Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#81

Post by brazukadev »

ben_w wrote: post #7

I think this: "این نیز بگذرد" Attributed to Attar of Nishapur (1142-1221), who was beheaded by Genghis Kahn's Mongols. In one of Attar's fables, a powerful king gathered a group of wise men and asked them to produce a ring that would make him happy when sad, and sad when happy. After much consultation among themselves, the wise men presented the king with a ring inscribed "This, too, will pass". - https://archive.org…

> We live now in bad days. This, too, will pass.

do we? if it gets worse, we are living in good days now.

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#82

Post by aristofun »

To be pessimistic about anything beyond one’s own specific life situation is deeply arrogant and ignorant.

There is absolutely nothing unprecedented about current downturn that history hasn’t seen before. And current life standards on average even in worst of the places are far higher than they were in same places in the past (probably with some exceptions).

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#83

Post by softwaredoug »

You have to make a more rigorous claim for pessimism IMO. People usually hyperfocus on one bad area then get very down. And we all have a strong negativity bias. It’s not rational

There are many positive developments

- We have technology that could actually curb carbon emissions and decouple global economy from carbon. Clean energy is often cheaper than dirty energy, and getting cheaper.

- Trump oddly has helped decouple the world from carbon by being utterly incompetent in Iran

- the upper middle class in the US has never been larger [1]

- in 1981, 41% of the worlds population was in extreme poverty, now that’s down to 10% [2]

- Global infant mortality is way down compared to 1990 [3]

- life expectancy globally has gone from mid 60s to mid 70s [4]

I could go on. But holistically the world IS getting better in quite a few areas.

Follow subreddits like /r/PoliticalOptimism Or /r/OptimistsUnite if you want to

1- https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/upper-middle-class-income-u... 2- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-in-ex...

3-https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-detail...

4 - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?utm_sour...

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#84

Post by softwaredoug »

techteach00 wrote: post #16

Deeply pessimistic. I'm of the view that the powerful are extracting less and less capital from the average person. It doesn't seem worth it to them. So housing and now cars are marketed to the rich and wealthy, we're losing things we took for granted. Anonymity is basically dead on the internet. Worse being they don't just want my ID to participate but scans of my face, God knows who they are selling this data too.…

Much of that can be true.

But global property has never been lower. We’ve never lived in a time with such access to medicine and vaccines. We have cheap solar and wind some argued would be impossible.

But in reality much of what you say is only part of the picture.

On politics. We’ve never had a time since 1900 of higher political engagement. Turnout in elections has rarely been so high as the last two decades.

I also disagree that the parties are that uniform. We have Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Abigail Spanberger. The GOP has JD Vance types who are little like classic hawkish Lindsey Graham republicans.

Tech billionaires have never been as consistently unpopular[1]. And data center activism has been pretty universal across partisan lines

Finally housing prices in the US finally flattened after a big spike in COVID. And housing completions have increased [2]. Car prices have actually fallen in recent years [3]

1 - https://yougov.com/en-us/ratings/business-figures?sortBy=fam...

2 - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=27&eid=20985

3 - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA02

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#85

Post by badpun »

JohnDSDev wrote: post #57
senordevnyc wrote: post #54

I’m extremely optimistic for the future of humanity, despite the huge challenges we face. To illustrate how far humanity as a species has come, I’ve posed this question a number of times to people: If you had to be reborn as a random human somewhere on earth, and the only thing you get to pick is the year you’re born, what year would you choose? You don’t get to pick your country, race, gender, sexuality, intelligenc…

I quite like this question. I'm not exactly sure, but either a but in the past to get to watch the internet start, or far in the future like 4000 or something.

Due to population distribution, you're most likely to be born in a poor country. And, in those countries, you're way better off being born in 2026 than in 1970s (to be able to watch when the Internet was starting). Chances are, if you were born in China, India, Nigeria, Malasya etc. you wouldn't even hear about the Internet anyway.

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#86

Post by badpun »

benoau wrote: post #44
ilovecake1984 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who has every done any horticulture knows that being a smallholder is a terrible idea.

There is a tier of farming below that, subsistence farming, where you're keeping a few small animals and growing food for your own consumption. It's still very common outside of developed countries and cities. Although it's really a "shit hit the fan" outcome for people in developed countries and cities.

You don't need a lot of land to do that. Just 0.25 acres is enough to feed a single person. You can do it basically in a city.

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#87

Post by AnimalMuppet »

badpun wrote: post #86
benoau wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a tier of farming below that, subsistence farming, where you're keeping a few small animals and growing food for your own consumption. It's still very common outside of developed countries and cities. Although it's really a "shit hit the fan" outcome for people in developed countries and cities.

You don't need a lot of land to do that. Just 0.25 acres is enough to feed a single person. You can do it basically in a city.

If you're one person who can afford 1/4 acre in a city. If you're married, you need to afford 1/2 acre. Have a kid? 3/4 acre. That's rapidly out of reach of most people.

Then there's zoning laws...

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#89

Post by softwaredoug »

softwaredoug wrote: post #84
techteach00 wrote: post #16

Deeply pessimistic. I'm of the view that the powerful are extracting less and less capital from the average person. It doesn't seem worth it to them. So housing and now cars are marketed to the rich and wealthy, we're losing things we took for granted. Anonymity is basically dead on the internet. Worse being they don't just want my ID to participate but scans of my face, God knows who they are selling this data too.…

Much of that can be true. But global property has never been lower. We’ve never lived in a time with such access to medicine and vaccines. We have cheap solar and wind some argued would be impossible. But in reality much of what you say is only part of the picture. On politics. We’ve never had a time since 1900 of higher political engagement. Turnout in elections has rarely been so high as the last two decades. I als…

*global poverty

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#90

Post by softwaredoug »

dudul wrote: post #60
conception wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally agree but I can’t take both parties as being the same seriously. You honestly believe the world stage would be the same with a different administration today?

You're being fooled by the public platforms and the communication stunts. Yes the world stage would be pretty much the same with a different administration. The parties are basically lighting rods at this point. They claim that they're for this or against that, they would do this, we should do that, and if only we... blablabla. But in the end, nothing concrete ever changes. Sure there are adjustments here or there th…

I don't see how you can back that up with actual data.

- SCOTUS would be radically different in composition without a GOP President being elected in 2016. That would have preserved post-Watergate reforms that prevented broad, sweeping executive actions that go against Congress's wishes. So at best Trump II could only look like a Trump I

- We wouldn't have attacked Iran. Continued closing of Hormuz has pretty far-reaching consequences

- EU might not be trying as hard to be as independent on defense matters, and the US would be active in Ukraine

- US would not be as ambivalent about Taiwan under a non-Trump administration

There are many places where things wouldn't have changed much. But electing Trump has had far reaching consequences to the constitutional system.

Post reply on HN