6 ms·

“2014 has probably been the best year in history”

47 points by vixen99 12y ago

pluma 12y ago
Sure, if you ignore the CIA torture, the NSA mass-surveillance, the US drone strikes, the protests in the US and Turkey, the Islamists in the Middle East, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the NATO/Russia stand-off in Ukraine, the lukewarm handling of the Ebola epidemic, the rising "anti-Islamic" neo-racist tendencies in Europe and everything else, 2014 was a pretty good year. But I guess most of these problems aren't entirely particular to this year. EDIT: The article can be summarized with something my grandmother used to say whenever you asked her how she was: "Good, if you ignore the bad parts".
- bpodgursky 12y ago
  Did you even read? In like the second paragraph, it points out: > Judging the world through headlines is like judging a city by spending a night in A&E – you only see the worst problems.
  - pluma 12y ago
    Yes, I did read it. How is "don't look" a valid answer?
- rmah 12y ago
  No one says that there are no problems. The world is chock full of problems. But, from a long-term historical perspective, the problems we face today are relatively minor. And more importantly, fewer people live in abject poverty and more people are wealthier and healthier than ever before. IMO, this is a good thing.
  - pluma 12y ago
    Sure, I'm not questioning that the 21st century is doing relatively well (we had two world wars and several major attempts at genocide in the last one -- that sets the bar pretty low). Nor that we are, all in all, doing progressively better. But I'm not sure that, it is meaningful to point out 2014 in particular as the best year in history. If we just go by "we're still making progress and third world nations are still becoming better places to live", of course 2014 is the best year in history so far. As will 2015 be. Or any year after that, world-wide catastrophes notwithstanding. But that's nearly tautological. So depending on how you look at it, the article's claim is either trivial enough not to warrant ending up on HN IMO (any point along an upward slope is the highest point on that slope compared to those preceding it, by definition), or it's simply inaccurate (by sweeping the real problems 2014 surfaced under the rug and just saying it's all good).
    - icebraining 12y ago
      It may be trivial, but it's also often forgotten.
    - dragontamer 12y ago
      Historical dark ages exist. We take progress for granted, because we live in one of the most peaceful times in all of recorded history. But the Dark Ages were periods of centuries, where technology was lost and culture destroyed. Of the seven great novels of the Greeks for example, only two remain: The Odyssy and the Iliad. Look up the history of the Epic Greek tales, and learn just how much has been lost to the ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Cycle One day, this great golden age around us will fall. All golden ages fall eventually, and we will lose our culture, our history to a dark age of true war once more. Future historians will look upon these times as the golden age of America. But all empires collapse, and history always cycles between peace and war. And when the age of darkness comes, the current peace we have will be but a legend. For now, we should be happy for the great age we live in, while striving to make it even better than how it is currently.
    - HCIdivision17 12y ago
      I think your point here is a great note on the topic, but sort of misses the very large, loud group of people out there who honestly think the world's improvement has inflected and is now going to hell in a hand basket. As such, I prefer being reminded about how remarkably not-awful things are versus the next pointlessly negative everything's falling apart rhetoric. Mind, that may have to do with where I live, maybe, and I prefer balanced rhetoric. But it's useful to remind people that the general goodness of the world is monotonically increasing (perhaps with a 10-point moving average and a little spot of outlier filtering). And yeah, this sort of conversation is almost necessarily a long-now topic. To talk about it over the course of a few months or just a year is a bit silly - there's a lot of noise. But over many decades and especially centuries, things certainly look better now. Things may be crap now in many ways, but it's only knee-deep crap. In the bad old days people waded through crap up to their eyeballs uphill both ways.
      - 12y ago
- disputin 12y ago
  Islam has become a race?
  - pluma 12y ago
    No, but the relatively moderate notion of "criticising Islam" has provided an unfortunate opportunity for neo-nazis to present themselves in a more socially acceptable light. Just like "criticising the EU" did last year. EDIT: Okay, seriously, what the fuck with the downvotes? The EU does have a nazi problem and the contemporary problems with the financial crisis and Islamists are very convenient vehicles for it. Ever heard of the demonstrations against Islam we had in Germany? The organizers are blatant neo-nazis. Heard of the interest groups like PEGIDA? Plenty of neo-nazis and even Holocaust denialists among their leadership. Criticising Islam or the EU is perfectly valid and acceptable. Anything can and should be criticised. But don't be misled to believe that all these protests are orchestrated by liberalists and constitutionalists just because that's how they present themselves. The "Euro-sceptic" AfD we voted into parliaments have strong ties with other nazi organisations. Same with PEGIDA and its various offsprings.
    - disputin 12y ago
