Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

4

red_pepper wrote

One thing the feel-good neoliberal "everything is better than ever" statistics fail to take into account is that measuring suffering per capita is meaningless. Only aggregate suffering matters.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

That's basically Steven Pinker's approach. He, like so many other, feel-good "everything is better than ever," fails to understand that the current system is banked on steady infusions of oil and when it runs out, we'll be screwed.

Also, while we haven't used nukes since 1945 and are getting rid of many of them, that doesn't change the fact that we still have them around. Having them around increases the likelihood they will be used, and we've come close to all-out nuclear war several times, only escaping it out of luck, really.

He tries to frame things as "hey we're having fewer wars than before," but ignores that it only seems this way, since the fighting takes place far overseas and much of it, is concealed from the American public. The public, to the extent they think of the war, they think of Afghanistan and Iraq, but in reality, the US is fighting several undeclared wars all over the Middle East and while US citizens may not be aware of them, the same cannot be said for the people living in those countries.

The First World is basically the Roman Empire on a global scale, where a sliver of the population live in opulence and luxury, which is only possible thanks to a majority who toil and die in appalling poverty on their behalf.

This mindset is almost as annoying as Elon Musk and co.'s "Settling Mars will solve all our problems" BS. Even if we ignore all the impossibilities associated with that plan, even if we have all the tech and means needed to do it, it doesn't change the fact that if we don't change our way of life, we will use up Mars the way we've used up the Earth and we'll have to find another planet to settle.