Slashdot Mirror


How Bad of a World Are We Really Living In Right Now?

New submitter Y.A.A.P. writes: Slate has a surprisingly relevant article of the state of the world today. A reasonable number of graphs and statistical comparisons show that our world is more peaceful than it has been for a long time. The article tells us that, despite what most news outlets (and political candidates) tell us, The World Is Not Falling Apart. Well, not from violence, at least.

36 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. It just seems bad because of the news cycle. by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The news started with
    "these are the 5 worst things that happened in our city"
    then it became
    "these are the 5 worst things that happened in our state"
    then
    "these are the 5 worst things that happened in our country"
    and now it's
    "these are the 5 worst things that happened on the planet"

    And every day, somewhere, something really bad happened.

    And people have trouble determining how likely that event is going to happen to them anytime soon [normally, a lottery ticket is more likely to hit].

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    1. Re:It just seems bad because of the news cycle. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And every day, somewhere, something really bad happened.

      And people have trouble determining how likely that event is going to happen to them anytime soon [normally, a lottery ticket is more likely to hit].

      Yes, or evaluating the chances of dying a plane crash vs. a car. (Driving your car is a LOT more dangerous.) Or the probability of a terrorist event. Etc.

      People are really bad about evaluating probability, and our fears are shaped by whatever the news media can dig up about the scariest things going on.

      I agree with a lot of TFA, though what's missing is the LONG-term perspective. There's a lot of graphs from the late 20th-century on showing how things (particularly violence) are trending downward, but I still remember the first time I saw a graph of the estimated murder rate over the past few centuries. Hint -- it has basically dropped pretty precipitously since the days of medieval Europe.

      Granted, the numbers are more speculative, but I think most people just have no freakin' clue how dangerous and terrible life was in the past. Everybody wants to pretend to be the "lord and lady" at the Renaissance fair, but the reality for most common folk was that you struggled to grow enough food to survive the winter. Every year. You were lucky if even half of your children survived to adulthood.

      And in those sorts of life-and-death situations, life was -- frankly -- "cheaper" than today. You could get a finger or hand cut off in a random bar fight or a street brawl. If you committing anything resembling a crime, the authorities would likely do it for you. If you tried to leave town, you were very likely to be robbed, stripped, raped, or killed by random "highwaymen."

      The trend toward improvement has continued through most of the 20th century and into our current one. Trust me -- you do NOT want to live in a poor urban center of the early 1900s compared to one today. A lot of violence is down compared to a generation or two ago, and it's certainly a heck of a lot better than it was several generations ago. Yes, kids used to roam the street without care late at night or whatever "back in the day," but they were much, much more likely to abducted or suffer a violent attack or whatever back then than they are today. The "golden age" which people are nostalgic for never existed.

      What has changed is that we are more fearful of certain things, NOT that such things (in most cases) have actually gotten worse.

    2. Re:It just seems bad because of the news cycle. by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      The news has more slots to fill than ever, having evolved from a noon, five, and eleven broadcast to several stations with differing agendas filling 24-hour slots of their own.

      Availability heuristic works in advertising too, but if you hear a thing in the news enough times, it brings it to bear sooner and with exceptional relevance in your brain's personal selection process.

      And as everyone knows, scandalous gossip just sells better than than the other brand.

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

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:It just seems bad because of the news cycle. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't blame the news cycle. Do we really needs news headlines like: "People all over the world go about regular business, all goes fine"?

      No, we don't need articles like that, which would be pointless.

      What we do need (and what I think TFA is arguing for) is perspective. Whether you're talking about overall violent crime rate, child abductions, campus rape, whatever -- the general trend over the past couple decades has been DOWN.

      Yes, there are still terrible things happening. And we should work to try to make things better. But there's a difference between focusing on the bad things to make the world better and just being an irrational pessimist with no perspective of history.

      I say this as someone who used to be an irrational pessimist. I was the sort of person back in my early 20s who thought, "I can't imagine ever having children -- I mean, who would bring a child into a world that's so terrible?"

