Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ygg2 | Hacker News Reader

Anyone with a working brain can realize for all the shit we are in now, barring a world shattering catastrophe we are better now than 50 or 100 or 500 or 2000 years ago. And same can be generally said of things 50,100,500 or 2000 years ago.

Human progress to a more empathical and overall better society has been constant. At first empathy was reserved only for members of one family and tribe. Then empathy expanded towards people of same nationality and religion. As long of circle of empathy expands to encompass more and more things, we'll be fine.

I won't say there haven't been some really dark blemishes on history, but in spite of all that humanity as a whole moved on.

Humans make mistakes. A lot of mistakes. It comes with the turf.

As for coping, try reading some Terry Pratchet and embrace the ancient philosophy of Discworld - Things happen, what the heck.

View on HN

"Human progress to a more empathical and overall better society has been constant."

Part of me desperately wants to agree with that, but then I remember that the world probably looked a pretty decent place in 1913 and look how downright awful and risky the next ~75 years turned out to be.

There is no fundamental law of civilization that guarantees that things will only get better. Having said that, I think that on balance things will keep getting better - but only because a lot of people fight for those improvements based upon observations of where our societies are going wrong and putting up a fight to bring them back on course.

In 1913, the US was just wrapping up fifteen years of bloody guerilla warfare in the Phillippines after starting the Spanish-American war and the Phillippine-American war.

First the government got the masses worked up with a propaganda campaign, and then went to war to annex new lands and seize booty. That's what healthy, vigorous countries did, and we had recently run out of Native Americans to pillage. We killed millions in Cuba and the Phillippines and demolished their industry, economy, and infrastructure - a major reason they are poor countries today.

Our Vice President, Teddy Roosevelt, personally led men into battle, killed people defending their homelands, and made millions off the war. So we elected him President.

The world was a rough place 100 years ago.

Of course, there was an implicit "from here in the UK and from a very comfortable middle class home" in my statement there...

[NB Anyway I stole the point from the start of Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money]

Steven Pinker wrote quite the tome on this subject. Its worth the read. "I argue that despite impressions, the long-term trend, though certainly halting and incomplete, is that violence of all kinds is decreasing. This calls for a rehabilitation of a concept of modernity and progress, and for a sense of gratitude for the institutions of civilization and enlightenment that have made it possible." http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker

In 1913 the world looked like a tinderbox waiting to explode. War was in the air everywhere in Europe and looked to be all but unavoidable. It may have looked like a pretty decent place but that would have been deceptive and I don't think that it looked like that unless you were pretending to not notice.

Nationalism was on the rise, new technology gave access to weapons on an unprecedented scale (and weapons production was already well underway in 1913). I won't say it was inevitable, but it did not take much of a spark to set Europe in flames. People have compared it to a forest with tons of deadwood lying around just waiting for the right combination of draught, wind and a little bit of activation energy.

I think poverty is worse than war. That is the whole point of the article, you make masses of people poor and then turn them helpless and harmless by social benefits. Poverty is worse than slavery because people feel sad about themselves than identifying the cause of unequal distribution of the resources.

Makes you wonder how many people that have lived through a war agree with you.

In general, I would agree with you, but in some occasions the effects of extreme poverty can almost be indistinguishable from a kind of civil warfare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29

No one wins in the misery olympics

Poverty also leads to civil war or worse. Cannibalism also is frequent during famine.

How can it have looked decent when the upper classes were prepared to blithely send hundreds of thousands of working men to certain deaths on the battlefields. Men in power back then were racist, classist, sexist, homophobic cunts. We've advanced on all those fronts.

That's uncalled for. The upper classes joined the lower classes on the battlefield and shared their fate. WW1 brought about the near extinction of the British aristocracy.

And I don't see that men in power were any more racist, classist, sexist etc than anyone else of their time.

The death rate amongst those from public schools was almost twice that of other soldiers:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/12/real-eton-rifles

Indeed, could argue (as Orwell did) that the public school system trained men for their place in war with the "old lie" of Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

[NB For those not in the UK - "public schools" are the self-appointed elite private schools, most people go to state schools]

Ok I accept both your corrections. I still maintain that we have advanced on the fronts listed and that in this way at least the world is becoming a better place. Most importantly, in terms of net suffering reduction, for women.

>There is no fundamental law of civilization that guarantees that things will only get better.

Do you believe that humans are capable of achieving our aims? Now: do you think we are capable of rationally aiming ourselves towards good aims?

If you assent to both, then what is stopping us?

"Anyone with a working brain can realize for all the shit we are in now, barring a world shattering catastrophe we are better now than 50 or 100 or 500 or 2000 years ago."

50 is pretty debatable, if you live in the U.S. Some argue real wage growth stopped in the 1970s.

http://socialevolutionforum.com/2013/04/04/the-end-of-prospe...

"The post-1978 stagnation of real wages for both less skilled and for typical workers is a big part of the explanation of why economic inequality has been growing in the United States since the 1970s."

That's 36 years ago. Going back another 14 years to 1964, wages were still growing, and prosperity was much more broadly shared than today. As a society, we are all much fatter now, probably exercise much less on average, and growth in life expectancy seems to have leveled off. We probably work more hours, especially on a per family basis. A lot of technological progress has been devoted towards entertainment, and it's debatable how much happier that has actually made us.

I'm sure there are some things that have improved, it's just not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

> Anyone with a working brain can realize for all the shit we are in now, barring a world shattering catastrophe we are better now than 50 or 100 or 500 or 2000 years ago. And same can be generally said of things 50,100,500 or 2000 years ago.

While I desperately want to believe that - after all, there are so many indicators that show how far we have come - I fear that our future will not be dictated by a linear progression of our past. Golden eras do end.

Things can take a turn for the worse, but it world will recover for it. Sooner or later.

I think climate change is our biggest threat, bigger than NSA, Russia dick waving and War on * combined. The longer we ignore it or pretend its not our fault the longer will it take for us/world to recover.

EDIT: By us I don't necessarily think humanity, but the environment overall. I hope humanity will survive, but I'm not deluding myself.

I resent your "working brain" allusion and, while I do have plenty of counter-arguments to your statements, I'll just walk away. <- That's how I cope.

It's there to filter people that keep clamoring for return of 'good old ages' (as in ancient Aztecs times). I hate that.

Then you could have been specific. Now you are essentially saying that it is not possible to disagree with you because that would imply someone does not have a working brain. I'm not sure what that particular rhetorical trick is called but it isn't a nice one. As anyone with a working brain can surely see.

> Now you are essentially saying that it is not possible to disagree with

No, just that anyone that denies that things that weren't worse 50,100, 2000 years ago isn't thinking.

Consider just saying you are not open to discuss the idea, or that you hold it self-evidently true that things are better now.

The way you phrase it you are preemptively insulting people who hold different views (or more likely different ideas of 'worse'). To be clear, suggesting someone "isn't thinking" or doesn't have a brain, is still an insult. This can lower the whole tone of the conversation.

In real life, I have to do something similar to certain people on religious topics, people who I can't call mindless idiots to their faces without immediate repercussions. I find its a great way of letting people know politely, that I will not discus the topic.

I admit, I'm bit of a bad mood lately. I'll try to keep the snark in check and avoid preemptively removing people from discussion.

Thanks for feedback.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com