2017 was probably the best year in the history of humanity | Hacker News Reader

2017 was probably the best year in the history of humanity

nytimes.com

68 pointsmoat64 comments

Just looking at the pictures of Lebanon's shores after a regular storm https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/world/middleeast/trash-le..., the amount of garbage is shocking, even after seeing tons of pictures of garbage.

Maybe nature destroyed affects me more than others, but they're pictures of regular, ordinary life these days. People didn't hunt for them.

For those who remember the 1970s "Crying Indian" public service announcement, the chart in this article https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/remember-single-tear-anti-... shows its place in the context of global plastic production.

When past generations considered garbage levels a crying shame, the global amount plastic produced ever looks something like what we produce in a week today.

That's just plastic. There's also CO2, mercury, etc, plus depletion of topsoil, fish, rain forests, species diversity...

I should add my point isn't to bring people down first thing in the morning but to call to action to reduce our consumption. We can act on these things.

Look at this map for plastic pollution, and tell me the most effective locations in the world to implement your suggested "call to action" solution (ie, lower consumption) to pollution.

"Now a study shows the top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for 88 to 95 per cent of the total global load because of the mismanagement of waste."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-pl...

It does not appear to be an educational or a consumption issue, but instead a lack of focus on proper waste management. (Or perhaps the funds, or desire to spend the funds, to support proper waste management.)

My biggest takeaway from that link was the sidebar:

> THERE WILL BE MORE PLASTIC THAN FISH IN THE SEA BY 2050

Think about the size of the oceans. How much plastic we're dumping in them and how much fish we're taking out. I can't tell which surprises me the most.

Where to implement reducing pollution? Since programs aren't exclusive and may reinforce each other, I'd answer all places. Is there a place we want more garbage?

>Is there a place we want more garbage?

Of course not, but let's be completely logical about this. Let's pretend we have a finite amount of time and money to fix this issue. (which we do) Where should we spend this resource to fix the plastic pollution?

If we have evidence that up to 95% of the pollution comes from 10 rivers, why shouldn't we _start_ there first? Ending 100% of pollution everywhere else in the planet first, would only stop 5-10% of world pollution.

Going to need internationally enforced regulation to make a difference. Penalties heavy enough to kill companies that dump, and enforcement policies for other countries that have real teeth to them.

People will always consume as many resources as they can, it's how you get ahead. Especially at a macro scale (corporations and nations). This will get worse in any region where there are not severe penalties for destroying the environment

"on average" could be added to the headline. There will always be outliers.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

Such a simple concept, but seemingly impossible to get people to actually understand why it's so important.

My town recently moved from public waste management to a private waste management company and they have so many restrictions that people are just not recycling here anymore. Compared to before, this new company (which isn't even headquartered in this state, so the money is leaving the state) takes only a tiny fraction of recyclable materials.

They also manage to miserably fail at regular trash pickup. Skipping houses, ignoring calls for large items for weeks at a time, just generally terrible at their jobs to the detriment of the culture of recycling we once had here.

People won't change unless the incentive structure (monetary or in the shape of social pressure) is in place to make them want to do it.

I have, in several ways, and they've improved my life.

One example is avoiding food packaging, which has made my diet more delicious and convenient. More social too, in knowing my farmers and hosting more guests for dinners http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/avoiding-food-packagin....

YMMV, but it's been one of my life biggest improvements.

On an individual level, of course. But wishing that people would "just get it", or letting it affect you emotionally in any way, is a losing battle since the bigger picture social behaviour won't change unless the incentives are in place. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean monetary incentives. It could mean introducing carrots and sticks in the form of new social norms and dynamics.

Is anyone suggesting only working on an individual level, just wishing, or getting down emotionally? As for me, I'm inspired by past leaders who have led change and movements on this scale before.

Unless I misunderstand you, "People won't change unless the incentive structure (monetary or in the shape of social pressure) is in place to make them want to do it." seems inconsistent with history.

My podcast, Leadership and the Environment http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast, is an initial step I'm taking, but just a start.

I think we're actually in agreement. You seem to be doing something about it, with your podcast, and that's great! My point was mostly aimed towards the first poster, whose stance seemed to be to mostly complain and wish that people would "just get" that recycling is the key to the problem. I'm not saying recycling isn't the solution. I'm saying the strategy of waiting or wishing for people to start recycling won't work unless incentives change, such as introducing new social norms, or changing our culture or relationship towards recycling. Bringing the subject into public discussion, like what you're doing, is a great strategy to make that happen, I think, so props to you!

