| |
| ▲ | shortcord 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | +100 million people died in war in the 20th century. Not to mention preventable famines, etc. Increase your time horizons to see things aren’t even close to as bad as they can be. Our lifetimes are a vapor. | | |
| ▲ | deltaburnt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think most people aren't leaving their house each day with the same worries people in the 20th century had. It is certainly much nicer to be alive now than then, especially in places like Europe. What personally has me worried is the derivative and 2nd derivative. How much is my current comfort sustained purely because of the momentum of systems made possible less than a lifetime ago (post WW2 reconstruction). So ironically your comment induces more stress in me. The idea that just as recently as the 20th century, times that my grandparents were conscious for, that many people lived through that much suffering. To me it seems incredibly easy to end up right back there. | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't know, in the 80s we had a really nice welfare system in the Netherlands that alleviated worry because there was always a safety net. Rent prices were government-set. Healthcare was good and very cheap. In this century everything was cut and privatised due to globalization, neoliberalism and the financial crises. Wages are not keeping up with inflation, social security is less, national healthcare keeps being cut. I don't care about getting rich but I do want to live my life without worry. | | |
| ▲ | nradov a day ago | parent [-] | | It has never been possible to live life with complete security but the amount that you worry about it is completely up to you. | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 a day ago | parent [-] | | No but life was a lot better back then. We had less money (we couldn't even afford a car though one is not really necessary here) but that's not so important. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | YesBox 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | IMO… You need to detach yourself from the big data straw you’re gagging on. Go outside and interact with people. There is enough “content” IRL or otherwise on this planet that is immeasurably beyond a single person experiencing that affords you the opportunity to choose the life you can live. Teach yourself how to choose | | |
| ▲ | adamwong246 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If this solution is as effective as you claim, then wherefore comes this sense of societal malaise? I'm not disagreeing you that life is worth living IRL, but still, if you just need to "touch grass", then why _aren't_ we doing precisely that? | | |
| ▲ | YesBox 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think our brains are wired for hyper-compacted headline news (removes all nuance), emotional bits of info (high reactionary impact), especially if it's negative (survival instinct kicks in, makes a person feels alive). It's (much) less work to obtain this info than other options (like walking to a store and buying a newspaper, or talking to your neighbor/friend, or doing a hobby instead). That's my very quick take. Conserving energy once benefited us greatly, and now that feature is being used against us. | | |
| ▲ | adamwong246 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I sort of agree, but what I'm worried about is that our own desire for social connection and validation has been hijacked as a commodity. As I see it, "McDonalds" capitalized on our lizard-brain's desire for easy calories, as "Porn Hub" has done for sex, "Apple" for shiny things and "Facebook" for socialization. All these successful products take advantage of some base instinct which served us well 100,000 years ago but when given the opportunity, just run wild. |
| |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >if you just need to "touch grass", then why _aren't_ we doing precisely that? There is no profit in it. We've let corporations have far too much influence in our lives. |
| |
| ▲ | sindriava 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I appreciate you're trying to give well meaning advice, but do you think what you wrote could be perceived as very condescending? |
| |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think its getting especially dumber and crazier now, but more like we let dumb and crazy fester and let the problems keep building for decades while we used technological progress as a distraction from it all and an excuse to do as little as possible. People started believing technological progress will fix everything and that 30 years down the live they will be living like the Jetsons with personal butler robots so that the problems of today don't matter, except it didn't happen, and will continue to not happen, and problems continue to mount. | |
| ▲ | hackable_sand 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And here I am in camp "it's always been this way". All the older generations found ways through. We'll find ways through. | | |
| ▲ | imchillyb a day ago | parent [-] | | Older generations died. Some generations died so often that we use words like ‘population decline,’ so the survivors don’t feel so badly about surviving. As for finding ways through, I don’t believe that for even a moment. Why? Because we’re still struggling with those same issues. There is no out. There is no through. Keep that can kicking down the road. That’s what we do. |
