Slashdot Mirror


The World Is Not Falling Apart

An anonymous reader writes: As much as we like complaining, and as much as the big media stations like to focus on the most horrible news of the day, the world is actually becoming a better place. Stephen Pinker and Andrew Mack have an article in Slate going through many of the statistics for things like homicide rates, child abuse, wars, and even autocracy vs. democracy. They're all trending in the right direction. Maybe not fast, or even fast enough, but it's getting better.

They say, "Too much of our impression of the world comes from a misleading formula of journalistic narration. Reporters give lavish coverage to gun bursts, explosions, and viral videos, oblivious to how representative they are and apparently innocent of the fact that many were contrived as journalist bait. Then come sound bites from "experts" with vested interests in maximizing the impression of mayhem: generals, politicians, security officials, moral activists. The talking heads on cable news filibuster about the event, desperately hoping to avoid dead air. Newspaper columnists instruct their readers on what emotions to feel. There is a better way to understand the world. ... An evidence-based mindset on the state of the world would bring many benefits."

31 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Have these guys even seen Slashdot Beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    World not falling apart my ass!

  2. Yellow Journalism by halivar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sensationalism sells, and nothing is sensational like the end of the world. Ergo, all news is about the end of the world.

    1. Re:Yellow Journalism by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That.

      And the powers that be can get away with more shit if they keep the populace worried about security...

      instead of freedoms.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Yellow Journalism by Ravaldy · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is an excellent TED Talk about this very topic.

      http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_...

  3. meta by fche · · Score: 5, Funny

    "An evidence-based mindset on the state of the world would bring many benefits."

    Perhaps evidence can be gathered to support that hypothesis.

  4. Re:Of course there is a focus on the negative by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not always. If the media makes it seem like things are getting worse overall. That would tell people the direction they are going in is wrong and will backtrack to the older ways when they were better.

    You have sites like Fox News turning relatively moderate conservatives into extream conservatives. Due to the flood of negativity poison. Where before many issues were not a big deal or some supported it, now have became a polarizing issue.

    Most of our judgment is based off of emotions, yes even the pro-science, well educated crowd. So misrepresented facts can cause a call to action where one isn't needed

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. The good outweights the bad by scourfish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The big thing that is worse, I think, is economic inequality, and I do think that is something that needs to be worked on. However, the world has less racism, less homophobia, better medicine, cheap and fast global communications, inexpensive computing devices that can perform amazing computations, and put the shoe phone from "Get Smart" to shame,. Not to mention that violent crime and rape are at their lowest level since the 70's. The world is an awesome place now.

    1. Re:The good outweights the bad by invid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Economic inequality is just getting back to its historical levels. Starting with the Great Depression, the US government realized it had to do some serious wealth redistribution to avoid societal collapse. Then came World War II, another big wealth redistribution. After the war there was the GI bill and the Cold War, where the United States, in order to look good compared to Communism, tried to build the Great Society. After the Cold War there was no reason for those in power to reduce economic inequality, so now it's going back to the norm for history.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  6. Yes, them, w/big screen TVs and 22s, 3 yr unemploy by raymorris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > The jobless? The disenfranchised? The dispossessed and everyone else who loves to lick Obama's boot?

    Yes, them. Or are you COMPLETELY ignorant of history?

    At what other time in history could people take two or three years off work and collect unemployment benefits? Have a look at a picture or film of a low-income or rural area from a hundred years ago. Note the large number of children sick from hunger-related disease. Then drive through a modern low-income housing project. Note all the 22 inch rims.

    It's never incorrect to say "perhaps we could make things better". To say "things were better when people starved to death as opposed to today, when they might need to buy the generic-brand cheese with their EBT card" is outrageous. It just makes you look utterly ignorant.

    Or were you referring to today versus ten years ago? If your idea of history is the last ten years, then you're correct. In 2004, 5% of people were unemployed. Today, it's 7.5%.

  7. Lies & Damn Lies by Orne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A wise politician one said, "Never let a crisis go to waste". If the public isn't agitated, they won't give up their liberties and control to the government.

    Crime rates are down, yet cops are more militarized than ever. Police shootings are rare. Gun violence is down. College campus sexual assault rates are actually 0.61%. The earth is not warming in 20 years. There is no missing heat in the oceans. Hurricanes and tornado count are at a historical low. Unemployment counting those not looking for work is at a 40 year high. Inflation in food (not counted) is huge, yet commodities (gold / oil) are deflating. College debt is crippling high, but so is general credit card debt.