My complaint is that it should be self evident that we're over using the planet's resources, and that we should take steps to reduce that.

But people don't care, or are even actively working against it. Because it doesn't inconvenience them right here, right now.

When it does, it'll be too late.

When something "should" be true, but isn't, a better course of action than to wish things were not the way they are, is to take it upon ourselves to fix the thing, to educate those we're in touch with who don't get it, in as patient and pedagogical and understanding a way as possible. If we don't do this, then we have no right to complain.

I am certainly trying to do that, and trying to set a good example.

Unfortunately, "not buying new stuff all the time" isn't really something that resonates with most people.

2017 was good. So was 2016.

If I take my mortgage money and blow it all at the casino, that's probably fun too.

We've been taking out loans from the atmosphere and the oceans for a hundred years and spending like mad. In the end, nature will prove to be a more cruel lender than any human.

This just made me think of an interesting point. We’re basically running humanity as a whole like a startup. We’re consuming resources like crazy, just running full speed ahead to a future where the loans taken in the present will be offset by some kind of technological revolution - fusion power, weather control, large scale desalination, drone reforestation and ocean cleanup, underground builds, clean energy and space elevators.

People do actually like nature. When technology advances far enough, humans will use it to restore nature again, not necessarily because we feel obligated to, but because it sells houses.

"When technology advances far enough, "

This is not a given. It presupposes the continued existence of modern civilization. Who spends time researching carbon sequestration when their flooded neighbors from the next city over are trying to take your resources by force?

Also,the atmosphere is the ultimate tragedy of the commons problem, and we haven't fixed it in decades of trying.

The planet will return to a sustainable state. Sadly the loss of nearly all vertebrates and billions of dead is sustainable. Hell, so is Venus. Saying how great things are while dancing on top of the landmine, as this article is doing in a sense, seems foolhardy.

It seems a strange notion to restore nature with advancements in technology. Restore it to what, how it was before technology?

It is a nice thought, I guess, but it won't be Nature. It will be Nature: Restored. That is, something else.

I wouldn't presume to question Nicholas Kristof's awareness of world and humanitarian affairs, given that his career is so focused on it. And I applaud what I perceive to be his intent, to remind all the folks (mostly east coast media folks) that there is a world beyond Trump's tweets, and that it is not all crisis.

But I'm unclear how he can say 2017 is the best year in human history. Is it merely an argument of numbers? That since hundreds of thousands more people every day have electricity and water, that the net amount of suffering has surely decreased?

To put it another way, what kind of disaster would have to happen in 2017 for us to say that 2017 was worse than 2016? According to his numbers, nearly 100 million people get access to water and electricity every year (300K per day). If we had got into a nuclear war that wiped out 1M people, could we still see stay that 2017 was, all things considered, a better year?

Last year, the UN said the Yemen/Africa crisis was the worst humanitarian crisis since WW2. That sounds like something that would disqualify 2017 from being considered as "probably the very best year in the long history of humanity." Unless it is the case that we had far fewer wars and crises elsewhere in 2017? Is that the case?

Edit: forgot the link https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/11/world-faces-wo...

> Last year, the UN said the Yemen/Africa crisis was the worst humanitarian crisis since WW2.

Looking that up real quick, it sounds like it's put 20 million people at risk of starvation, which is very bad. But the Great Leap Forward in China had an actual death toll (not just a risk estimate) that was even larger than that, 1958-62.

Sure, but the OP isn't saying that 2017 was better than the 1950s, he says he believes it to be "probably the very best year in the long history of humanity". Which means it's better than 2016, 2015, 2012, etc. Is it possible all those other years had similar continent-level crises that make them less bad than 2017? I get that his larger point that Western suffering is a small part of the equation. But it seems to me there was a lot of suffering elsewhere too. Not Holocaust or Spanish Flu levels of suffering, just maybe enough to make it less great of a year than others this decade.

I really believe these will be considered great days. Ignore the political hyperbole, see the actual good being done.

What's even more important, this progress is happening without, or with limited amount of, its downsides.

Like, fewer and fewer children dying does not result in uncontrollable, Malthusian population explosion: number of children in the world remains constant, population grows just because of growth of life expectancy.

More and more people getting electricity does not mean we are using more and more non-renewable resources: consumption of coal and oil remains nearly constant and only natural gas is on the rise (while this is the cleanest fuel and there is a lot of it left).