      I look back at that perspective and realize that my viewpoint was shaped by the news. It was shaped by the continuous clamor of politicians trying to make things sound worse and worse because it was to their advantage in making a case that they were the answer to improvement.

      There's more and easier access to information now, and more important stuff is being reported, and that's a good thing. Keep the bad news coming.

      Agreed. But maybe -- just maybe -- it might be good to have the news in perspective once in a while. Not "People go about their daily business, and all's fine," but at least an acknowledgement of "Terrible thing X is happening. We still need to improve a lot, but let's just note things have been moving in the right direction on issue X for the past 30 years" or whatever.

    4. Re:It just seems bad because of the news cycle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reply that you'll get is one based on zero-tolerance: "even one [murder, rape, war, etc] is too much" and "never, never again." That things are getting better is irrelevant if you can push the emotional buttons for the counter-argument: "with our technology and our historical perspective, we should be advanced enough to ensure that [X] never happens again."

      It's words like "never" and "ensure" and "guarantee" that keep progress from gaining acceptance: until we meet unreasonable expectations [which we never will meet] based on sentiment rather than reason, we must continue to give up our liberties, our wealth, our convenience, our whatever in order to maintain our nation's struggle to ensure that [insert injustice] never happens again. To do less would be unworthy of our exceptional nation and of us as human beings.

    5. Re:It just seems bad because of the news cycle. by retroworks · · Score: 2

      The Hans Rosling TED Talks (The Best Stats You've Ever Seen) usually start with a quiz that shows the audience to believe far worse about the planet and mankind than reality. The most inaccurage scores on questions like girls education, deaths from violence, people with electricity, etc. came as I recall from journalists, who still use the term "third world". http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_... "if it bleeds, it leads"

      --
      Gently reply
  2. Things are looking up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The truth is we are living during the safest, most prosperous times in human history.
    The media gives us a (false) perception that the world is collapsing under war, civil unrest and terrorism. The reality is that now, more than ever before, people are more likely to die form old age than from a violent death.
    Crime is down worldwide. So is hunger, war, rape and genocide.
    The world is far from perfect and the Syrian crisis is very real and should not be minimized. But as tragic as things are in the Middle East, what is happening there is the exception, not the rule.

    1. Re:Things are looking up by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Things were great in early 1914 too.

      * We've lost privacy.
      * We've lost 12 minutes per hour of our entertainment to advertising.
      * The quality of fruits and vegetables are down for most people.
      * There's a growing set of food intolerance diseases- most likely due to issues with the food.
      * If we have another widespread war- it's going to be fast and horrific compared earlier wars.
      * If we have another financial panic get thru- it's going to be worse than the great depression.
      * If a terrorist group gets hold of increasingly cheap bioweapons, it could end human civilization.
      * If automation proceeds as expected- our current economic system breaks down as over half the population loses the ability to trade their time and labor for products.

      A lot of plates are spinning. We might pull it off. Or things could fall apart astonishingly fast.

      We could have had a war break out with Russia just last week via Turkey. And we would have been pulled into it by treaties- just as happened in world war one.

      Generally- I agree we are doing better- but things are much more "brittle" than they used to be. We've reduced redundancy and if things go badly over a large area, it will impact ability to get food and power to a lot more people.

      So... as the guy falling past the 6th floor window said.... "So far so good!"

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  3. Re:Yeah, but that just means... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it just means that as education prevails, people are less prone to fall for insane cults. The people who disagree tend to be fundamentalists, communists, and Luddites.

  4. Coincidentally by Pollux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just finished watching the movie Tomorrowland yesterday. It was a bit of a let-down ... good acting, but the story made the movie weaker than it should have been.

