I’ve often thought that if you drew a line with the witch burning dark ages at one end, and a society where everyone can achieve their true potential at the other end, we’re somewhere close to the halfway point now. Massive progress made, massive progress still to be made. So yeah I’d agree with all three statements.
The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
81–90 of 126 posts
Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
A great paper [1] (published by Linköping University) criticizes the book's unbalanced optimism and bias: "Factfulness actually employs a biased selection of variables, avoids analysis of negative trends, and does not discuss any of the serious challenges related to continual population growth. A policy based on the simplistic worldview presented in Factfulness could have serious consequences." [1]: https://www.resea…
But wasn't one of Roslings main points that we should strive to make Africa wealthy so that they get fewer kids? (Because the richer the country, the less kids are born) So basically his whole point was that he wanted to stop this unsustainable population growth in Africa. Or am I misremembering?
Also improving access to contraceptives and fighting potential taboo surrounding it. PSI is one charity whose purpose is to improve access to healthcare services including that.
Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
#83It's too selfish for humans to say world is better. Is the world only for humans? Does it belong to us only? Every other species is in terrible condition than before or they got extinction. And the better is not going to last. All the progress is because of extreme fossil fuel usage. The effect has started to show, to be honest it's going to get much worse in coming decades. It's like a person falling from a building…
Why are you booing him; he's right. While the article immediately addresses the acceptance of both awful and fantastic changes, it doesn't address our effect on the other species of the planet - which has been rather unambiguously horrific. On a scale that's basically impossible to comprehend without lifetimes of study across diverse fields. This needs to be addressed more. Every hour of every day, until we have acco…
> It's not just altruistic either
Then it's factored in to the "is the world better for humans" category
Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing discovered since the 70s compares to the advances in science and technology made in the first half of the twentieth century. Not buying that in the slightest. Reusable rocket boosters? Battery tech? International money movement? Everything in tech from 2000 to present? Sure, if you just define "everything since the 70's doesn't spark my imagination" then you win this round of nihilism, but the last 50 years…
None of these technologies fundamentally improve anyone's life, and they are all incremental. Reusable rocket boosters are nice, but they're not making anyone's life better (they barely even reduce the costs of space flight). Battery tech is important, but again, it is a minor addition; the improvements so far don't even help with a renewable grid, as they are reliant on a very scarce resource - Lithium. Internationa…
Since creating rockets capable of reaching the moon we've sent rovers to Mars and launched space telescopes capable of analyzing other galaxies billions of LY away. How can you claim with a straight face that the latter is a smaller advancement than the former?
Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of these technologies fundamentally improve anyone's life, and they are all incremental. Reusable rocket boosters are nice, but they're not making anyone's life better (they barely even reduce the costs of space flight). Battery tech is important, but again, it is a minor addition; the improvements so far don't even help with a renewable grid, as they are reliant on a very scarce resource - Lithium. Internationa…
Since creating rockets capable of reaching the moon we've sent rovers to Mars and launched space telescopes capable of analyzing other galaxies billions of LY away. How can you claim with a straight face that the latter is a smaller advancement than the former?
What economic value comes from that stuff? reusable rocket boosters are a rounding error on the American economy.
Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
#86I have a hard time believing the fundamental problem is the world is "culture".
After Covid-19 and a personal battle with Toxoplasmosis, I think people need a reminder of the unforgiving brutality of nature and evolution.
The Toxoplasomsis parasite infects over 800,000 persons each year in the United States. We are finding out our models were wrong, and this parasite can cause cysts and behaviorial modification(probably via hormones) in human brains.
No one talks about this, and I only found out because this parasite was giving me polycystic ovary syndrome! It's all an absolute nitemare, and a great awakening about how these parasites violate our bodies and minds.
I think Evolution is the biggest enemy that we as humans must overcome with technology.
Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of these technologies fundamentally improve anyone's life, and they are all incremental. Reusable rocket boosters are nice, but they're not making anyone's life better (they barely even reduce the costs of space flight). Battery tech is important, but again, it is a minor addition; the improvements so far don't even help with a renewable grid, as they are reliant on a very scarce resource - Lithium. Internationa…
Since creating rockets capable of reaching the moon we've sent rovers to Mars and launched space telescopes capable of analyzing other galaxies billions of LY away. How can you claim with a straight face that the latter is a smaller advancement than the former?
Landing on Mars is fundamentally similar to landing on the Moon - slightly easier in some ways (no humans, some atmosphere), slightly harder in others (much farther away, so need more energy; much slower comms, so impossible to manually correct anything). Launching a space telescope is easier than either, as you don't have to land.
The robotics wasn't there to create the rover, so the mission wouldn't have made sense, but the technology that allowed NASA to land on the moon wpuld have allowed them to land something on Mars as well.
Honestly, a better counter would have been the gravitational wave detector, the kind of precision we have achieved in measurement is awe-inspiring. On the other hand, the Michelson-Morley experiment was also quite impressive for its time, though a good few orders of magnitude less precise.
Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since creating rockets capable of reaching the moon we've sent rovers to Mars and launched space telescopes capable of analyzing other galaxies billions of LY away. How can you claim with a straight face that the latter is a smaller advancement than the former?
What economic value comes from that stuff? reusable rocket boosters are a rounding error on the American economy.
I absolutely reject the premise that the we should only consider inventions that single-handedly revolutionize the world. A lot of these so-called incremental rounding errors add up to significant sums.
Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since creating rockets capable of reaching the moon we've sent rovers to Mars and launched space telescopes capable of analyzing other galaxies billions of LY away. How can you claim with a straight face that the latter is a smaller advancement than the former?
Landing on Mars is fundamentally similar to landing on the Moon - slightly easier in some ways (no humans, some atmosphere), slightly harder in others (much farther away, so need more energy; much slower comms, so impossible to manually correct anything). Launching a space telescope is easier than either, as you don't have to land. The robotics wasn't there to create the rover, so the mission wouldn't have made sense…
You hand-waved away the advancements in robotics like it was nothing. You ignored the significant technological advancements behind the space telescopes, focusing instead on the relatively mundane transportation method. What's up with that?
Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2017 when that article was last updated, yeah sure. Not sure you can make that declaration in 2022. The combination of record poverty caused by Covid lockdowns and food supply chain disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine has put millions of people worldwide in famine conditions: https://www.reuters.com/world/world-faces-unprecedented-glob... Exactly how bad it will get remains to be seen. But the causes of famin…
FWIW, China has a very long history of famines. Twentieth century wasn't an outlier - although in the West it's been heavily publicised for propaganda reasons.
[deleted]