Same can't be said about clean water, though.

There's a lot of desalinization projects going on in the middle east and Africa.

quote from the article: "The world is registering important progress, but it also faces mortal threats."

I presume there is a very large proportion of years in the history of humanity which were record best, so not sure how newsworthy this is.

It's a bit like all time highs in the markets, not that surprising really.

The graph may still have gone up during 2017, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about the derivative.

If the value went up, the derivative would still be positive. I think you mean the second derivative.

Your clarification is of course correct but the graph of the first derivative would be going down was my insinuation.

How would serious historians weigh in? Im skeptical because the tendency to assume we are always think, THIS is the greatest moment in human history. The last few centuries built up an amazing amount, but also tore alot apart.

Not really. During the peaks of economic cycles, yes, we believe that we're on top of the world. But for most of the time, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age

You can't get stuff like MAGA without this psychological factor.

Nevermind the global warming

or the species collapse, ocean acidification, disappearing coral reefs or ocean gyres full of plastic

Way better than 1917, and much, much better than 1918. History is pretty horrible.

Increasing teen suicide rate, skyrocketing expenses going towards mental health resources ...

The mental health expenditure one isn't that clear cut. Like e.g. reported rapes rising, you have to seperate out whether it was always happening (possibly much worse) and people just ignored the problem.

This may be depressing to you, but there will never be a point in time where there are no problems to be solved. You better enjoy the small wins when you can.

I probably shouldn't be so negative. But on the other hand I think its important to not get too caught up in celebrating our success and pay attention to what we lose to what is generally considered progress. Their are clear social problems that come from the nature of our technologically advanced society that need acknowledged.

> "Steven Pinker, the Harvard psychology professor, explores the gains in a terrific book due out next month, “Enlightenment Now,” in which he recounts the progress across a broad array of metrics, from health to wars, the environment to happiness, equal rights to quality of life."

No one is going to agree on assigning value to each category, but peace, health, and quality of life (despite the threat and effects of global warming) are on an upward trend.

Just like spending your savings, it's very easy to sacrifice tomorrow's resources to make today's quality of life better. I believe the other posters are simply pointing out the uselessness of celebrating this when the consequences are easily foreseen and highly undesired.

For global warming, the correct analogy is probably sacrificing tomorrow's resources in order to make today's quality of life worse, which is doubly dumb. Many of the scare stories of "solar PV can't support a modern civilization" are just lies put about by the people who can benefit themselves (not society as a whole) in the short term.

2017 had a few metrics that were better than other years. That's all.

Also, there's a difference between 'thriving' and 'surviving'.

Less people starving is good, but, less people around the world are 'thriving'.

Fascism is on the rise, nuclear war, environmental devastation, Inequality is massive.

This article picks a few metrics but they're not the full picture.

Yes, things are improving on a global scale, but that doesn't mean that the sense of unease within the United States is baseless. Quality of life for the lower and lower-middle classes has been declining, particularly in rural areas. Medical, educational, and housing costs have been increasing far faster than inflation. Social media combined with legalized bribery and gerrymandering threaten or have destroyed our democracy, with social media in particular amplifying everyone's us-vs-them mentality to the point that everyone feels persecuted. Anxiety, depression, and suicide rates are up. Economic growth is mostly limited to a handful of large cities with high costs of living that complain of labor shortages, yet more affordable rural areas continue to suffer from work shortages.

Global growth and improvement is great, but if pockets of instability don't get addressed and corrected, those trends may change.

Now I'm writing this comment on a website hosted in the US, about a article from a US newspaper, to a person who probably live in the US. And I'm not from the US.

But I think the point of the article is to point out: sure, the US is getting worse and worse (maybe) but you can't just throw up your hands in the air and say "the world is going to shit!" as the world isn't going to shit. Most of the world is improving, but it's hard for the US media to present that view (maybe because good news doesn't sell? I don't know). The author points out that news focuses on bad news, and in the US, probably on US news. But there are other places in this world too.

I frequently see people from the US claim that the world improvements will end, because the US is getting worse.

But the good news is, the world is in fact getting better, even though the US might not be improving a lot currently.

> Global growth and improvement is great, but if pockets of instability [in the US] don't get addressed and corrected, those trends may change.

