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

21–30 of 126 posts

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

#21

Post by imgabe »

tomnipotent wrote: post #17
nostromo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> although we're doing a terrible job of distributing it to the world Are we? Starvation and malnutrition used to be common and is now rare. https://ourworldindata.org/famines

This is true, but it's also true that the world produces enough food such that no ones needs to starve, and yet people still starve. A quarter of food produced ends up in landfills (Europe estimates 20% food waste, as high as 30-40% in US).

Some food should be wasted. If 100% of food were consumed, that would mean that any slight disruption would result in not enough food, or that we were already in a state where there is not enough food. Wasting some food is better than having food shortages. Much better.

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

#22

Post by woojoo666 »

tomnipotent wrote: post #17
nostromo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> although we're doing a terrible job of distributing it to the world Are we? Starvation and malnutrition used to be common and is now rare. https://ourworldindata.org/famines

This is true, but it's also true that the world produces enough food such that no ones needs to starve, and yet people still starve. A quarter of food produced ends up in landfills (Europe estimates 20% food waste, as high as 30-40% in US).

I love how this comment thread perfectly echoes what the article is talking about.

From a sibling comment by imtrigued:

> Almost a billion are still going hungry.

"The world is awful"

And then from your parent comment:

> Are we? Starvation and malnutrition used to be common and is now rare

"The world is better"

And finally your comment:

> it's also true that the world produces enough food such that no ones needs to starve

"The world can be much better"

These three are all true, and I suspect each person already knew all three. It's just that each person chose to focus on a separate aspect.

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

#23

Post by tomnipotent »

imgabe wrote: post #21
tomnipotent wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but it's also true that the world produces enough food such that no ones needs to starve, and yet people still starve. A quarter of food produced ends up in landfills (Europe estimates 20% food waste, as high as 30-40% in US).

Some food should be wasted. If 100% of food were consumed, that would mean that any slight disruption would result in not enough food, or that we were already in a state where there is not enough food. Wasting some food is better than having food shortages. Much better.

We've built a society that's so litigious that companies are incentivized to recommend throwing away food even if there's less than a 0.01% chance of food-borne illness. Our waste is in part out of fear of getting sued or sick, but I'm not convinced the waste is the lesser of two evils. Food poisoning sucks, but it's survivable. Unlike starvation.

A good example of this caution is eggs and refrigeration, for which American's and European's have opposite ways of handling things.

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

#25

Post by gitrog »

woojoo666 wrote: post #22
tomnipotent wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but it's also true that the world produces enough food such that no ones needs to starve, and yet people still starve. A quarter of food produced ends up in landfills (Europe estimates 20% food waste, as high as 30-40% in US).

I love how this comment thread perfectly echoes what the article is talking about. From a sibling comment by imtrigued: > Almost a billion are still going hungry. "The world is awful" And then from your parent comment: > Are we? Starvation and malnutrition used to be common and is now rare "The world is better" And finally your comment: > it's also true that the world produces enough food such that no ones needs to s…

It seems to me that the first two are statements, and the final one is a conclusion, which is the only one that's productive to focus on.

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

#26

Post by hackerlight »

darth_avocado wrote: post #8

> The world is awful. The world is much better. A better way to look at this is that we've made significant progress when it comes to solving some of the problems, but we've also created new ones that make it much worse than before. We can now grow enough food to feed the world (although we're doing a terrible job of distributing it to the world). However the food is much less nutritional and much more toxic than bef…

There is more nutritious food than before, and there is more toxic/unhealthy/processed food than before.

What's changed is the ratio between the two, but the absolute level per capita of both is higher, which is great for anyone who is discerning and self-controlled enough to avoid the toxic stuff.

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

#27

Post by AussieWog93 »

joe_the_user wrote: post #4

If we're talking the general state of the world... 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 isn't going to be much better until climate change is addressed - if then. I think this trumps literally any statistical measure of well-being you could come up with.

>Climate change is not being addressed seriously currently, at all. And the trend is towards it not being addressed.

While we could be doing better, we've made immense strides over the past ten years, to the point where we've already avoided the worst outcomes and could possibly even limit the rise to 2°C and avoid most harm altogether.

At least, according to Kurzgesagt.

https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw

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

#28

Post by woojoo666 »

gitrog wrote: post #25
woojoo666 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how this comment thread perfectly echoes what the article is talking about. From a sibling comment by imtrigued: > Almost a billion are still going hungry. "The world is awful" And then from your parent comment: > Are we? Starvation and malnutrition used to be common and is now rare "The world is better" And finally your comment: > it's also true that the world produces enough food such that no ones needs to s…

It seems to me that the first two are statements, and the final one is a conclusion, which is the only one that's productive to focus on.

I think they all achieve different purposes.

"The world is awful" highlights a problem that needs solving, a concrete goal

"The world is better" tells you that something is working, which you can build on top of or improve

"The world can be better" gives a proposal for a course of action

While the 3rd might seem like the most useful, the 1st is extremely important too, because if the proposal fails then you need to fall back to thinking about the problem. The 2nd is important for both motivation, and also for promoting incremental progress

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

#29

Post by carapace »

29athrowaway wrote: post #16
darth_avocado wrote: post #8

> The world is awful. The world is much better. A better way to look at this is that we've made significant progress when it comes to solving some of the problems, but we've also created new ones that make it much worse than before. We can now grow enough food to feed the world (although we're doing a terrible job of distributing it to the world). However the food is much less nutritional and much more toxic than bef…

> We can now grow enough food to feed the world We grow food on topsoil. Topsoil is soil with microorganisms, worms and insects in it. You cannot grow food on sterile soil. Topsoil takes a long time to form, and very short time to be consumed. We are using topsoil at a higher rate than it is replenished. The rate at which we use topsoil increases over time. We are very wasteful with our use of topsoil. We discard ugl…

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/

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

#30

Post by lotsofpulp »

seibelj wrote: post #9
joe_the_user wrote: post #4

If we're talking the general state of the world... 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 isn't going to be much better until climate change is addressed - if then. I think this trumps literally any statistical measure of well-being you could come up with.

The world went through an ice-age while humans were alive and struggling. The world may be warming because of humans, but we have the ability with technology to adapt.

I assume when people are concerned about the future, they are concerned about the prospective quality of life specifically for themselves and their descendants.
Post reply on HN