    But, hidden within it was this very insightful gem:

    "In every moment, there is the possibility of a better future. But you people won't believe it. And because you won't believe it, you won't do what is necessary to make it a reality. So you dwell on this all-terrible future and resign yourselves to it for one reason: Because that future doesn't ask anything of you today." -- David Nix / Hugh Laurie

    We like being pessimists when it comes to our future. When we imagine a brighter future, then we are responsible for doing what is necessary to create it. But when we imagine a bleaker future, there's nothing we have to do to make it a reality. We can just live as hedonists until our passing.

    1. Re:Coincidentally by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      What a load of jizz.

      History is full of people who tried to make the world a better place - and succeeded.

      And for every famous one there's a thousand others making tiny pushes in the right direction.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. Re:Where's the premise? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    I figure "now" ostensibly means the 21st century.

    And I figure "now" means 2015. Since we won't know much about how things are in 2075 for another 60 years....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  6. Re:It depends where you live in the world by StevenMaurer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, right now "this world is more peaceful" it depends where you live: Go to south america like Venezuela, Brasil, Colombia, Salvador, Mexico see the world there or go to Middle East, specially Siria and around there and see there. Go to africa and visit some countries there and see too. It isn't a "World Peaceful" there too.

    This is true when compared to the first world, but untrue compared to the way things were even a couple hundred years ago. Dozens of people killed in rioting is not the same thing as one tribe systematically conquering another tribe, killing all the men, adult women, and boys, and taking the girls as sex slaves -- the sort of practice you can read all about (and apparently God approves of, according to ancient Israelite priests) in the Bible (Torah).

  7. Re:Why, You! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

    May the full might of social justice warriors(SJW) reign down upon you.

    Rain. May the full might of the grammar nazis rain down upon you....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  8. Re:Yeah, but that just means... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    I'm sure you mean "education" as the indoctrination of peoples with beliefs that you yourself support of course.

    Just basic literacy will help a lot. Most conflicts in the world involve illiterate soldiers on one or both sides. Modern war is very expensive, and very destructive. War almost never makes economic sense. Most countries have market economies, so if your neighbor has resources that you want, you don't need to take it by force, you can just buy it.

  9. Re:Percentages vs raw numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you have a single serial killer and your population doubles you are doing better, because statistically society should have produced a second serial killer. Each person's odds of being killed by a serial killer have dropped by 50%. I'm not sure in what way you think that's a bad thing.

  10. Re:Percentages vs raw numbers by fermion · · Score: 2

    In things like disease, things are getting better, as a percentage and absolute numbers. Polio has dropped from hundred of thousands to hundreds of cases in 20 years. Of course cancer and diabetes in the US is up, and HIV did not exist 50 years ago, but many ailments that cursed our civilization for known history have become much less virulent. I would also say percentages do matter. The black death eliminated half the population of major cities, but the total number of probable dead was only half the population of the current US. Likewise the mortality rate at birth in the US is not that bad in absolute numbers, but as a percentage the US is below the level of developing country. The serial killer example is very aprospro. It is information, and the inability to scale and rationalize that information, that drives out perception of a dangerous world. If someone were to ride a horse from town to town, and kill a person secretly, no one would like know that such a thing were happening. Most would just think that an accident got them, and no one. This may be one reason why the term serial killer did not appear until the 20th century. The point is it would be hard to compare the murder rate of the 21st century, to anything 100 years ago when we had no idea who simply disappeared and who was murdered. I would say that the fact that we actively count and respond to murders is an indication that the world is a better place.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  11. Weak arguments by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many charts cover only 30 years which is not really a long period in human history. Therefore, the deductions made on that charts are weak or only valid for that short time period. Beside this overall impression, I want to point out in detail the argument about democracy. There are more democracies now than in 1945 or even in 1988. However, this only looks on the name these states give themselves on paper. Many democracies suffer today from lobbying, like the US, the UK, and Germany, which has a negative impact on participation and limits real democratic processes. Furthermore, most Western democracies have an imbalance in media communication, with the all time low of FoxNews.