I've added the text in the brackets. If I understand your message correct, you're saying that if for example housing costs in the US doesn't improve, global growth and improvement might slow down? I'm sorry but that seems small-sighted and exactly what I'm writing about above.

Edit: fun thing to do, search for "world worse" on Twitter or social media of your choice, and see how many people are writing about how the world/everything is getting worse, on a article about something US specific that won't impact anything outside the US borders.

> I frequently see people from the US claim that the world improvements will end, because the US is getting worse... But the good news is, the world is in fact getting better, even though the US might not be improving a lot currently.

> If I understand your message correct, you're saying that if for example housing costs in the US doesn't improve, global growth and improvement might slow down?

I believe that if the US doesn't improve, global growth would slow, yes. In the US, our "economy" is growing because globalization has lowered operating costs while spreading wealth to poorer nations. This is the absolutely largest reason that global poverty has declined. However, because the US has such a high quality of life, our lower class cannot compete.

I believe that if this trend continues, the US will reach a tipping point where people revolt. Because the US is the largest economy in the world, globalization would slow down or reverse for a bit, reversing the positive global trend.

I'm not saying that the world wouldn't adapt and overcome. The world doesn't need the US in the long-term. But it would be rough for a while.

If you disagree, I would love to know why.

I suppose the ultimate conclusion of globalisation is a levelling out of living standards around the world. Whether this means Western nations becoming less well off is an interesting question.

I'm not sure the US is as important as you think now, there is an inertia in developing nations that might slow but is probably quite hard to stop.

> that doesn't mean that the sense of unease within the United States is baseless

Nothing prevents from moving to a different country. Just like the immigrants fled the UK in the first place for various reasons.

A number of things prevents from moving to different countries. Immigration laws for that other country, language barriers, the fact the your professionality/education won't be valued in another country, the fact that you may not even have the money to move in the first place...

None of these are problems that a sufficient amount of desperation will not overcome. See: refugees, illegal immigration. When life sucks enough where you are, lots of people decide to get the heck out, and figure out the plan as they go.

Even Nazi Germany had some Jews stay, often because wanting something does not always makes it feasible.

People die while attempting to become refugees. They might have plan, but they don't get to live to see it successful. And once they are in refugee camps and their children unhappy due to no future available to them, will you tell them they should have stayed at home?

Illegal immigrants are getting deported, like today.

agreed, different people reach the tipping point of desperation at the different times, and sometimes not at all, and sometimes the decision to (or not to) migrate is a bad one, or even a fatal one.

History is replete with stories of refugees who have succeeded in their quest for a better life. Yes, survivorship bias says that for every success there are many failures. I'm not judging but merely observing facts: lots of people do in fact migrate despite the many daunting problems they face in doing so, because they believe it is the best possible option for themselves and their families. No one can presume to judge what is best for them but themselves.

Sometimes you are old, poor, weak, sick or care about relative who is old, sick, in prison, have kids you would have to leave behind. Dont have contact among those who could get you out illegally and don't know where to buy fake papers. Sometimes you get caught.

When I read stories of succesfull escapes from bad conditions, many also contained multiple cases of people who did not escaped.

And most often, the country you are escaping to can deal only with limited number of refugees until it reaches breaking point.

So the fact that desperate evacuation to another country is always an option, that means people who feel strong unease about the US's direction are unjustified in their worry?

I made no comment on justifying or not justifying particular worries.

Then what was your comment about?

The head comment was someone complaining that the US is going to shut.

The reply was that people would be leaving the country if things were looking bad because "Nothing prevents from moving to a different country."

The reply to that was, well, no, actually lots of things prevent people from just leaving the country and finding a new one, which makes that metric a very poor one for. Ensuring diaatisfaction.

And your comment was meant to rebut what exactly?

"The head comment was someone complaining that the US is going to shut."

Did I miss this? I don't see this claim anywhere in the thread.

The parent post begins: "A number of things prevents from moving to different countries..."

The word "prevent" has connotations of impossibility which weren't warranted.

The idea that American citizens are not allowed to criticize America and should leave rather then speak is quite authoritarian.

Never mentioned anything about that. I was merely talking about discontent. You can always move to other places.

I cannot understand for the life of me why this is being downvoted.

We all agree that the macro trends are positive, but you don’t have to look that far back in history to find times that were really good but clearly (in hindsight) contained the seeds of their own demise.

Inequality and polarization are completely reasonable things to worry about. We are fools if we think that nothing could upset this wonderful apple cart.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com