Are we on the road to civilisation collapse? (2019)

Hugely more pollution (increased exponentially from 100 years ago as shown in graphs).

Higher temperatures (climate change, not the same as pollution).

Worsening infrastructure (the US, for example, is turning into a developing world country in many areas) as opposed to the era of great infrastructure projects, from scryscrappers and railways to the interstate system .

Lower/flattening productivity increases (as opposed to continuous productivity booms 100 years ago).

Lower/flattening invention rate (the low hanging fruits ended circa 1950-60).

More surveillance (in fact more, even at solely the state level, than even Stazi had, and with infinite potential for targeted surveillance).

Thining middle class (as opposed to incresing middle class 100 years ago).

Hugely increased inequality.

Crumbling pension systems (as opposed to pension systems being developed 100 years ago).

There are also a few tricks such "we're getting better" treatises use:

1) use the progress in countries starting from a very low bar to offset regressions in more developed countries (and since the third world countries have higher population, use an average state to shove it to the face of doubters who see their own lives and those of their countries/societies get worse and worse). This is kind of like averging Jeff Bezos' and mine wealth (kinda: what it does it says since e.g. 1 billion people went from $1/day to $2/day this is a huge 200% increase, who cares is another billion went from $100/day to $80/day and falling...).

2) take official measurements (made to make states and organizations affecting change look good) as the ground truth

3) when convenient, compare with say a century back, not 30 and 40 years back (e.g. when people didn't even have the notion of a pension, not when you expected and got one).

4) ignore any qualitative metric.

Okay, so, what’s your point? There’s always some crisis in history. You’re moving the goalposts to weird places and leaving out all the boom times in the time periods you mention. Doesn’t seem like a good faith argument to me

Also, the Korean and Vietnamese wars were about fighting communism and imposing Western democracy on the East

> - Hugely more pollution (increased exponentially from 100 years ago as shown in graphs). - Higher temperatures (climate change, not the same as pollution).

Fair enough

> Worsening infrastructure

If you're claiming that infrastructure 100 years ago was of lesser quality than today, you're living in an alternate reality.

> Lower/flattening productivity increases

False when increases taken in real terms: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RTFPNAUSA632NRUG It's pretty much a line as straight up as it gets.

> Lower/flattening invention rate

As in? Science is working worse now?

> More surveillance (in fact more, even at solely the state level, than even Stazi had, and with infinite potential for targeted surveillance).

That's hard to judge. Yes, modern states have more potential for surveillance, but they arguably can get away with less abuse than they used to.

> Thining middle class (as opposed to incresing middle class 100 years ago).

Very nice how you take the first derivative.

> Hugely increased inequality.

As much as people love talking about it, 'inequality' is a vague term. Are we talking income or wealth? Worldwide, US or Europe?

Worldwide, inequality has dramatically decreased (both income and wealth). Income inequality in the US is slightly higher than post war, but marginally so. The charts they show you don't have the origin at zero, that's all.

> Crumbling pension systems

In countries that have nationalized pension systems (which aren't actually a bad thing imo), pensions are generally pay-as-you-go. If pension systems are not sustainable it's simply because politicians love using them as the 21st century grain dole: they aren't crumbling for any fundamental reason other than the political unwillingness to do the honest thing and cut benefits.

> 1) use the... > 2) take... > 3) when...

I have no axe to grind and absolutely nothing to defend. If 'those treaties' do that, they are wrong. I like talking about concrete, factual statements though, "our society is getting worse" is something that's been said for literally millennia.

> ignore any qualitative metric.

Can you point out some qualitative metric that isn't just "life was better X years ago because I was X years younger?" Because let's be honest, that's what most "qualitative metrics" boil down to. As imperfect as it might be, data is at least an honest attempt to understand the world.

Absolutely. People always forget how population migrations can bring down empires.

What do you expect these climate refugees to do? Die quietly? "Well, we earned it, not being born into wealthy societies. We've got no one else to blame but us"?

Get real. There will be strive and conflict and war, and everyone (lookin' at you, China, USA and Russia) will still be playing the 'Great Game' and try to one-up the other ones, even though survival is at stake.

the first impulse would be to replace the "crooks" with "untouchables". but we know this does not work. if the system is poorly designed it will eventually engulf and corrupt or mislead anybody, no matter their moral fabric

the fallback, then, is to "change the system" (eg constitutional law changes, new checks and balances etc) so that people do the "right thing" by default

sounds great (even if a tall order). except this won't work either. there is no real "system" to change. you can write perfect laws and people will simply agree to ignore or subvert them if they are not internalized. we are after all just a collection of homo sapiens with our transient and volatile mental states

if I had a magic wand with a single spell I'd change the teachers. and hope that the generation they educate grows and takes control fast enough...