      I don't have the power to down vote. The Dresden marches have had at most, from what I've seen in the news 17 000 people - I don't think that is enough to say that the EU has a nazi problem. It might be considered that a single nazi is a problem, but in terms of nazis being a threat to the EU, 17 000 is not a problem. Somewhere in the region of 250 000 Brits declared themselves Jedi in the last census, if that puts it in perspective. The last video I saw of the marches showed a black guy up front: http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/dec/23/thousands-join-far-right-anti-islam-march-dresden-video http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/dec/23/thousands... I guess that's open to interpretation. I think a problem the left have is that when they go around blanket labelling everyone racist they are as over-excitedly left as the neo-nazis are over-excitedly right. The left is seen as good, and so people on the left wanting to be more good keep jostling to be more left. The right is seen as bad and so there is a limit to how far right people will move before there is disapproval, that point easily identified as racism, but there doesn't seem to be this obvious limit on the left. It looks to me as though the left limit might be when the left start labelling everyone as racist.
- dragontamer 12y ago
  I see your CIA Torture and raise you Middle Age Torture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_sawing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_sawing The world is a better place today than it was back then. Even in the 1900s, US Internment camps of the Japanese was clearly unnecessary racism designed to build propaganda for the war effort. Oh yeah, and the historial norm of selling your prisoners of war as slaves. The great powers selling slaves (ie: Britian, US, India, Russia, etc. etc.) kind of isn't a thing anymore. Minor powers condone sex trafficking, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as as it used to be. The greater powers in the world today police the minor powers and discourage the behavior. --------------- Sure, if you ignore the CIA torture, the NSA mass-surveillance, the US drone strikes I raise you the invention of the Gatling Gun, and the use of the Gatling gun against Zulu spearmen during the British conquest of South Africa. Casualties in British conquest frequently numbered in the dozens of thousands per battle. We are far more careful and precise with our modern weapons than previous powers were. Mind you, the US also used gatling guns and rifles to wipe out Native Americans in our conquest through manifest destiny. I'd take our modern "defensive conflicts" any day over our blatantly unfair policies of the 1800s and early 1900s. the protests in the US and Turkey Protests? You do realize that protests in the 1800s and early 1900s were met with the sword. We have protests today because we care about free speech and have stopped slaughtering civilians. I'll take modern protests any day over the historical norm of killing the protesters. the Islamists in the Middle East Research the "Great Game" period please. Afghanistan has always been a hellhole, at least since the 1800s. The 8000+ Soldiers and 13,000+ civilians who died retreating to India (through Afghanistan) is proof of that. Complete and total wipeout. There was a single British survivor in a major event during the Anglo-Afghan War in 1842. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul the NATO/Russia stand-off in Ukraine Erm... Spanish American War. Great Game. Japanese Russio war. Genocide literally happened every 10 to 20 years throughout the 1800s. Yeah, Russia stand-off in Ukraine is soft stuff. It is par-for-the-course for Cold War era politics, which is still far safer than historical norms. the lukewarm handling of the Ebola epidemic, Modern Medicine was only invented for the past 150 years yo. Before that, people just died. The fact is, we can actually do something about the Ebola epidemic.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  You're comparing against an ideal, not reality, not history. Let us not forget the recent past where things were not so great. From a global perspective much of the developed world existed under oppressive totalitarian governments up until the end of the Cold War. Also, as to the US alone, look back on: the McCarthyism, Jim Crow, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. Yeah, things aren't great right now, in some regards things are pretty awful. But things have always been awful, we just weren't noticing or we wrote that off as being normal.
dragontamer 12y ago
People need to remember that as late as the early 1900s, the foreign policy of world powers was described as "The Great Game". (Look it up, I kid you not). Thousands of soldiers would march forward and die in unknown foreign soil in the name of Imperialism and conquest. It was under these politics of world conquest that WW1 and WW2 were fought upon. All countries... US included, fell into the trap of imperialism. Expanding during the Spanish American war, gaining the Philippines, Guam and other territories. The current world has no apatite for imperialism, although I guess this can change quickly. But... knock on wood... lets hope the great powers of the world continue to refuse a direct fight with each other. The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries.
- maratd 12y ago
  > The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries. After WWII there were only two great powers left. Now there's one. It has nothing to do with appetite. The military budget of the US dwarfs the other countries. It would be suicidal to start a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in. Welcome to Pax Americana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    That's a very limited view of the world. The military budget of the US may dwarf that of the other countries but as Iraq has shown it is easier to start a war than to finish it on terms that you like. By all counts that matter (except the bank accounts of the profiteers) that war was a disaster. Right now there are many 'great powers' simply because power is a function of distance from its source. The US is able to project its power across the globe but would have a very hard time taking on Russia, China or even North Korea or Iran on their own or neighbouring soil. Power is (very much) limited by distance. So even if starting a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in may be folly several such wars at the same time could easily overwhelm the capacity available. The safe bet seems to be to only wage war where there is no oil in the ground, then you can do almost whatever you please.
