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

Human history in the very long run (2021)

slowboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#51

Post by kelseyfrog »

munchler wrote: post #40
kelseyfrog wrote: post #4

Is there any writer who criticizes Marx on his own terms? Marx agreed that quality of life can improve under capitalism. The whole point was a ethical/social critique of mismatched incentives and power imbalances of such an arrangement. It doesn't matter if life improves if the only choices one has in life is either live under the power imbalance of wage labor or extract value from those who do. If folks can be blame…

> It doesn't matter if life improves if the only choices one has in life is either live under the power imbalance of wage labor or extract value from those who do. Most people choose this system, when given a vote via democracy, even when they have to live under the power imbalance. For Marx to be right, you have to argue that these people are deluded somehow, which isn't particularly convincing.

For me, for Marx to be right, I just have to observe that my employer and I have different incentives that often means our priorities conflict and for the most part their priorities take precedence.

Perhaps this feeling is less common than I thought?

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#52

Post by DaoVeles »

mxkopy wrote: post #35
southernplaces7 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vastly overwhelming body of evidence clearly indicates that today humanity is materially and by nearly all concrete measurements of human well-being better off than at any time in all its long history. This paints a powerful case for humanity also being psychologically and emotionally better off, on average, than at any older time in history since, as should be obvious, dodging starvation, random war, plague and…

> Again though, feel free to list the stuff we've lost. The first thing that comes to mind is dependence on other people. Modern life has made it possible for the average person after a certain age to live without meaningful interaction with others. In the same vein one’s ability to choose one’s company has been greatly increased, which leads to superficial relationships and the isolation of those that no one chooses…

> This is not at all obvious for the reasons listed above, after a certain point material abundance does not cause psychological well-being.

I have been trying to find a news interview for years. It was on Fox news just before Christmas about 15 years back, they had someone from an anti-consumption group. Needless to say, the interviewer did not take kindly to the position they had "It's un american to not buy Christmas presents!". But the last point the interviewee made as they played the music over them was something along the lines of "Consumption is three times high per capita than the 1950's and we are no happier because of it!".

Fair point to be made.

> I’d argue that point was well within the reach of most of our ancestors, since we have had happy ancestors of modest socioeconomic status.

While they aren't the only ones, folks like the Jainists, Taoists, all manner of Buddhists, Hindu's have lead very happy lives living on a tiny fraction of the material needs that we have. Not saying they didn't appreciate some of the new things but it isn't a case of living in squalor for millennia.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#53

Post by hattmall »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #19
darby_nine wrote: post #3

The downside of using modern metrics to estimate the happiness of past people is that you won't ever measure the stuff that we've lost. We'll never really know, and you should look at all such comparisons with deep suspicion (especially eyeballing you, Steven Pinker)

The vastly overwhelming body of evidence clearly indicates that today humanity is materially and by nearly all concrete measurements of human well-being better off than at any time in all its long history. This paints a powerful case for humanity also being psychologically and emotionally better off, on average, than at any older time in history since, as should be obvious, dodging starvation, random war, plague and…

>major dental or surgical needs that are today fixable with little fuss

I guess perhaps that's true in some countries, but not for the US. People put off major medical needs for years and even decades to wait until they can get on medicare.

Dental issues are even worse. Yes, the availability of the treatments is nice, but the majority of people are deeply stuck in modern society to have access to those treatments.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#54

Post by psychoslave »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #22
cratermoon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the people doing no work taking food from the people who did the work to farm it? What do you call that?

If they take it, theft. If its willingly given, charity.

One have to recognize that manufacturing consent, including consent to give away to their threateners, is not necessarily always the most trivial job.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#55

Post by DaoVeles »

jbgt wrote: post #46
darby_nine wrote: post #3

The downside of using modern metrics to estimate the happiness of past people is that you won't ever measure the stuff that we've lost. We'll never really know, and you should look at all such comparisons with deep suspicion (especially eyeballing you, Steven Pinker)

I recently discovered a blog by a historian that tries to describe life as it was. Here's the post about what's needed to feed society with bread (there are many others) https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they... To my understanding, much of the work was backbreaking, disease was a big problem, starvation around the corner every year. And governance and freedoms were mostly reduced to service to…

Just to add a few things.

Hygiene theory has gone a long way to alleviate some of the more problematic disease issues. I have said that if we went full Mad Max (I don't think we are), hygiene theory would survive because of how useful it is.

Starvation is one of those issues of the odd cycles of nature. Many I have spoken with that do back to the land farming have said, on a 5 year average calories aren't an issue. The problem is it usually means 3 bumper years followed by two starvation years. Thru modern agriculture we have both made systems of storage and fertilizers that flatten over these issues.

As for the governance of strongman. There was the flip side of, they couldn't strong arm people TOO much because if enough people figured it was worth over throwing them, the boss would be overthrown with violence or death. It was risky being at the top, there was a reason why the kings thrown was backed up to a wall. Stops the assassin coming from behind.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#56

Post by bsder »

somenameforme wrote: post #43
southernplaces7 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vastly overwhelming body of evidence clearly indicates that today humanity is materially and by nearly all concrete measurements of human well-being better off than at any time in all its long history. This paints a powerful case for humanity also being psychologically and emotionally better off, on average, than at any older time in history since, as should be obvious, dodging starvation, random war, plague and…

This article is speaking of the distant past (and perhaps you are as well) but in relatively recent history, I think the losses can be clearly demonstrated. Near to every form of emotional and mental disorder is at record highs in most Western countries, including the US. [1] IQ levels, after increasing ever since it began being measured, have started declining. [2] Testosterone levels are plummeting, obesity is skyr…

> but in relatively recent history, I think the losses can be clearly demonstrated.