    If you dig into the numbers behind the "official" numbers, everything is topsy turvy. That's why the public sees doom and gloom - everything they experience is counter to what we are being told, including articles saying "Don't panic".

  8. Re:better place for whom? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You say that like the groups are separate.

    Obama's aligned with the typically-liberal Democrat party. Liberals tend to believe that one of the government's jobs is to make things better for the jobless, the disenfranchised, the dispossessed, the poor, the hungry, and the downtrodden, so he's pushed programs that aim to help such folks.

    Of course, that's countered by the Republican conservatives, who tend to believe that everyone can make their own fate, so those programs are forced to be either opt-in or neutered. If you want to rebel against the government's control, you have that freedom to forge your own way in life.

    The end result is a system where assistance is tied to one's embrace of government. Sure, one can stay independent, but that's likely how he got to be jobless, disenfranchised, dispossessed, poor, hungry, and/or downtrodden in the first place.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  9. Good boundary conditions by mp.zwiers · · Score: 2

    The world is huge coupled dynamical system. It is good to see its state is moving in a good direction. However, as with many dynamical system, it is also a highly unstable. The current conditions are quite favorable, no real scarcity of our resources, no serious climate change, no world wars, no major deadly disease outbreaks etc. However, that doesn't mean that we can now lay back and assume that past performance is a good predictor of our future. If you disagree, think about it and tell me, what will happen to our beloved coupled dynamical system when we run out of oil (just to mention one thing which we know WILL happen not that long from now)...

  10. Interesting. I'd think the opposite by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's a very interesting perspective.

    I'd say that the fundamental, defining difference between conservative thinking vs progressive is that while progressives say "let's change things for the better" conservatives say "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". Conservatives think America is basically pretty good, progressives think it needs it be "fundamentally transformed", as Obama put it. Progressives say "we need to do something" (and proposal X is something, so we need to do it). Conservatives think we shouldn't lose sight of the principles that once made this the greatest country on earth.

    If you belief, based on the news you see, that the place is falling apart, then indeed "we need to do something" (liberalism) is a reasonable response. If you believe life is pretty good, and slowly getting better, then you should stick with what's been working (conservatism). So I'd come to the opposite conclusion as you.

    If having more women in nursing and more men in programming is a terrible, horrible thing, then we have to do something about it. If black people can never succeed, if it's unimaginable that any black person could ever be a judge, a mayor, or a senator, then we need to do something about that. On the other hand, if black people can be judges, mayors, senators, and even president of the United States, then all the liberal progressivism is unnecessary, and indeed their complaints of being "kept down by the man" are just whining, excuses. If the society isn't basically racist, then Al Sharpton is out of a job. Progressivism REQUIRES big problems. If you don't believe there are big problems everywhere you look, you have no interest in liberals' big "solutions".

    Personally, I think some things could be improved. Liberals do a pretty good job at identifying the problems. However, they all-too-often fall into the trap of "we have to do something, and proposal X is something, so we have to do proposal X". Conservatives are hesitant to change things, so they don't screw things up. Perhaps the ideal would be for liberals to set the agenda of which problems we want to solve this year, then for conservatives beancounters to get out their calculators and figure out which proposed solutions have worked well elsewhere or in the past, and which ones are economically feasible. So the liberals force the conservatives to do SOMETHING, and the conservatives ensure that the SOMETHING has a reasonable chance of working, and without making us bankrupt.

    1. Re:Interesting. I'd think the opposite by DutchUncle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... progressives say "let's change things for the better" conservatives say "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".

      You make some interesting and reasonable points. On the other hand, it often seems to *me* that the positions are more like progressives saying "we've got to do something about this problem" and conservatives saying "it was good enough for grandpa, it's fine, don't change anything". (I'll bet we could agree that both situations occur, and haggle over the percentage.) The polarization mentioned by many leads to an "If you're not with us, you're against us" attitude, which pushes those who might otherwise be moderate and thoughtful (on either side!) to the extremes.

    2. Re:Interesting. I'd think the opposite by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      conservatives saying "it was good enough for grandpa, it's fine, don't change anything".

      I think you'll find most conservatives actually saying "it wasn't so terrible for grandpa, so let's see how this new untested idea actually makes it better". There will always be people opposed to any sort of change, of course, but don't confuse evidence-based (as opposed to "it looks good on paper, let's do it") and outcome-based (as opposed to "what matters is the lawmaker's intentions were good") with anti-progress. Any seasoned engineer will tell you that the way you'll make the best progress is to test before you ship, because it's so much less effort to fix mistakes that way.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Interesting. I'd think the opposite by Anon-Admin · · Score: 2

      progressives say "let's change things for the better" conservatives say "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".