motters 12y ago
Eesh. I'm surprised that such a self-evidently whiggish article would make it to the front page of HN. I assume that the author lives in a bubble of wealth and privilege. If "we've never had it so good" then why did my parents and grandparents generations never have to attend a food bank?
- josephpmay 12y ago
  Can I make the assumption that you're white and from a Western country? Greater average global prosperity does not mean the lives of everybody are better, and more equality often means that those who were traditionally privileged no longer are.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Even white people from Western countries had two World Wars, the Spanish Civil War and the rise of multiple dictatorships within the lives of currently living people.
- nunyabuizness 12y ago
  >If "we've never had it so good" then why did my parents and grandparents generations never have to attend a food bank? Probably because they lived in a bubble of wealth and privilege. Now that the labor market includes 2.5 billion other people who can pull levers for half the cost, its going to be a lot harder to make a living in a developed nation doing a developing nation-job. I'm sure if you ask the millions who have escaped poverty worldwide in the last decade, they'd tell you its been a pretty great year.
vaadu 12y ago
best, are they blind? There's no mention of ISIS, IRAN nearing a nuclear weapon or Putin being a total nutcase.
- gburt 12y ago
  > This may have felt like the year of Ebola and Isil but in fact, objectively, 2014 has probably been the best year in history. They did mention ISIS ("Isil"). There's a seeming trend of these newspapers to fail to capitalize things that should definitely be capitalized (acronyms). I've seen at least a dozen cases of it in the last week. I don't know if perhaps it is a side-effect of automating/technologizing the editor's role or if this is a new style thing or what? Edit: in this article, it is almost surely intentional: > The Isil barbarity in the Middle East is so shocking, perhaps, because it comes against a backdrop of unprecedented world peace.
  - Fishkins 12y ago
    Many British publications only capitalize acronyms if you pronounce each letter separately http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Pronunciation-dependent_style_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Pronunciation-dependent...
    - dragontamer 12y ago
      Crazy Brits, screwing up our American English...
    - gburt 12y ago
      Wow. The more you know.
- threeseed 12y ago
  ISIS is contained to a few countries and is largely "managed". Iran is desperate to be rid of the sanctions and a nuclear deal will be in place before this time next year. They are also becoming more moderate as each day passes. Putin can largely be ignored now. He played his hand completely wrong and now the sphere of influence he wanted around Russia will crumble (as will the economy). So none of the issues you mentioned are that significant. What was really big in 2014 was Ebola and the US/China's efforts on Climate Change.
caente 12y ago
It has been about three years since I realized this. It is awesome. So let's make it the new bottom line. Let's say it is a awful time in history. Internet should be is as ubiquitous as electricity, and electricity should be as ubiquitous as having water near by; but there are places without internet, without electricity and where you need to walk miles to get some water. I like to think of these time as a new "Dark Ages". We have internet, electricity and infrastructures that would be unthinkable in the actual dark ages, but is far from enough. I like to think about our governments and corporations as the equivalent to those feudal lords and duches and sires. I like to imagine a future that is unthinkable. Maybe is time to start hoping for a global government, that could be no government at all, but an efficient way to coordinate efforts. Maybe this "global coordination" would be doomed in the event of some global catastrophe that could destroy the necessary infrastructure . It wouldn't matter, if we have it once, we will want it forever. Like with democracy in the greco-roman culture. This is crazy, far fetched, but so it was the human rights, flying, self moving cars, etc. We humans are inherently crazy and we like far fetched ideas. We picture an image of the world and then try fit the actual world in it. Some times that takes us to war and genocide, some times to the Moon. We don’t need to know how this global future will be, we won’t know.
closetnerd 12y ago
This is such a matter of perspective. We would have a safe and perfect society if we were living in a society described by Brave New World. But I'd argue that it would be worst year of human history. People make the argument that civil rights were a problem, which is true. But I feel that my personal freedoms are far more restricted and no matter how petty they maybe, I don't want to forfeit them for your brave new world.
krisdol 12y ago
The same article comes out every year, usually from one of these conservative murdochy news sources, and every year hn and reddit eat it up. Every year is the best year from someone's perspective. Hell, I'd say the 1800s were great because land was plentiful, pollution was low, wage slavery was non existent, people controlled their own schedule and became artisans of their trade who passed along their vast experience to apprentices. Quite frankly, who gives a shit what some article says about this? Was it your best year? That's all that matters. Let's focus on things that ought to be improved, not this lazy, pat-ourselves-on-the-back "we're doing the right thing" circle jerk.

47 points by vixen99 12y ago

pluma 12y ago

Sure, if you ignore the CIA torture, the NSA mass-surveillance, the US drone strikes, the protests in the US and Turkey, the Islamists in the Middle East, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the NATO/Russia stand-off in Ukraine, the lukewarm handling of the Ebola epidemic, the rising "anti-Islamic" neo-racist tendencies in Europe and everything else, 2014 was a pretty good year. But I guess most of these problems aren't entirely particular to this year. EDIT: The article can be summarized with something my grandmother used to say whenever you asked her how she was: "Good, if you ignore the bad parts".

bpodgursky 12y ago
Did you even read? In like the second paragraph, it points out: > Judging the world through headlines is like judging a city by spending a night in A&E – you only see the worst problems.
- pluma 12y ago
  Yes, I did read it. How is "don't look" a valid answer?
rmah 12y ago
No one says that there are no problems. The world is chock full of problems. But, from a long-term historical perspective, the problems we face today are relatively minor. And more importantly, fewer people live in abject poverty and more people are wealthier and healthier than ever before. IMO, this is a good thing.
- pluma 12y ago
  Sure, I'm not questioning that the 21st century is doing relatively well (we had two world wars and several major attempts at genocide in the last one -- that sets the bar pretty low). Nor that we are, all in all, doing progressively better. But I'm not sure that, it is meaningful to point out 2014 in particular as the best year in history. If we just go by "we're still making progress and third world nations are still becoming better places to live", of course 2014 is the best year in history so far. As will 2015 be. Or any year after that, world-wide catastrophes notwithstanding. But that's nearly tautological. So depending on how you look at it, the article's claim is either trivial enough not to warrant ending up on HN IMO (any point along an upward slope is the highest point on that slope compared to those preceding it, by definition), or it's simply inaccurate (by sweeping the real problems 2014 surfaced under the rug and just saying it's all good).
  - icebraining 12y ago
    It may be trivial, but it's also often forgotten.
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    Historical dark ages exist. We take progress for granted, because we live in one of the most peaceful times in all of recorded history. But the Dark Ages were periods of centuries, where technology was lost and culture destroyed. Of the seven great novels of the Greeks for example, only two remain: The Odyssy and the Iliad. Look up the history of the Epic Greek tales, and learn just how much has been lost to the ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Cycle One day, this great golden age around us will fall. All golden ages fall eventually, and we will lose our culture, our history to a dark age of true war once more. Future historians will look upon these times as the golden age of America. But all empires collapse, and history always cycles between peace and war. And when the age of darkness comes, the current peace we have will be but a legend. For now, we should be happy for the great age we live in, while striving to make it even better than how it is currently.
  - HCIdivision17 12y ago
    I think your point here is a great note on the topic, but sort of misses the very large, loud group of people out there who honestly think the world's improvement has inflected and is now going to hell in a hand basket. As such, I prefer being reminded about how remarkably not-awful things are versus the next pointlessly negative everything's falling apart rhetoric. Mind, that may have to do with where I live, maybe, and I prefer balanced rhetoric. But it's useful to remind people that the general goodness of the world is monotonically increasing (perhaps with a 10-point moving average and a little spot of outlier filtering). And yeah, this sort of conversation is almost necessarily a long-now topic. To talk about it over the course of a few months or just a year is a bit silly - there's a lot of noise. But over many decades and especially centuries, things certainly look better now. Things may be crap now in many ways, but it's only knee-deep crap. In the bad old days people waded through crap up to their eyeballs uphill both ways.
    - 12y ago
disputin 12y ago
Islam has become a race?
- pluma 12y ago
  No, but the relatively moderate notion of "criticising Islam" has provided an unfortunate opportunity for neo-nazis to present themselves in a more socially acceptable light. Just like "criticising the EU" did last year. EDIT: Okay, seriously, what the fuck with the downvotes? The EU does have a nazi problem and the contemporary problems with the financial crisis and Islamists are very convenient vehicles for it. Ever heard of the demonstrations against Islam we had in Germany? The organizers are blatant neo-nazis. Heard of the interest groups like PEGIDA? Plenty of neo-nazis and even Holocaust denialists among their leadership. Criticising Islam or the EU is perfectly valid and acceptable. Anything can and should be criticised. But don't be misled to believe that all these protests are orchestrated by liberalists and constitutionalists just because that's how they present themselves. The "Euro-sceptic" AfD we voted into parliaments have strong ties with other nazi organisations. Same with PEGIDA and its various offsprings.
