Hacker News Reader

Comment by cced | Hacker News Reader

> We do. Pax Americana is unprecedented time in world history.

Unless you’re high up in one of the MIC companies I need to disagree.

Who’s the “we”? Countries on the receiving end of “foreign ‘aid’”? Americans receiving improvements to their standards and quality of life because government expenditures are made on infrastructure and services instead of warring?

Wasn’t 1.6B just approved to fund anti-CN disinformation/propaganda?

I guess if a large part of the world’s population, domestic and international, doesn’t fall within your definition of “we” then sure.

View on HN

Legitimately what is a better time in history for the total amount of human suffering to be less?

Countries that are just awful to be in have always existed. I'm willing to bet that a smaller percent of humans are in misery today than ever in history.

Thoughts?

I remember Bill Gates recommending a book on his book list a few years (half a decade?) ago about how, by every measurable stat, life is better now than it has ever been in the past.

Bill Gates has profited immensely from the current world order, why wouldn't he say its great?

He showed his numbers. Let's see yours.

Is this a reference to American Psycho?

Do you have any savings, investments, or work for a company that sells something globally? You've benefited too.

Factfulness by Hans Rosling you're probably thinking of.

I think that's it! Thanks. I remember the subtitle.

> Legitimately what is a better time in history for the total amount of human suffering to be less?

The British could have said the same to Americans a couple hundred years ago and that was also true. It wasn't enough to stop the American revolution tho.

While factually correct, That statement has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, or this argument at all.

You've now changed the topic from what was originally discussed to something different. Was that your intention? Or am I missing something about the argument?

> Or am I missing something about the argument?

If someone (like you) had convinced the US that the Pax Inglesa was good enough, no Pax Americana would exist. What is to say is that let's say, the Pax Chinesa, could be better and more prosperous than the Pax Americana so we should not be afraid of ditching the US in favor of alternatives.

> What is to say is that let's say, the Pax Chinesa, could be better and more prosperous than the Pax Americana so we should not be afraid of ditching the US in favor of alternatives.

Right from the american independence, it was obvious to the whole world that american model is more free and democratic than british. Revolutionaries all around the world, in France, in Haiti, in South America (both Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin) held the new USA as a model to follow.

Can anyone say that about China? Well, of course, somebody can — there are influencers who try to sell China and Russia as a better alternative to the western world. But expect to be taken as seriously as these influences then.

That was 200 years ago. Nowadays the US offers no guidance on freedom or prosperity. Pretty much the opposite, US corporations/Big Tech drains capital from the whole world to keep the resources flowing to US americans benefit.

The Marshall plan was so long ago (and didn't benefit my country, Brazil). Current US doesn't like to share (besides spending a lot of money to protect Western Europe and parts of Asia). It is no surprise most countries are looking for alternatives.

That expenditure keeps maritime trade safe and armed conflicts on levels unseen anytime in human history. This benefits all of the world's population. If americans suddenly decide that they want to be isolationists again, inflation of 2020s and wars such as Russian invasion of Ukraine will look like child's play.

What period of time would you rather live in?

There were these ancient Ukranian mega cities 6-4k years ago that stood for thousands of years. They had gardens, and what appeared to be a complex social life. Notably, they had no walls, meaning there was nothing to protect themselves from. Peace.

So yeah, there sounds a lot better. No walls to stop friends from coming, or you from leaving if you happen to not like it.

Just because we lack imagination doesn't mean a better world can't exist and didn't exist somewhere in the past.

You have no proof of that

What are you talking about?

They had no walls, were peaceful, and were suddenly gone?

Sounds like they probably regretted not building walls.

Ignoring whether or not that actually existed, that's as useful as saying "I'd rather be a lottery winner or a king".

The point is that the average person is better off today than they were any time in the past by many metrics, e.g. life expectancy, quality of life or access to healthcare.

Nobody said the status quo doesn't need to be changed, only that we should appreciate the pax americana despite its faults.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com