to reinterpret this as an anti-government pamphlet. It's just pointing out that economic conditions and mentality are changing around the world, but that this is often overlooked in the news cycle because politicians don't report on it when it is not their personal achievement.
- blindhippo 14y agoI agree entirely with the sentiments about politicians - but this article confuses "government" with "politics" and assumes the market solved problems without any influence from prior sources. There is zero analysis or even allusion to what factors might have influenced the demand that ultimately caused the market to react. Just a blanket statement about how the governments of the world aren't doing anything useful.
- digeridoo 14y agoCome on you incorrigible pessimists, lighten up. There is obviously some tongue-in-cheek and inaccuracies in the article, but also some profound truth. This is the greatest time in history to be alive as a human and we might as well recognize that.
- kalms 14y agoThank you. Please never forget about the problems going on in the world, but take the time to appreciate what you got, and what we indeed have accomplished, during the last couple of years. We're doing good, but we can do even better. I don't see any harm in celebrating that.
- phreanix 14y agoBut I do see harm in attributing the reasons for achievements to the wrong things.
- pessimizer 14y agoWhy, "now" is always the greatest time in history to be alive, Dr. Pangloss!
- Tuna-Fish 14y agoWell, that's only true when the world is progressing towards a better tomorrow. There are plenty of times when it hasn't been true -- say, during the Late Bronze Age Collapse.
- nickpinkston 14y agoThanks as well digeridoo! There is a Western pessimism in our economic slump, but come on (!) we live in this crazy world of internet in your pocket in the West while most of the world is getting better. Yes, there are a ton of problems, but it's at least recognize that we've got it better than ever - and it's okay to want to improve it - that's how we got here! BTW - if you're pessimistic/angry, but you're still working on a social-mobile-gamified-deals-app - please become part of the solution [1] if you really think things are going down. [1] Not saying you're part of the problem, just neutral.
- rayiner 14y agoThis article is light on criticial thinking and evidence, and heavy on bullshit. > "This remarkable (and, again, unreported) achievement has nothing to do with green taxes or wind-farms. It is down to consumer demand for more efficient cars and factories." It has to do with tax rebates for more efficient cars, ever increasing EPA fuel efficiency standards, ever increasing EPA factory emissions standards, heavy subsidization of renewable energy not just by the West, but by China, etc. > The number of people dying from Aids has been in decline for the last eight years. The last eight years? You mean the time period encompassing 2003-2008, when GWB committed $15 billion to addressing HIV/AIDS in Africa?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Tuna-Fish 14y ago> It has to do with tax rebates for more efficient cars, ever increasing EPA fuel efficiency standards, ever increasing EPA factory emissions standards, heavy subsidization of renewable energy not just by the West, but by China, etc. All of that, and the effects mentioned by the author, are a blip compared to the effect of nat gas becoming cheaper than coal in North America. In fact, the reduction of CO2 output caused by natural gas replacing coal is actually larger than the total reduction of CO2 output -- that is, without fracking, US CO2 output would have grown.
- BoredAstronaut 14y agoSo what happens if the price of natural gas goes up again? Isn't this just another example of a lucky break that won't last forever (much like the history of cheap oil)? Granted, it doesn't at all take away from this being a good year, but the original article seems to imply that things are getting better and will always get better. It's during the good times that you're supposed to think about and prepare for the bad times. But too often, it seems like people just want to sit back and congratulate themselves. Ant vs grasshopper, I guess.
- webjunkie 14y agoWhat? Ruining nature and specifically groundwater with fracking and toxic chemicals is an "amazing breakthrough"?
- YokoZar 14y agoIt's probably less bad than burning massive amounts of coal. In the same way that moderate poverty is less bad than extreme poverty and dying from cancer is less bad than dying from childhood AIDS, this represents a form of progress.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- chiquitabacana 14y agoThe year haven't ended yet.
- zerohm 14y agoYou lost me on this one... The amazing breakthroughs in ‘fracking’ technology mean that, in spite of the world’s escalating population from one billion to seven billion over the last two centuries we live in an age of energy abundance. Well hell let's all go buy Hummers and crank up the heat!