  - disputin 12y ago
    I don't have the power to down vote. The Dresden marches have had at most, from what I've seen in the news 17 000 people - I don't think that is enough to say that the EU has a nazi problem. It might be considered that a single nazi is a problem, but in terms of nazis being a threat to the EU, 17 000 is not a problem. Somewhere in the region of 250 000 Brits declared themselves Jedi in the last census, if that puts it in perspective. The last video I saw of the marches showed a black guy up front: http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/dec/23/thousands-join-far-right-anti-islam-march-dresden-video http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/dec/23/thousands... I guess that's open to interpretation. I think a problem the left have is that when they go around blanket labelling everyone racist they are as over-excitedly left as the neo-nazis are over-excitedly right. The left is seen as good, and so people on the left wanting to be more good keep jostling to be more left. The right is seen as bad and so there is a limit to how far right people will move before there is disapproval, that point easily identified as racism, but there doesn't seem to be this obvious limit on the left. It looks to me as though the left limit might be when the left start labelling everyone as racist.
dragontamer 12y ago
I see your CIA Torture and raise you Middle Age Torture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_sawing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_sawing The world is a better place today than it was back then. Even in the 1900s, US Internment camps of the Japanese was clearly unnecessary racism designed to build propaganda for the war effort. Oh yeah, and the historial norm of selling your prisoners of war as slaves. The great powers selling slaves (ie: Britian, US, India, Russia, etc. etc.) kind of isn't a thing anymore. Minor powers condone sex trafficking, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as as it used to be. The greater powers in the world today police the minor powers and discourage the behavior. --------------- Sure, if you ignore the CIA torture, the NSA mass-surveillance, the US drone strikes I raise you the invention of the Gatling Gun, and the use of the Gatling gun against Zulu spearmen during the British conquest of South Africa. Casualties in British conquest frequently numbered in the dozens of thousands per battle. We are far more careful and precise with our modern weapons than previous powers were. Mind you, the US also used gatling guns and rifles to wipe out Native Americans in our conquest through manifest destiny. I'd take our modern "defensive conflicts" any day over our blatantly unfair policies of the 1800s and early 1900s. the protests in the US and Turkey Protests? You do realize that protests in the 1800s and early 1900s were met with the sword. We have protests today because we care about free speech and have stopped slaughtering civilians. I'll take modern protests any day over the historical norm of killing the protesters. the Islamists in the Middle East Research the "Great Game" period please. Afghanistan has always been a hellhole, at least since the 1800s. The 8000+ Soldiers and 13,000+ civilians who died retreating to India (through Afghanistan) is proof of that. Complete and total wipeout. There was a single British survivor in a major event during the Anglo-Afghan War in 1842. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul the NATO/Russia stand-off in Ukraine Erm... Spanish American War. Great Game. Japanese Russio war. Genocide literally happened every 10 to 20 years throughout the 1800s. Yeah, Russia stand-off in Ukraine is soft stuff. It is par-for-the-course for Cold War era politics, which is still far safer than historical norms. the lukewarm handling of the Ebola epidemic, Modern Medicine was only invented for the past 150 years yo. Before that, people just died. The fact is, we can actually do something about the Ebola epidemic.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
You're comparing against an ideal, not reality, not history. Let us not forget the recent past where things were not so great. From a global perspective much of the developed world existed under oppressive totalitarian governments up until the end of the Cold War. Also, as to the US alone, look back on: the McCarthyism, Jim Crow, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. Yeah, things aren't great right now, in some regards things are pretty awful. But things have always been awful, we just weren't noticing or we wrote that off as being normal.