Maybe within the last 30 years but certainly not if you count even just prior to 1970 when heavy manufacturing still provided the primary jobs.

Mill and mine jobs sucked worse than agriculture. Women had zero choice other than homemaker, teacher and secretary. Many Rust Belt men were basically functional alcoholics because life was so damn difficult. For example, a black humor joke at Bethlehem Steel was that nobody ever retired from the car shop (they manufactured railroad cars)--they died of some form of weird cancer long before that.

People complain about how badly we deal with "mental health" now but everybody had to just suck it up and effectively smoked and drank themselves stupid to deal with it in the past. And prior to World War II and the broad distribution of antibiotics, basic physical health was a crapshoot let alone mental health.

I'm not happy about IQ starting to trend down. However, IQ continuously increasing indicates that groups of people were still systematically malnourished up into the early 1990s.

I may have a bunch of problems with the way things are going, but I'm having a tough time coming up with a time when it was that much better than things are right now.

Certainly most of the people sitting here reading HN would have had a really shitty time in the 1950s and 1960s (and probably even 1970s). They've forgotten that smart people had a hard time escaping their local social area and were strongly ostracized up through even the 1980s.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#57

Post by metabagel »

Larrikin wrote: post #6
darby_nine wrote: post #3

The downside of using modern metrics to estimate the happiness of past people is that you won't ever measure the stuff that we've lost. We'll never really know, and you should look at all such comparisons with deep suspicion (especially eyeballing you, Steven Pinker)

What did we lose that you think would make us happier? I can only think of things certain people lost that would make them happier at the expense of making others as miserable as possible.

Where I live, we’ve lost the ability to see most of the stars at night. The mass extinction of many species means that the world which used to be teaming with life is now mostly just teaming with human life. We lost our connection to the natural world. We’ve lost the vast open spaces where you could roam freely although perhaps not always safely.

Sure, it’s a trade off, but it’s ridiculous to pretend we haven’t lost anything. We pay for our high standard of living with anxiety and neuroses.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#58

Post by DaoVeles »

corimaith wrote: post #45
DaoVeles wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TO be fair, these are shoot from the hip responses. I'm not as quick thinking as I used to be. I'm sure I could have some better examples if you give me a day or two. I don't really work on the time of internet comment sections all the time. I think the angle you have is one of assuming I am advocating that "things used to be better!". I am not, I am saying it is possible to pick parts of the past that worked, figure…

I think you're presenting an overly idealized view of the pre modern agricultural life. That lifestyle still exists in many parts of the world, but there is a reason why most of these substinence farmers encourage their kids to get an education and move out. Those poor farmers in India or China would pick the ticket out if they could. Just like how most farmers left to work in factories during the industrial revoluti…

I am more advocating for a middle way. To ease the breaks on societies self obsessive, self help prison, burnout hustle grind culture. To see that we do not have to feed the entire system to the great god of progress.

To encourage people to self reflect on their needs and wants. To see that maybe they don't need so much stuff while keeping the meaningful advancements of our culture. The first act of revolution is contemplation.

Hypothetically, what if we lived with per capita the material demands of say 1920's with the health and food advancements of today. The social gains we have made still in place. All of a sudden a 20 hour week would be in sight. But that would mean folks have to go against the hedonistic treadmill and live with less. To use less energy, stuff and stimulation.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#59

Post by DaoVeles »

relativ575 wrote: post #48
adrian_b wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I have already lost the kind of food to which I had access as a child, because now I cannot buy anything similar from anywhere, at least as a city dweller. When I was spending my vacations with my grandparents as a child, they had a huge garden with an astonishing number of different kinds of fruits. They were planned in such a way that most of the year, from early spring until the beginning of the winter there…

Well, now you have access to other kinds of food that you didn't have when you were a kid, such as international cuisines. Who is to say which way is better? Although it's certainly the case that it'd be ideal if you could have both

As a complete aside. To be Malthusian, there is the greater question of long term genuine sustainability of this abundance.

Are we as a global society just spending big on the credit card of energy surplus disregarding the payback, or is this a genuine long term gain?

I guess we will have to wait until the year 2300 to have that answer.

Re: Human history in the very long run (2021)

#60

Post by paganel »

Larrikin wrote: post #6
darby_nine wrote: post #3

The downside of using modern metrics to estimate the happiness of past people is that you won't ever measure the stuff that we've lost. We'll never really know, and you should look at all such comparisons with deep suspicion (especially eyeballing you, Steven Pinker)

What did we lose that you think would make us happier? I can only think of things certain people lost that would make them happier at the expense of making others as miserable as possible.

Not the OP, but we lost the spirit of community. We’ve got way over board when promoting individualism as a way of life.
Post reply on HN