| |
| ▲ | alexjplant 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I really do think the world is getting crazier, dumber, and just all around worse, this past decade most specifically. It seems the world has decided to just go nuts, shift into overdrive and metaphorically drive off a cliff. At the turn of the last century 80 percent of the world was illiterate. In just a few generations the average Westerner has gone from subsistence farming to living in a nigh-indestructible air-conditioned box littered with supercomputers that let them transact financially and socially with billions of people around the world. We're living in completely uncharted territory and it isn't a huge leap to speculate that human brains aren't adapted for modern society. A few hundred years ago the average person's attention was devoted to pulling turnips out of the ground and hugging their family; now they must contend with high finance, complicated machinery, ever-evolving fashion and social mores, etc. The proliferation of smartphones and algorithmically-curated entertainment are merely accelerants of this trend. Of course one must take the good with the bad. I'd rather have cool music and exotic cuisine than live in a lean-to in the woods, so my solution is twofold: I aggressively curate my interactions with media (no socials, no traditional news outlets, etc) and always try to keep in mind that most people in this world don't do this and are therefore in a constant state of cognitive exhaustion. When you consider how much more shit the average person has to deal with these days their negative behaviors suddenly become a lot more understandable. I'm optimistic that the current wave of dopamine depletion pop pseudo-science will lead to substantial changes in our society's media literacy but that remains to be seen. | |
| ▲ | Theodores 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The bad guys might seem to have won but the story isn't over yet! The screen thing has been going on for a century or more, whether that be the nonsense we have now or the nonsense we had when TV ruled the world, or the silver-screen before that. Arguably the aftermath of 9/11 was crazier than what we have now, before that we had the joys of the Cold War, before that WW2 and, before that WW1. Right now, we still have whole cities getting razed off the map, but, in the WW2 days that was a daily occurence. Everything must be destroyed for there to be a 'new ark'. This is the story with many a religion, and many a religion was founded in 'end times', hence there is this common eschatology. Normally there is some heaven-sent messiah character that magically fixes all the problems caused by man by undocumented means as part of this story. We even have some fundamentalists that want to blow up the world just to bring on this scenario, and you can't reason with these people. The parties of the left and the right have died intellectually in the West. DJT is in the White House ruling by decree and tweet right now, which we can deal with. However, the Democrats and the Republicans are both as dead as a dodo, with it being the same in the USA's mini-me, the UK, where both Labour and the Conservatives are finished. The secret services have successfully managed to nip in the bud anything that could be an alternative, in particular any eco-friendly save-the-earth ideology. That was easy for them to do, they just had to infiltrate whatever was going and present those guys as crazy. For an example, look at what happened to 'Extinction Rebellion' - they went extinct. It is glass half-empty or glass half-full, and, if you want to look at it positively, the decks are getting well and truly cleared for something new, and the new does not necessarily mean a choice between a Hitler, a DJT, a benevolent dictator, Skynet or whomever the promised messiah is. There are plenty of countries that have lived through terrible times to come out of it with a sensible grown adult taking the leadership role. I am loathed to provide examples of that because anyone that lifts millions out of poverty will be negatively portrayed in Western media, but there are examples today in Africa, South America and Asia. However, one example I can give you is that of the post-war UK. Despite everything being destroyed, the post war Labour government built the health service, built the schools, built the houses and got the country back on its feet, with the accomplishments recognised by those today on both the left and the right. Sure, it has been decline all the way since then, but the bad guys didn't win and there was a 'new ark'. Trust the process. The post 9/11 repetitive negative thinking, when every day had a colour-coded terror alert level led to moral and cognitive decline, with this excellent situation where left-right Western politics is dead, which is where we want to be for the new. | |
| ▲ | notmyjob 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | For many nations, DJT has been the best thing that has ever happened, by a wide indisputable margin. Not all nations, but some. | | |