dragontamer 12y ago

People need to remember that as late as the early 1900s, the foreign policy of world powers was described as "The Great Game". (Look it up, I kid you not). Thousands of soldiers would march forward and die in unknown foreign soil in the name of Imperialism and conquest. It was under these politics of world conquest that WW1 and WW2 were fought upon. All countries... US included, fell into the trap of imperialism. Expanding during the Spanish American war, gaining the Philippines, Guam and other territories. The current world has no apatite for imperialism, although I guess this can change quickly. But... knock on wood... lets hope the great powers of the world continue to refuse a direct fight with each other. The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries.

maratd 12y ago
> The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries. After WWII there were only two great powers left. Now there's one. It has nothing to do with appetite. The military budget of the US dwarfs the other countries. It would be suicidal to start a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in. Welcome to Pax Americana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
- jacquesm 12y ago
  That's a very limited view of the world. The military budget of the US may dwarf that of the other countries but as Iraq has shown it is easier to start a war than to finish it on terms that you like. By all counts that matter (except the bank accounts of the profiteers) that war was a disaster. Right now there are many 'great powers' simply because power is a function of distance from its source. The US is able to project its power across the globe but would have a very hard time taking on Russia, China or even North Korea or Iran on their own or neighbouring soil. Power is (very much) limited by distance. So even if starting a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in may be folly several such wars at the same time could easily overwhelm the capacity available. The safe bet seems to be to only wage war where there is no oil in the ground, then you can do almost whatever you please.

motters 12y ago

Eesh. I'm surprised that such a self-evidently whiggish article would make it to the front page of HN. I assume that the author lives in a bubble of wealth and privilege. If "we've never had it so good" then why did my parents and grandparents generations never have to attend a food bank?

josephpmay 12y ago
Can I make the assumption that you're white and from a Western country? Greater average global prosperity does not mean the lives of everybody are better, and more equality often means that those who were traditionally privileged no longer are.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Even white people from Western countries had two World Wars, the Spanish Civil War and the rise of multiple dictatorships within the lives of currently living people.
nunyabuizness 12y ago
>If "we've never had it so good" then why did my parents and grandparents generations never have to attend a food bank? Probably because they lived in a bubble of wealth and privilege. Now that the labor market includes 2.5 billion other people who can pull levers for half the cost, its going to be a lot harder to make a living in a developed nation doing a developing nation-job. I'm sure if you ask the millions who have escaped poverty worldwide in the last decade, they'd tell you its been a pretty great year.

vaadu 12y ago

best, are they blind? There's no mention of ISIS, IRAN nearing a nuclear weapon or Putin being a total nutcase.

gburt 12y ago
> This may have felt like the year of Ebola and Isil but in fact, objectively, 2014 has probably been the best year in history. They did mention ISIS ("Isil"). There's a seeming trend of these newspapers to fail to capitalize things that should definitely be capitalized (acronyms). I've seen at least a dozen cases of it in the last week. I don't know if perhaps it is a side-effect of automating/technologizing the editor's role or if this is a new style thing or what? Edit: in this article, it is almost surely intentional: > The Isil barbarity in the Middle East is so shocking, perhaps, because it comes against a backdrop of unprecedented world peace.
- Fishkins 12y ago
  Many British publications only capitalize acronyms if you pronounce each letter separately http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Pronunciation-dependent_style_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Pronunciation-dependent...
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    Crazy Brits, screwing up our American English...
  - gburt 12y ago
    Wow. The more you know.
threeseed 12y ago
ISIS is contained to a few countries and is largely "managed". Iran is desperate to be rid of the sanctions and a nuclear deal will be in place before this time next year. They are also becoming more moderate as each day passes. Putin can largely be ignored now. He played his hand completely wrong and now the sphere of influence he wanted around Russia will crumble (as will the economy). So none of the issues you mentioned are that significant. What was really big in 2014 was Ebola and the US/China's efforts on Climate Change.

caente 12y ago

It has been about three years since I realized this. It is awesome. So let's make it the new bottom line. Let's say it is a awful time in history. Internet should be is as ubiquitous as electricity, and electricity should be as ubiquitous as having water near by; but there are places without internet, without electricity and where you need to walk miles to get some water. I like to think of these time as a new "Dark Ages". We have internet, electricity and infrastructures that would be unthinkable in the actual dark ages, but is far from enough. I like to think about our governments and corporations as the equivalent to those feudal lords and duches and sires. I like to imagine a future that is unthinkable. Maybe is time to start hoping for a global government, that could be no government at all, but an efficient way to coordinate efforts. Maybe this "global coordination" would be doomed in the event of some global catastrophe that could destroy the necessary infrastructure . It wouldn't matter, if we have it once, we will want it forever. Like with democracy in the greco-roman culture. This is crazy, far fetched, but so it was the human rights, flying, self moving cars, etc. We humans are inherently crazy and we like far fetched ideas. We picture an image of the world and then try fit the actual world in it. Some times that takes us to war and genocide, some times to the Moon. We don’t need to know how this global future will be, we won’t know.

closetnerd 12y ago

This is such a matter of perspective. We would have a safe and perfect society if we were living in a society described by Brave New World. But I'd argue that it would be worst year of human history. People make the argument that civil rights were a problem, which is true. But I feel that my personal freedoms are far more restricted and no matter how petty they maybe, I don't want to forfeit them for your brave new world.

krisdol 12y ago

The same article comes out every year, usually from one of these conservative murdochy news sources, and every year hn and reddit eat it up. Every year is the best year from someone's perspective. Hell, I'd say the 1800s were great because land was plentiful, pollution was low, wage slavery was non existent, people controlled their own schedule and became artisans of their trade who passed along their vast experience to apprentices. Quite frankly, who gives a shit what some article says about this? Was it your best year? That's all that matters. Let's focus on things that ought to be improved, not this lazy, pat-ourselves-on-the-back "we're doing the right thing" circle jerk.