      Libertarians say "If it is Rosemary's Baby, through out the baby and the bath water and start over."

    4. Re:Interesting. I'd think the opposite by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

      Change for the sake of change is rarely if ever a good thing.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    5. Re:Interesting. I'd think the opposite by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Conservatives are hesitant to change things, so they don't screw things up."

      I think that "conservatives" have a huge gap between what they say they want and what they actually achieve.

      Were corporations historically people? Did conservatives change that. Yup.

      Was america historically a torture state? Did conservatives change that? Yup.

      Was america founded on religious principles, being one nation under god? Or did conservatives change that? Yup.

      Was hemp and marijuana historically demonized? Did conservatives change that because they feared the blacks and mexicans? Yup.

      I can obviously find hundreds of more examples of conservatives changing things for the worse. Saying that conservatives want things to stay the same does not equate with the rise of corporatism in the us in the last 40 years. Nor does it equate with the greed is good and inequality is great mentality which predominates conservative thought.

      You might just have to realize that "conservatives" are far from the historical definition of conservatives "resistance to change" and other attributes. Oh how I wish it were so. America wouldn't have killed hundreds of thousands in iraq, corporations wouldn't be people, wealth inequality would go back to 1950s levels, and do nothing bankers would be vilified as the enemies of real working people.

      In short, there is absolutely nothing conservative about today's so called american conservatives. It's a fiction, a more friendly name on the pro corporate anti public interest party. I would name it the fascist party, matching it up to a proper historical definition. If anyone was allowed to use that term anymore.

      --
      -
    6. Re:Interesting. I'd think the opposite by blahplusplus · · Score: 2

      Problem is both the above posters are ignorant. Modern publics are so illusioned they don't know which end is up.

      Reasoning and the human brain doesn't work the way we thought it did:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Manufacturing consent

      http://www.amazon.com/Manufact...

      Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.

      This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      The real news:

      http://therealnews.com/t2/
      http://www.amazon.com/Democrac...
      http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-G...
      http://www.amazon.com/National...

      Look at the following graphs:

      IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa...

      And then...

      WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Free markets?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Free trade?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      http://www.amazon.com/Empire-I...

      "We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

      In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

      Important history:

      http://williamblum.org/

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  11. So, the sum of humanity's problems ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... are social? Global warming, over-population, every ecosystem on the planet in decline, ravaged fish stocks, depleted soils, widespread environmental contamination, a loss of green spaces, habitat and species, and on, and on don't reflect on the world's condition? Let the rainbows and unicorns run wild!

    1. Re:So, the sum of humanity's problems ... by jpellino · · Score: 2

      Many of those are in fact due to the behavior of individuals - deciding who gets money and who gets water, food, fuel, space and time. Humans interact on an individual level first, and lots of that gets lost when you believe an entire corporation is functionally (not just for the original narrow purpose of legal liability) is a person. We do not have a food problem on this planet. We have a distribution problem. That means a network isn't working, and that network is at its core made of individuals.

      --
      "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  12. The arc is long by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

    Its pretty easy to find places where this is clearly not true (eg: Syria). But those are localized places and times. That's like finding a place where entropy seems to be decreasing; you can do that, but that only means elsewhere it increased more. Human society seems to follow Theodore Parker's principle: The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

    This seems like a good place and time for my favorite Christmas song, written by Longfellow after he'd lost his entire family (wife included) during the Civil War:

    I heard the bells on Christmas day Their old familiar carols play, And wild and sweet the words repeat Of peace on earth, good will to men.

    I thought how, as the day had come, The belfries of all Christendom Had rolled along th'unbroken song Of peace on earth, good will to men.

    And in despair I bowed my head: "There is no peace on earth," I said, "For hate is strong and mocks the song Of peace on earth, good will to men."

    Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: "God is not dead, nor doth he sleep; The wrong shall fail, the right prevail, With peace on earth, good will to men."

    Till, ringing, singing, on its way, The world revolved from night to day, A voice, a chime, a chant sublime, Of peace on earth, good will to men!

    1. Re:The arc is long by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      written by Longfellow after he'd lost his entire family (wife included) during the Civil War:

      Someone seems to have embellished the tale a bit. Longfellow did not lose his entire faimly in the Civil War. The poem was written after his eldest son Charles was wounded, not killed, in battle; he wouldn't die until 1893, eleven years after his father. His wife was burned to death in a household accident in 1861. He wrote a different poem about that death, "The Cross of Snow", eighteen years later.