| ▲ | orwin 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Or for individuals. I;ve never realized how US-like my country was becoming until DJT and his second administration. I'm probably one of the most US-pilled person my age in my country (I follow US football more than soccer, i hang out on US forums and discords, i used to follow US news every day, i've spent a month between Ohio and WV, and another between California, Nevada and Colorado, it's the foreign country i've spent the most time in overall) and even I realized how subserviant and culturally acclimated to the US we became. Von der Layen and her "negociation" did not help the sentiment, i guarantee, but i think it's how much even national news talked about the US that made me realized we have to cut ties. I've moved, in 6 month, from a pretty pro-OTAN, "liberal" point of view toward an anti-OTAN, anti-Atlantist position, and i think i'm right. I now would even vote for an anti-atlantist right wing party rather than for the left of center, pro-US party i've voted for before (well, since an anti-Atlantist left wing party exist, and despite its radicality, i will probably vote for them, but i'm now a single-issue voter, and my issue is how omnipresent the US is in our culture). DJT made me realized i'm part of the problem, and now i can take steps to fix it. | | |
| ▲ | groby_b 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You might want to think a little bit further. One, figure out why you're "anti-Atlantist", and anti-defense pact. Two, think about how radicality created the US problems, and why you think radicalism is the answer in your case. Yes, Europe needs to change its stance, but electing a "burn-it-to-the-ground" faction is not actually going to do this in a productive way. As for the "omnipresence" of the US, that is and has always been a lot of individual choices more than a political choice. By all means, fixate less on the US yourself, but I promise you that trying to force that on others by electing a more authoritarian party will backfire spectacularly. Soft power isn't countered by hard power. The two working counters are increased soft power on your own (i.e. a culture that's more attractive than US culture), or said soft-power self-reducing. You can trust DJT to achieve the latter. You don't have to "cut ties". You have to learn to think on your own. | |
| ▲ | CalRobert 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm an American living _in_ Europe for over a decade and I've been going crazy watching the EU willfully remain a weak and insignificant vassal to the US when it _could_ be much, much stronger. It's insane watching them go back to their abuser over and over and over and acting surprised when the abuser behaves exactly like they said they would. | | |
| ▲ | cyberax 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What do you mean by "weak" and "vassal"? Do a mental experiment. Suppose that the US disappeared. What would Europe do differently? |
| |
| ▲ | twixfel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm similar in that I had hugely admired the USA for as long as I've been politically aware (so a bit over 15 years) and dreamt of living there one day. That's all changed now of course, I think we need to keep the USA on side for as long as possible but we need to cut ties with them as soon as we can. Not only do they not give a shit about us, they seem to actively hate us. I don't recognise their right wing any more, they just worship that fucktard in the WH. Basically everything I believed about Western civilisation and America's role in leading it, turned out to be a lie. I mean, I wouldn't even call the USA a western country any more. | | |
| ▲ | notmyjob 2 days ago | parent [-] | | So who will lead then? A world without great power competition isn’t an actual thing. I’d be ok with the UK, maybe Italy. It won’t be France which is in turmoil. So who do you prefer over the USA, that has some chance of taking over? | | |
| ▲ | twixfel 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not about who I want to lead. The USA has already stated to the world that it has no desire to lead and wants to retreat from the global stage. It's more about survival at this stage. Of course the UK cannot lead, it is too small, and I say that as a Brit. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kashunstva 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > DJT has been the best thing that has ever happened… I am curious about whether your model of how the current Administration in the U.S. has benefited various countries so strikingly includes the United States itself. | | |
| ▲ | sindriava 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I personally think the US benefited from recent events in a similar way body benefits from a fever. So yes, even though it might not feel like it at times. | | |
| ▲ | groby_b 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In the sense that a lot of fevers are deadly. Bodies do not "benefit" from fever. A fever is a signal that pathogens have recently entered the body, and the body is desperately at work trying to kick them out again. If it fails, you die. The fever is a direct mirror of the inflammation caused by that fight. So, yes, the current administration certainly caused a fever. And the only thing the US benefits from are the antibodies fighting that pathogen. |
| |
