lucky_ducker t1_jckt336 wrote
Reply to comment by onelittleworld in Schopenhauer and Hegel’s feud was metaphysical: a pessimist who recognised the unchangeable essence of the world and an optimist who saw human history as perpetual growth could never get along. by IAI_Admin
There's no doubt that over time, the human condition has been and is improving.
Humans, on the other hand, are just as awful as they have ever been.
NihiloZero t1_jcmwef0 wrote
> There's no doubt that over time, the human condition has been and is improving.
This is a completely arbitrary assessment. People belonging to societies wiped out might disagree. The billion or so undernourished people currently alive might disagree. The two billion without ready access to clean water might disagree. And even the people who drive to work and work to drive might disagree.
> Humans, on the other hand, are just as awful as they have ever been.
That might be harder to measure. But I'd tend to bet that people are worse now than they were during most of human existence.
abnotwhmoanny t1_jco73xv wrote
It's fine to point out that children die of starvation and preventable disease in truly horrific numbers, but it is dishonest to not acknowledge that the rate at which that is occurring is dropping and has been for decades.
It's fair to point out that the gap between the low class and the high class is widening, but dishonest to ignore that the percentage of people in the lowest margins of wealth has plummeted.
NihiloZero t1_jcqkyj1 wrote
> but it is dishonest to not acknowledge that the rate at which that is occurring is dropping and has been for decades.
Were we talking about just decades? I mean sure, in the decades since the invasion of Vietnam and Iraq the population there is doing better... but I don't think that's the best metric for overall improvement.
And not every place is improving. Much of Africa is undoubtedly much worse that it was hundreds of years ago before European colonization. One in eight people starving isn't an improvement brought about techno-industrial civilization, it's a CONSEQUENCE of techno-industrial civilization. It's the same with potable water. Most of the springs, streams, rivers weren't flooded with sewage and agricultural runoff 1000 or 100,000 years ago.
> dishonest to ignore that the percentage of people in the lowest margins of wealth has plummeted.
This just isn't true. Both in total numbers AND in relative degree of poverty, more people are poorer now than in the distant past. In fact, if you go back far enough, most people living in tribal societies had no discernible differentiation of wealth. And, again, most tribes weren't starving or unable to find clean water.
abnotwhmoanny t1_jcsovfy wrote
First, I only mention the change over decades because change over centuries or millennia are blurrier. But they HAVE improved since then. You think one in eight is bad? The best records we have suggest that more than half of people died before the age of 20 in our ancient past.
And of course tons of it was death in childbirth, because our horrible techno-industrial civilization that freed countless people to work on science and medicine didn't exist to show people how that worked.
I also think it's unreasonable to say that people were at equal wealth when everyone had nothing. Did they have access to food and water? Sure. As long as the weather was good. Or the winter didn't last too long. Or a rival group of people didn't wander by and decide they liked the place you lived. I notice some people yearn for the past, but so few of them are willing to just wander off into the mountains or the jungles.
There are plenty of places untainted by man out there. But very few people live out there. Surviving off the land just like people did thousands of years ago. People DO do it. Just very rarely. You could go do it right now. A family holding you back? People had family back then. Bring 'em. Do they not wanna go? Couldn't imagine why.
It wasn't better. It was much much worse. If you disagree so much, go prove it.
NihiloZero t1_jcsrsm5 wrote
When Columbus landed in what is today Haiti... the tribes there were not warring or violent. They were not starving. In many ways, depending upon which metrics you want to use, they were very well off. They were surrounded by friends, family, nature, and had a very healthy lifestyle. Of course, that's not gold or combustion engines or life support machines that can technically keep you alive and increase your life expectancy while you vegetate... but they were still arguably wealthy.
But, today, I can't go live off the land in the forests of Haiti. Even if the forests there still existed I couldn't. The same holds true for much of the world. Any relatively idyllic place is either already owned or regulated to the extent that no one is allowed to live there. And you certainly couldn't plant a coconut tree and enjoy its fruits for generations.
So it's really just an empty challenge suggesting that I go wander off and live in the woods to prove how nice it would be. I'd love to that. I'd love to. But the techno-industrial civilization in place simply does not allow for any random person to have that freedom.
abnotwhmoanny t1_jcspcsj wrote
You know what? That whole thing had a bit too much edge to it. I'm leaving what I said, but know that I'm just tired. Should have gone to sleep hours ago. I value and respect your views even if I disagree with them.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments