130
How do you cope with the state of the world today?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
130 points (89.6% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27027 readers
767 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
On average the world is better than it's ever been. Higher life expectancies, less war, better quality of life; it's all generally on the up. Would you rather go back to the last financial crisis? When the ozone layer was being depleted? The interment threat of nuclear annihilation? Race riots? Women not being able to vote? High infant mortality? etc, etc
There is less war, but that's not always a great indicator. Depending on how you define "war" you could even define Ukraine/Russian war not as a war.
Life expectancy is going up because of 3rd world countries finally catching up. It's going down in America.
The "world" is also getting richer. But the average person is getting poorer.
Also ozone layer isn't doing great, there are race riots still, there is threat of nuclear war with Russia existing in its current state, a lot of rights are threatened and a lot of people want to return to a time before women's suffrage. I haven't looked up anything on infant mortality, but I imagine with abortion band happening that will also change for the worse.
The only peace I've found is action.
This is such a short-sighted and USA-centric response. Your life expectancy seems fine, and even if there were a blip I'm sure it will continue to increase on average. Wealth is not an objective measure of quality of life. The ozone layer repaired itself. Even in America you've got a lot less lynching than you used to have. Speak to anyone who lived through the cold war and tell them you think nuclear war is just as much of a threat now as it was then.
I do have arguments against all of what you said. But the funniest one is definitely the ozone layer.
You sure you want to say the ozone layer is fine? When was the last time you looked at anything talking about it?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate/climate-explained/ozone-layer
So not completely back to how it was before we fucked it, but the problem has been fixed
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42637-0
Tl:dr if all you're doing is looking at the peak/minimum times of year it can seem better. The hole "breathes" and they're getting delayed.
I work on diesel trucks, they create a lot of N0x. This article talks about how N0x being bad. It's a niche thing but I at least understand why I tend to see these things first.
Ah bugger
I’m sorry I don’t understand this statement. How could this be true in a way that doesn’t violate logic?
Pretend an x,y graph
Put a bell curve in it. This will be money
Put one behind it. This will be population.
Now increase money curve and shift it to the right. Push it so far it stops being a bell curve and becomes an exponential curve.
What's the phrase? 1% owns 99% of the wealth? So there is more money in the system, but fewer people have "middle class" money.
Of course, certain groups of people have been trying to reverse these trends in the name of...money? Tradition?
The newer generations are no longer becoming smarter (I believe it was the Flynn effect). Education is being defunded at all levels.
The cost of living in many parts of the world has been outpacing wages... especially now, but for decades. Yet we have more wealth hoarded into fewer hands.
Anti-vax and anti-science movements have been reintroducing measles and have been making it hard to fight other diseases.
We are seeing the effects of these things in action, and they will only get worse over time.
They’re trying to reverse those trends because acknowledging those trends means giving up on their theory that our dominant economic system is defunct.
It's cancer and it's killing us all.
Exactly. That kind of thinking doesn't work when you realize the "cancer" is producing situations like:
Do you disagree with those statements? Do you need to see evidence before you'll believe them?
Or do you acknowledge the statements, but disagree that they justify the "cancer" of our current economic system?
I disagree with them.
Higher life expectancy - I wouldn't attribute that to capitalism. Further more life expectancy in the US is declining afaik.
Less war - What do you mean? There's a war in Ukraine, one in Palestine, and there's been perpetual war since ...forever. The US war machine always bombs some country, assassinates a democratically elected leader, etc.
Better quality of life - For the 1% at the expense of all the others maybe.
Capitalism is all about profits, not about better products, better quality of life, etc. In fact it's easily against those things if they get in the way of profit. You can see enshittification everywhere.
For example it would be against their interest for a pharmaceutical company to sell the permanent cure for a disease instead of life-long medical treatment. The latter would be subscription-based therefore create more profit. The cancer comparison is quite fitting imo.
Some people argue that humanity was never freer, happier and healthier than before the agricultural revolution. Everything has gone to shit since we decided to settle down on a small plot of land.
It was much simpler when you were born, miraculously survived childhood, hunted, gathered, then died before your back even had time to get sore
Honestly it probably was a far more meaningful and fun life. Terrifying too, but super meaningful. The environment your brain evolved for. No old age horseshit, just a painful moment of death followed by your family mourning you. But no pictures or nothing, and everyone's tripping on shrooms so you're still there in spirit form. I'm joking as a reflex but I'm serious here. It was probably a better life overall. Seeing a worm and thinking of it as food, having no problem eating that little bastard because your stomach's gnawing at ya. That's life boy. Just raw dogging for all the jungle to see why the hell not. It's prehistory baby. Anything goes.
Sorry I am trying to make a point. I think it would be better probably. Except for all the misery. The good parts would be super good. The non-awful parts would be super good.
Sounds like it would be cool for some kind of quantum-leap holiday, but I think in general I'd rather have the relative comfort and lack of preventable pain that modern technology provides!
How's the argument go?
For about 60k years, between the cognitive revolution and the agricultural revolution, Sapiens was the apex predator of every ecosystem he lived in. People would move from pace to place, foraging and hunting a vast variety of plants and animals. They had the most diverse diet, didn't rely on a small number of food products that would have exposed them to famine in case of collapse (like crops). Women had few children because they had to carry the younger ones and child mortality was not a challenge to the group survival: there were fewer diseases because they lived in small groups. People lived in tight communities and didn't have to cope with the mental strains associated with long-term planning. Of course you could get killed by another tribe, eaten by a tiger or die from an infection. But your teeth and gums were healthy, you had the best diet, great overall physical health and people actually lived into their 60s.
Less war?
There's a genocide going on in the middle east right now by settler colonialist fully backed by the western powers to destabilize the region and I'm sure you know that, it's just irrelevant to you.
There're too many neoliberals on lemmy, I can't even deal fam
There were at least 2 other genocides in progress the last October when this mess started. You only care about this one because you have been told to.
Neoliberalism is really an economic philosophy. It doesn’t really have a lot to say about how a nation ought to position itself toward foreign wars. It’s not an all purpose slur for people who disagree with you.
Which ones are those? What?
The darfuri people in Sudan and the uyghur people in china were what I had in mind. But honestly, war that disproportionately impacts one ethnic group or another is a fairly common sort of war.