- josephlord 14y agoFor context the Spectator is the British weekly magazine for the political right (relatively smart and definitely NOT far right) but that is important context for this article. As others are pointing out in various comments there seems to be a mix of facts, errors and potentially spurious causal links in the article. Though I think it is important to remember how good most of the world has things right now (wouldn't want to be in Syria at the moment or Gaza for the last 40 years) although we shouldn't be blind to the risks ahead.
- bitwize 14y agoAlso thanks to fracking, U.S. groundwater contamination is at an all-time high! Go us!
- ars 14y agoPlease switch to a different news provider. Your sentence is nonsense.
- BoredAstronaut 14y agoWhat I didn't like this article was that it was so full of self-congratulation and completely bereft of any mention of serious problems visible on the horizon. Unbounded self-assurance is the doorway to destructive optimism. There are many things to be concerned about, ecologically and economically. But if excessive optimism leads people to believe that these problems are only being made up by "doom-sayers" and "chicken littles" (like, say, the few who predicted serious fallout from the real estate derivatives market), then nothing will be done about them. Causing pain and suffering which could otherwise have been avoided or reduced. Fortunately, there are serious people doing serious work to address potential risks. Articles like this one are primarily aimed at simple-minded people who can't really understand the hard questions, and need a certain amount of fluffy encouragement to keep them getting up in the morning.
- acchow 14y ago> Unbounded self-assurance is the doorway to destructive optimism. That's a bit melodramatic. The author points out that media as a whole has the "serious problems visible on the horizon" stuff well covered. It's probably over-covered to an extreme degree such that we never hear about any good accomplishments at all. So he wrote one article listing out the good. All you have to say is that the article was vapid because it ignored what is already over-covered?
- arbuge 14y ago"Germany was perhaps the most civilised nation in the world in the 1920s." Hmmm... define civilised. In the 1920s Germany was devastated after losing WWI, on the hook for gazillions of war repayments under the Versailles treaty, and experiencing some of the worst inflation ever seen in a developed country. It took something like a wheelbarrow full of Deutschemarks back then to buy a loaf of bread.
- yk 14y agoActually Weimar Germany is a lot more complex than usually presented. To adress your points: 1.) Germany was not devastated by WWI, in fact the fighting did take place outside of Germany. 2.) The Versailles treaty was large enough to serve as a nazi-propaganda tool, but not large enough to stifle the economy. 3.) The hyperinflation was in 1923, in the other years Germany had generally high, but not that high inflation. ( Something like 5 - 8 % ) In addition the Weimar republic worked culturally quite well, it won about half of the nobel prices in physics and chemistry between 1918 and 1933 [1], had the Bauhaus [2] a very influential school of design and represents with Authors like Thomas Mann and Berthold Brecht an important period of German literature. On the other hand, the political system was never widely accepted, the judicial system was completely dysfunctional and the entire thing was never far away from a coup or a civil war. ( Not to mention that it ended catastrophically. ) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus
- Tichy 14y ago"Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity." That seems unlikely to me, given the recent growth of the world's population. I would guess there are now more people hungry than there were people alive some centuries (or couple of thousand years?) ago. Wasn't there an article recently about human population being down to a couple of thousands individuals at some point? Maybe he is talking about percentages, or just the 20th century, or something like that?
- 6ren 14y agoAccording to Adam Smith, the basis of prosperity is the division of labour. When people specialise, they get better at whatever they do, because they practice it, spend more time thinking about how to improve it, and don't spend time adjusting to different tasks. But specialisation is limited by the size of the market: if you are too specialised, then there aren't enough people who want what you do for you to make a living. But within a larger population, maybe there will be. Therefore, prosperity is driven by increased market size, including: globalization; increased human population; more people being raised out of poverty (and so can buy more). From a producer's point of view, these factors enable you to make a living by specialising in exactly what work you really want to do, that you find most satisfying and rewarding, that best suits your talents and ways of working.
- disbelief 14y ago> the same UN extrapolations that predict such threatening sea-level rises for Bangladesh also say that, in two or three generations’ time, it will be as rich as Britain. Can anyone find a reference for this one? Seems a bit outlandish considering the current situation on the ground in Bangladesh.