| ▲ | notmyjob 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The jury is very much out on that. Market’s up, unemployment rising but relatively low. Our place in the world stage not as good as 30 years ago, but arguably a tad bit better than the days between our Afghan withdrawal and Putin’s blitz on Ukraine, or the dark days of pandemic lockdowns. Sometimes the darkest hour is before dawn. To be sure I ask myself your question nearly everyday and the concerns are obvious: a declining superpower (ensured by demographics) leaves a lot of room for the devil to take hold. Nuclear war has never felt more close or inevitable to me. Hatred reigns in many places, forgiveness, unity and love quite scarce compared to 30 years ago when soft power meant something. The Cold War years seem comfy in hindsight. | | |
| ▲ | zqna 2 days ago | parent [-] | | At least there was some good music back then that you coulf cling to and have hope |
|
| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Absolutely. Putin's regime has certainly benefited enormously. | | |
| ▲ | notmyjob 2 days ago | parent [-] | | North Korea was the one I was thinking about, and Pakistan, and one or more of our more notable allies. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bendigedig 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If you're well off economically, then maybe. But outside of the freedom in how you spend whatever money you are able to 'earn', I'd argue that the Western model of life (i.e. work) is pretty damn authoritarian. It's entirely possible that people in the past felt that they had more freedom than they realistically do now. edit: To the coward who down-voted me without deigning to engage in debate, here's some evidence that when empires (like the west) collapse it can improve the lives of the 99%: https://aeon.co/essays/the-great-myth-of-empire-collapse | | |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >To the coward who down-voted me ... From the site guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." |
| |
| ▲ | kelipso 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you have a lot of money, sure. But coming back to reality, prices for everything has risen and lots of people are living harder lives than a few years ago. | |
| ▲ | ctoll 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no meaningful 'best time to be alive' distinct from psychological reality. If people are not adapted to their environment and either don't value it or aren't valued by it, it doesn't matter how much material comfort is available.
There is a reason the suicide rate jumps during industrial revolutions. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The suicide rate was never accurately measured before the industrial revolution so we can't make any claims about it one way or another. | | |
| ▲ | ctoll 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The industrial revolution was not a single event. There is enough data since then to say that economic uncertainty is correlated with suicide and that technological upheaval is correlated with economic uncertainty. The period we are living through is a time of rapid technological change, whatever you want to call it, and suicide rates have been increasing for the past 25 years. Although I would take any studies and statistics on this with a large grain of salt I think it is not unreasonable to consider these things are related. |
|
| |
| ▲ | adamwong246 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, it's an absurd situation for so many to be so unhappy when, by all measurements, this is "the best time to be alive. But do you really think that Americans are simply that spoiled and stupid? When an entire nation sinks into a despair, surely there must be a better answer than "ignorance"? So I am positing that there must be some underlying problem, something that is difficult to quantify, dare I say it, some kind of mass psychological-spiritual disfunction at play. | | |
| ▲ | kashunstva 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Yes, it's an absurd situation for so many to be so unhappy when, by all measurements, this is "the best time to be alive. Considering the United States only for a moment; the distribution of national income has not been so unequal since the robber baron days. At the same time the visibility of wealth to make upward comparisons has never been greater due to complete permeation of media, both traditional and social. If my share of income in real dollars was slipping as is the case for many, while watching the .1% pocket it, I’d be pretty doggone dysphoric. |
| |
| ▲ | an0malous 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most would agree the 21st century is better than the 16th century, but is 2025 better than 2019 or even 2010? | | |
| ▲ | zdragnar 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, there aren't any signs of a worldwide multi-year pandemic starting that will shut down every economy, force governments into extreme monetary devaluation via supply expansion to pretend everything is okay, and an extreme loss of trust in many medical and scientific institutions. So, yeah, I'd rather carry on as we are than go back and live through it all over again. | |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | A bit like investing the graph looks straight when you zoom out but close examination shows many peaks and troughs. It would be nice if our wellbeing increased monotonically but events (covid, the financial crisis, the war in Ukraine) get in the way. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | notmyjob 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you ignore future developments that seem impossible to avoid, I’m talking demographics mostly, then you might have an argument. |
|