    And it is even worse when you look at the democracies in east Europe. Especially at Hungary, where the prime minister Orban changed the constitution to limit the power of the supreme court. He also favours a illiberal democracy, which is a democracy with no minority rights. That results at the end in no democracy at all. He is also racist beyond comprehension. And Poland just elected a very very very right wing party and president. The latter already stated that judges which are critical of his doings will face disciplinary actions. So there goes the separation of powers.

    Or you could look at Greece. It does not matter which government they elect, the EU commission, the ECB, and the IMF define what happens in Greece. And it looks similar for Portugal, Spain, and Italy.

    Therefore, democracy is presently in the West not in a good shape. And I do not know if they counted Russia as democratic country. And the situation in India is also not that positive. So I conclude that their assessment on democracy is not correct at all.

    1. Re:Weak arguments by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 2

      Therefore, democracy is presently in the West not in a good shape.

      Compared to 1970, democracy is in very good shape. Of the countries which you mentioned, two were under a communist dictatorship (Hungary and Poland) and three under a military regime (Greece, Spain, Portugal).

      It depends on the timeframe you use for the comparison. As much as I am saddened by what happened in the recent elections in Poland, Hungary or Turkey, I think that these are only bumps, and that these countries present little risks of going back to a real dictatorship.

  12. Re:Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What you seem to be missing is that War is a macro-aggressive, acute failure of society. Microaggression is a stealthy, sinister, chronic failure of society that is far more widespread and far more damaging to the long-term health of humanity than is an acute War that has a beginning and an end.

    What you seem to be missing is that macroaggression is a real thing which kills people. Microaggression is in your head.

  13. Re:Why, You! by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Funny

    no... just no... .superman no here

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  14. Re:Why, You! by sycodon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do you mean those SJWs that want to repeal the First Amendment?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  15. Re:Yeah, but that just means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, it just means that as education prevails, people are less prone to fall for insane cults.

    The anti-vaccination craze? Fad ketosis dieting? Near-worship of media figures like the Kardashians? Climate change skepticism? I'd go on but that's already more than enough to refute your statement.

    The people who disagree tend to be fundamentalists, communists, and Luddites.

    Cheap name calling. If this is the best your education can muster, it has obviously failed you.

    (Although, it did get you modded highly. Another refutation of your original thesis.)

  16. Re:If you're American by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does the phrase "Great Depression" mean anything to you? That one took WW2 to work its way out of the economy.

    Interestingly, WW2 brought us the GI Bill and the notion that pretty much anyone could go to college. Before that, it was the upper class and the very best of the commoners.

    As to "food prices are way up", there are about as many indications that "real" (adjusted for inflation) food prices are down as up. Just depends on what you're buying...

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  17. Re:Where's the premise? by Skewray · · Score: 2

    I figure "now" ostensibly means the 21st century.

    And I figure "now" means 2015. Since we won't know much about how things are in 2075 for another 60 years....

    Now is 2014. TFA is almost a year old.

  18. The difference is by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    life leading up to the great depression was pretty much ass for everyone but a lucky few. When things went pear-shaped in the 2000s we had a lot more people who had something to lose.

    If you're on Min-Wage or low wage (which, judging by American Median Income at least half are) prices are nuts. When Min wage was $4/hr I could buy a dozen eggs for $0.80 cents, less if they were on sale. These days the same eggs are $3.20 off sale and $2.60 on. Chicken is the same way. Beef was a bit cheap for a while, but only because they were slaughtering dairy cows to bring milk prices back up after a new technique for selecting sex in mammals led to an over abundance of milk.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  19. Re:Is the news cycle the only explanation? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    The environment getting much worse -- mass deforestation, global warming, declining fresh water supplies, much of it abetted by ever-spiraling population growth?

    The environment is getting better. You should have seen how bad the air pollution was in the 70s, for example. Rivers have been cleaned up and come back to life since then.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  20. Re:Why, You! by ailnlv · · Score: 2

    I'm a communist luddite, you insensitive clod!

    I'm an insensitive clod, you communist luddite!