  13. Re:better place for whom? by CaptainLard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    real-world policies are designed to entrap those foilks into dependency on the Glorious Liberal State,

    Right on brother, the proven ulterior motives of heathcare, unemployment benefits, etc of this administration that hates america are the worst of all time. Things have never been this bad....wait what was this story about again? Something about sensationalism in the media making things look awful when they're really the best in history?

    One thing I'm sure you (should) agree with is that today's conspiracy theory's are some of the best ever.

  14. Why do you think with evidence against you? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    The big thing that is worse, I think, is economic inequality,

    If everything is getter better in terms of quality of life, and economic inequality is growing, then how can you EI as bad?

    At the very least it's not bad enough to matter.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  15. Um... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    Slashdots just as guilty of this as anywhere else...

    A month or two ago I was getting modded troll left and right for suggesting that Ebola wasn't about to ravage North America and kill millions of people.

  16. Aaron Sorkin, The Newsroom ... by Curlsman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aaron Sorkin, The Newsroom, and the greatest country in the world

    For all the later melodramatic histrionics that did not work, Aaron Srokin hit this subject in the opening of The Newsroom, where just ignoring the evidence for ratings doesn't do anybody any kind of justice.

    Transcript and comments from Sorkin:
      http://www.gq.com/entertainmen...

    "Fine. [to the liberal panelist] Sharon, the NEA is a loser. Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paychecks, but he [gesturing to the conservative panelist] gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn't cost money, it costs votes. It costs airtime and column inches. You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart, how come they lose so GODDAM ALWAYS!
    And [to the conservative panelist] with a straight face, you're going to tell students that America's so star spangled awesome that we're the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom, Japan has freedom, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom. Two hundred seven sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom.

    And you, sorority girl, yeah, just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there are some things you should know, and one of them is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty seventh in math, twenty second in science, forty ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty six countries combined, twenty five of whom are allies. None of this is the fault of a 20 year old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST period GENERATION period EVER period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about?! Yosemite?!!!

    We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right! We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, and we acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one, America is not the greatest country in the world anymore."

  17. It all started with CNN by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    Or at least the 24-hour news cycle did when they covered the girl in the well story endlessly. To make matters worse, social media is enabling bogus memes to spread like kudzu. There's an important phrase that people should be taught and that is "Totality of the circumstances." What this means is that these bogus memes are almost always one-sided counting on the gullibility of the viewer to accept it as fact without knowing that there are circumstances and facts that happened which are conveniently skipped lest they burst the bubble of the narrative.

  18. Re:better place for whom? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

    The jobless? The disenfranchised? The dispossessed? The poor, the hungry, the downtrodden?

    Or is it just getting better for the corporate, the military, and everyone else who loves to lick Obama's boot?

    You too can be successful! Just lick that boot! Lick it good.

    This type of comment says a lot about the people who agree with it. When the headline says "The World", they only talk about the United States.

  19. Rose colored glasses by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, some things are improving. But others are not. And to say that the things these people picked define "the world" is nothing more than hubris.

    There are many things that are not improving. Some of them bode extremely poorly for the future. Climate may be one of those (or not... we will see.) Loss of privacy is another. Militarization of police is another. Constitutional erosion is another. A continuously increasing burden of badly crafted and anti-liberty legislation is another. The US justice system is a horror show from one end to the other. We're presently building a mostly unemployable permanent lower class by the continuing and increased implementation of never forgive, never forget social patterns and supporting technology. The vast majority of wealth has become concentrated in the hands of a very few people and corporations, and those same people and corporations have assumed de-facto control of our political system everywhere it does something that matters to them.

    Depending on where you sit in regard to these issues, and others, your world may be sucking harder on an ever-increasing curve.

    The world is what it is. Happy-assed optimism isn't called for outside of your own situation, and only then if that's how you see it.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Rose colored glasses by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How are things compared to aprox. hundred years ago? WWI was in full swing with America about to join, the Constitution was being ignored in many ways, eg people being thrown in jail for distributing pamphlets and the Supreme Court OKing it by comparing free speech to yelling fire in a theatre, wealth was concentrating much like today, the corruption of the government was even more open then now with industrialists openly talking about the Senators they owned. The justice system was probably much worst if you were guilty of being the wrong colour or very poor or pushing for worker rights with jury nullification regularly used to let murderers off. The Prohibition mind set was getting louder and louder which soon led to the militarization of the police and the expanding of federal power.
      Things always seem worse in the present and it is always hard to see how things were in the past.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism