Have things got better

[jeremyp]

The subject of "are things better or worse than they used to be" has been referred to obliquely on a couple of threads recently. The answer is, of course, better.

This video by Hans Rosling from Gapminder explains how things have changed in the last 50 years in very broad terms.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153345837996939/

[Shaker]

I really don't see how it's possible for anybody to deny that generally speaking, going by all the usual metrics of societal health, more things are better for more people than they have ever been.

The problem is that some people who can't think very clearly point to the bad things that still exist - social inequality, disease, hunger, war and so forth - and think that this invalidates the point contained in the final dozen words of the paragraph above, and then somebody has to waste time explaining why this isn't so.

[floo]

The subject of "are things better or worse than they used to be" has been referred to obliquely on a couple of threads recently. The answer is, of course, better.

This video by Hans Rosling from Gapminder explains how things have changed in the last 50 years in very broad terms.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153345837996939/

In some ways we are better off, in other ways not. Many children are wrapped up in a parent security blanket for far too long! I had to walk to school by myself from the age of five, so did my own children. Around here most kids of primary age are taken to school by their parents. You can't protect kids from all harm, and you should not stop them playing games where a few scraped knees are the order of the day. A school two of my grandsons attended did not permit kids to run around in the playground in case they fell over, YE GODS!!

[jeremyp]

I really don't see how it's possible for anybody to deny that generally speaking, going by all the usual metrics of societal health, more things are better for more people than they have ever been.

The problem is that some people who can't think very clearly point to the bad things that still exist - social inequality, disease, hunger, war and so forth - and think that this invalidates the point contained in the final dozen words of the paragraph above, and then somebody has to waste time explaining why this isn't so.

Yes, Just to re-emphasize, the video shows how things have generally changed for there better over the last 50 years Fifty years ago, two billion people were living on the equivalent of a dollar a day or less and the remaining billion were living on ten dollars a day on average. Now there is a much bigger spread with a billion people living on an average of $100 per day and a billion people living on a dollar a day and everybody else spread out in between.

So we have halved the number of people living on a dollar a day in spite of the fact that the population has more than doubled, which is good news.

However, there are still a billion people living on a dollar a day, so we are far from done.

[jeremyp]

In some ways we are better off, in other ways not. Many children are wrapped up in a parent security blanket for far too long! I had to walk to school by myself from the age of five, so did my own children. Around here most kids of primary age are taken to school by their parents. You can't protect kids from all harm, and you should not stop them playing games where a few scraped knees are the order of the day. A school two of my grandsons attended did not permit kids to run around in the playground in case they fell over, YE GODS!!

With all respect, Floo, this is a First World problem. The video is talking about levels of income throughout the World.

[floo]

With all respect, Floo, this is a First World problem. The video is talking about levels of income throughout the World.

Fair enough.

[ad_orientem]

I'm very much with JRR Tolkien on this, that if by progress one means the advancement of the machine then we are not better off (except, perhaps, superficially). Humans today are just as capable of the grossest acts of evil than they ever were and the machine merely enables us to do so on a much larger scale.

[Shaker]

Still banging the skidmarks out of your pants on the rocks by the nearest river, are we? If you are, you'd have a point. If not, stop being a hypocrite about "the machine" or whatever that ghastly old fool called it.

[Outrider]

I'm very much with JRR Tolkien on this, that if by progress one means the advancement of the machine then we are not better off (except, perhaps, superficially). Humans today are just as capable of the grossest acts of evil than they ever were and the machine merely enables us to do so on a much larger scale.

By 'superficially' you mean in terms of food, healthcare, human rights, access to clean water... all those trivial things. Not the important things, like getting the 'right' imaginary friends?

Good grief - even if you value the spiritual more than the corporeal, surely you can appreciate that fewer people starving, fewer people seeing their children die in infancy, fewer women dying in childbirth, fewer people suffering oppression are all good things?

No?

O.

[ad_orientem]

I'm not saying that clean water or fewer people starving isn't good. Techonology, however, brings with it the opportunity of much evil too, only on a much wider scale, for our propensity to commit such acts has not changed at all. "Progress" is a double-edged sword and we all have blood on our hands.

[jeremyp]

I'm very much with JRR Tolkien on this, that if by progress one means the advancement of the machine then we are not better off

It's clear from the video what I mean by progress in the context of this thread. Please try watching it, it's only a minute or two long.

[Outrider]

I'm not saying that clean water or fewer people starving isn't good. Techonology, however, brings with it the opportunity of much evil too, only on a much wider scale, for our propensity to commit such acts has not changed at all. "Progress" is a double-edged sword and we all have blood on our hands.

You say our propensity to commit evil hasn't changed, but the evidence suggests it has. Our capacity, maybe not, our capacity - with modern technology - may well have improved, but we are tending to look after the poorest and most needy better than we ever have.

We need to be vigilant, because there are forces out there looking to cut back against these improvements, I'd agree completely, but I think we're doing good things far more often than we used.

O.

[Shaker]

I'm not saying that clean water or fewer people starving isn't good. Techonology, however, brings with it the opportunity of much evil too, only on a much wider scale, for our propensity to commit such acts has not changed at all. "Progress" is a double-edged sword and we all have blood on our hands.

I don't.

[Shaker]

You say our propensity to commit evil hasn't changed, but the evidence suggests it has. Our capacity, maybe not, our capacity - with modern technology - may well have improved, but we are tending to look after the poorest and most needy better than we ever have.

We need to be vigilant, because there are forces out there looking to cut back against these improvements, I'd agree completely, but I think we're doing good things far more often than we used.

O.

I haven't read it yet - it's been on my wishlist for some time - but Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature marshals a ton of evidence to support this thesis.

[BashfulAnthony]

You say our propensity to commit evil hasn't changed, but the evidence suggests it has. Our capacity, maybe not, our capacity - with modern technology - may well have improved, but we are tending to look after the poorest and most needy better than we ever have.

We need to be vigilant, because there are forces out there looking to cut back against these improvements, I'd agree completely, but I think we're doing good things far more often than we used.

O.

Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition!  I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.

[Outrider]

Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition!  I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.

Did you actually watch the clip? No-one is pretending it's a finished job. Yes, children are still dying, and at an horrendous rate.

What is so difficult about comprehending that, whilst things aren't brilliant everywhere, that on average they are better than they use to be?

O.

[Shaker]

Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition!  I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.

Perfect illustration of the point I made in #1. Thanks.

[Nearly Sane]

Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition!  I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.

Yes in Africa, we are, have a look at the first link below. As for the child dying figures of malnutrition, based on the second link it's one in every ten seconds, which is far too many, but is also an illustration of what Shaker has already pointed out that there being such things is not an indication that things are not getting better. Indeed your use of the statistic illustrates a lack of understanding of statistics, similar to that you showed when we were discussing electoral polls, in that a single data point is useless when discussing trends.

As to your last point, you are the one on here arguing for war with your lazy metonymy of 'boots on the ground'
BTW is there a reason why you want to use a metonymy that hides that you are talking about people killing and being killed?


http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm


http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/child_hunger_facts.htm

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition!  I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.

Which is awful, and due in no small part to the effect of religious teaching. The fact though is that globally infant mortality has halved since 1970 - a remarkable achievement, and just one indicator among many of the improving trends that have happened and continue to happen around the world. 

[BashfulAnthony]

Did you actually watch the clip? No-one is pretending it's a finished job. Yes, children are still dying, and at an horrendous rate.

What is so difficult about comprehending that, whilst things aren't brilliant everywhere, that on average they are better than they use to be?

O....

The point I am making is that things certainly are better, especially if you live in the affluent West.  But they are not better if you live in Africa, parts of Asia, and even in the affluent West.  They are not a whole lot better if you live in Syria, and the like!  So, things are better, for some;  but you cannot say they are better, full stop:  there are millions who are not better.

[Shaker]

Pointing to bad stuff happening as a supposed invalidation of the OP's thesis is about as intelligent as claiming that a particularly severe winter in one spot "proves" that climate change is a myth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

The point I am making is that things certainly are better, especially if you live in the affluent West.  But they are not better if you live in Africa, parts of Asia, and even in the affluent West.  They are not a whole lot better if you live in Syria, and the like!  So, things are better, for some;  but you cannot say they are better, full stop:  there are millions who are not better.

Again, you're missing that the discussion is about globally improving trends. You're argument here is akin to, "Granny smoked 40 a day and lived to 101, so smoking must be fine". Awful as the lots of the people you mention are, proportionately more people have better life chances and experiences than at any time in history.

[BashfulAnthony]

Pointing to bad stuff happening as a supposed invalidation of the OP's thesis is about as intelligent as claiming that a particularly severe winter in one spot "proves" that climate change is a myth.

You just don't get it, do you?  Whatever is improving, it is not correct to say, in a sweeping generalisation, we are better of now.  Some are, some most certainly aren't; and by some we are talking many millions.  Not that they have your sympathy, as you sit in your complacent little world, dealing only in hypothetical argument.  You appear to have little grasp of the conditions so many live in  -  hardly better than medieval. 

[Shaker]

You just don't get it, do you?

Pretty sure it's me that does and you that (still) doesn't.

Whatever is improving, it is not correct to say, in a sweeping generalisation, we are better of now.

Why does all the evidence point in that direction then?

[BashfulAnthony]

Pretty sure it's me that

I'll try again:  some are, but by no means all.  Got that?  Unless you are naively suggesting we are all better off?  It's hard to consider you're better off if you are starving to death  -  a child dies every three seconds from disease or malnutrition!