  21. Re:Yeah, but that just means... by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Just basic literacy will help a lot. Most conflicts in the world involve illiterate soldiers on one or both sides. Modern war is very expensive, and very destructive. War almost never makes economic sense. Most countries have market economies, so if your neighbor has resources that you want, you don't need to take it by force, you can just buy it.

    Bad for you, worse for the other guy. Don't underestimate how much the stronger player can abuse their position until they go one step too far.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  22. Re:Why, You! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The SJWs are the reason that things are getting better, actually. Did you think the rise of concern over social justice and the decrease of violence in the world at large were just coincidental?

    I don't really think so. Of course, this depends on how you define an SJW, but it seems to me that the most ardent social justice supporters tend to themselves become bullies, and when they do they're worse bullies than the classic schoolyard bully. Take for example mass shaming over a single tweet, or getting people fired just because they made a mildly sexist joke. And unlike a typical bully, there's nothing you can do about it. The SJW doesn't care though, just so long as they feel better about themselves for having done it.

    There is already somewhat of a precedent that public shaming runs afoul of the 8th amendment. In fact, here's a quote from Benjamin Rush, who was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence:

    “Ignominy is universally acknowledged to be a worse punishment than death ... It would seem strange that ignominy should ever have been adopted as a milder punishment than death, did we not know that the human mind seldom arrives at truth upon any subject till it has first reached the extremity of error.”

  23. The past in misunderstood by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The past is often misunderstood.

    A major reason for this is selection bias. The perspectives that generally survive from the past, are the perspectives of the elites. Impoverished people could not afford to create stories, literature, artifacts which represented their points of view.

    So, it is not surprising if one's intuitions about the past, when past on the surviving material, give a very biased view: It can create the impression that people lived relatively well, when really it was just the elites' lives that you're imagining.

  24. Education can never replace intelligence by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    ... it just means that as education prevails, people are less prone to fall for insane cults ...

    Too many people are confusing 'Education' with 'Intelligence'

    ***Education can never replace Intelligence***

    There are so many cases where highly educated people - even Engineers / Surgeons - have joined cults

    Many of the 'volunteers' for the Islamic State are highly educated people - no, they are not the ones you see in those gruesome videos, but they joined Islamic State and work as administrators / accountants / planners and keep the bureaucracy running

    Another example: The cult of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh back in the 1970's, where they set up a commune in Oregon, USA, attracted a lot of very highly educated folks

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

    People who are highly educated are not necessarily smart - they may be bookworms and they may even graduate with honor degrees with flying colors, but that does not, in any way, heighten the level of their intelligence at all

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  25. Re:If you're American by khallow · · Score: 2

    unbridled capitalism

    Here's the problem. There's no such thing in the world today as unbridled capitalism except in black markets and a few MMOs like Eve Online.

  26. Re: Why, You! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you referring to the *innovation* known as the US Constitution?

    There are certainly any number of things wrong with the US--but having a founding document that clearly spells out rights and freedoms for its citizenry is not among them.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  27. Re:Yeah, but that just means... by ultranova · · Score: 2

    Climate change skepticism?

    There can never be too much skepticism.

    As evidence piles up there comes a point when you're simply using "scepticism" as an excuse to refuse to believe a conclusion you don't like. For climate change, that point went a long time ago. What ever reasons drive climate change "sceptics", they have nothing to do with science.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  28. Re:Yeah, but that just means... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

    The anti-vaccination craze? Fad ketosis dieting? Near-worship of media figures like the Kardashians? Climate change skepticism? I'd go on but that's already more than enough to refute your statement.

    "Less" means "not as many as before"; it doesn't mean "none". Also, as long as reality continues to defy the Warmist Cult doomerism, skepticism is the most rational choice. There are three factors lining up right now that could make the climate cool down markedly in the next 5-10 years. If that happens, it will be very entertaining to watch the Warmists explain how the $trillions they bilked from the not-skeptical-enough public was well spent.