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

The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#91

Post by tsimionescu »

powerhour wrote: post #88
ryan93 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one is saying that the last 50 years have not been good for progress, or that these discoveries do not have value.

But to claim that they amount to more progress than all of the rest of human history combined is objectively wrong, especially given the amazing advances of the 50-70 years preceding them (1900-1969), which did fundamentally revolutionize human knowledge and form the scientific advances that all subsequent progress is based on, from planes to rockets and from QM to fusion reactors today.

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#92

Post by agensaequivocum »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #56

There is a severe lack of competent and inspiring leadership. With no clear vision for the future people become trapped in pointless political squabbles. What makes life worth living for you?

Doing God's will.

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#93

Post by tsimionescu »

powerhour wrote: post #89
tsimionescu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was comparing apples to apples - spaceflight to spaceflight, like the GP did (first rocket VS reusable rocket boosters).

For the space telescope, the first ones became operational in 1962, and the fundamental principles are the same. The advancements are wonderful, but they are iteration, not some paradigm shift.

Robotics is probably the most impressive of the three, though again, some of the basics of these systems and algorithms date back to the first AI explosion of the 1950s and 60s.

To emphasize again: the point isn't to piss on the extraordinary work of the scientists and engineers working in the last 50 years on these technologies. It is to recognize that the work of the pioneers of these fields from the 40s to the 60s is even more awe inspiring.

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#94

Post by Winsaucerer »

tsimionescu wrote: post #61
Winsaucerer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how they could be better off than us in any of the following dimensions, or the ones you mention, and likely many more: * Health/medical technology and access * Abundance and variety of food * Education * Life expectancy * Quality (in terms of health) of life * Child mortality Looking at life expectancy alone, I'd be surprised if their life expectancy was higher (is this what you had in mind? https://sc.e…

You're missing their point. They're not comparing those who survived the black death to us, but to the people who lived before the black death struck. Similarly, the people who will survive the coming climate catastrophes may well live better lives than we do today, and thus some future Economist may well claim that it all turned out OK in the end. But that analysis ignores the billions of people whose lives will lik…

> But that analysis ignores the billions of people whose lives will likely end because of global warming.

...that number is not even remotely plausible. Where did you get billions from?

Example: 250,000 extra deaths estimated between 2030 and 2050. That means an extra 5 million deaths in that period (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha...).

Another: 83 million extra deaths by 2100, and I suspect that's under the more pessimistic scenario (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dishashetty/2021/07/30/climate-...)

Action on climate change is very slow, but happening. Climate change is not going to be even remotely as close to as bad as you appear to think it will be.

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#95

Post by ryan93 »

powerhour wrote: post #88
ryan93 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry i was specifically referring to the reusable boosters and astronomy.

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#96

Post by Winsaucerer »

tsimionescu wrote: post #61
Winsaucerer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how they could be better off than us in any of the following dimensions, or the ones you mention, and likely many more: * Health/medical technology and access * Abundance and variety of food * Education * Life expectancy * Quality (in terms of health) of life * Child mortality Looking at life expectancy alone, I'd be surprised if their life expectancy was higher (is this what you had in mind? https://sc.e…

You're missing their point. They're not comparing those who survived the black death to us, but to the people who lived before the black death struck. Similarly, the people who will survive the coming climate catastrophes may well live better lives than we do today, and thus some future Economist may well claim that it all turned out OK in the end. But that analysis ignores the billions of people whose lives will lik…

Also, you're right, I did miss the point of the other person's post!

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#97

Post by jwarden »

This is the theme of Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now. It compiles a tremendous amount of data and research on progress in health, wealth. justice, equality, and happiness.

It is a great antidote to the distorted pessimistic view of reality that comes from constant exposure to news, social commentary, and political activism, which focus relentlessly on the negative.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#98

Post by epsteinisntdead »

agensaequivocum wrote: post #92
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #56

There is a severe lack of competent and inspiring leadership. With no clear vision for the future people become trapped in pointless political squabbles. What makes life worth living for you?

Doing God's will.

Why can't God take care of that himself?

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#99

Post by GoodJokes »

vlovich123 wrote: post #11
Winsaucerer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The world is going to be much awful-er as climate change unfolds. Climate change is not being addressed seriously currently, at all. And the trend is towards it not being addressed. The world has been getting better, and continues to get better. Unfortunately, I don't have a reference to it, but I recall attending a talk that charted out some kind of measure of wealth/welfare/well-off-ness based on various climate…

I’m always skeptical of economic models of the present let alone the future. Past performance is not indicative of future results and all economic models have very poor prediction performance over longer terms because of this. Black swan events completely eclipse and wipe out any growth that was sustained over the longer term. If we miss something in the forecast that results in a rapid ecological collapse, then real…

No post body was provided.

Re: The world is awful, the world is much better, the world can be much better

#100

Post by carapace »

29athrowaway wrote: post #75
carapace wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're learning to grow food in ways that increases the amount and fertility of topsoil, so it's not a foregone conclusion. E.g. Permaculture, Syntropic and Regenerative agriculture, etc. Check out the transformation of the Loess Plateau in China. It was rendered into a wasteland by bad farming practices and then re-vegetated and revitalized: http://eempc.org/lessons-of-the-loess-plateau/

At scale? Can this be implemented globally in a few decades? What about making it work in places going dry? Desalination plants and wastewater treatment plants have existed for decades, but are expensive. Today, many people don't have access to clean water because of this. Rifles and ammunition are cheaper than new water infrastructure so war over water will take place everywhere before water conservation technology…

> At scale?

Yes, of course, all lifeforms reproduce exponentially.

Literally the biosphere would (re-)vivify the Earth automatically if we just stop destroying it. It's been doing it for four billion years.

> Can this be implemented globally in a few decades?

That I cannot say, but I believe the limiting factors are social/political rather than biological or physical. In other words, yes, if we have the will we could probably turn things around, go from destruction to regeneration, within three decades. It would be unprecedented but I don't see any intrinsic physical reasons that we couldn't do it.

The revitalization of the Loess Plateau took less than three decades, and as a side-effect it now produces all the material needed to repeat the process in a new place.

> What about making it work in places going dry?

Yes. Not only can we do this in places going dry, we can convert desert to (productive food) forest where ever we need it. E.g. "Greening the Desert" https://www.greeningthedesertproject.org/ project in Jordan. People are using ecological principles all over the world to regenerate large areas.

> Desalination plants and wastewater treatment plants have existed for decades, but are expensive. Today, many people don't have access to clean water because of this.

It's a huge problem, it's true. But progress is being made. E.g. check out the projects described in "India's Water Revolution" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8nqnOcoLqE

We can transform the deserts into paradise. The rains will fall. (I'm going to stop now before I start quoting passages from "Dune") ;)

> Rifles and ammunition are cheaper than new water infrastructure so war over water will take place everywhere before water conservation technology is deployed.

Water projects are far cheaper and easier than making bullets. Check out the video I linked above.

Post reply on HN