Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Daikloktos
Jan 1, 2020

by Cyrano4747


Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

i say swears online
Mar 4, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 37 hours!


this is bad imo

Crusty Nutsack
Apr 21, 2005

SUCK LASER, COPPERS

WHY BE A FATCAT WHEN YOU CAN BE A SMOKERAT?

COOL ZONE HERO, ASK ME ABOUT MY LIVESTREAMS




ok

Fleetwood
Mar 26, 2010
Probation
Can't post for 9 days!


seems bad

Daikloktos
Jan 1, 2020

by Cyrano4747


What's bad about it? Whichever we're talking about

Daikloktos
Jan 1, 2020

by Cyrano4747


So you disagree this is bad? I think I agree. "Ok."

Man Musk
Jan 13, 2010



that little blip for 15-19 year old children is approximately the time that Blizzard's StarCraft was released, checks out

e-dt
Sep 16, 2019


Nnice, less children are dying. dont know why theres a thread about it though

i say swears online
Mar 4, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 37 hours!


Man Musk posted:

that little blip for 15-19 year old children is approximately the time that Blizzard's StarCraft was released, checks out

kekeke

Heated Gaming Moment
Feb 27, 2016

YOSPOS



Hoping your posting rate follows the same pattern, op

TheLemonOfIchabod
Aug 26, 2008


ends in 2013

mazzi Chart Czar
Sep 24, 2005

Idiot. Extremely deranged. Ignore me.

Yeah the world has been getting better. (barring the current pandemic / Riots)


https://www.gapminder.org/
Wander around these videos, to see people raising healthy children.
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/?fr...rt-type=bubbles


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...of-the-century/
Population is already slowing down and looking to stabilize in 2100


How important washing machines are.
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/ha...ashing-machine/




Crime in the United States Peaked in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime...e_United_States

Hell New York PD caused a slow down and Crime dropped in 2014
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/0...lunge-slowdown/
https://newrepublic.com/article/154...down-backfiring




Prison is still high because of the slavery clause in the 13th amendment.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ7yN52tE5k

Slavery for both labour and sex work.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...l-slavery-index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave...he_21st_century
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/
This all looks bad from 1945's to now, but slavery was a grand human institution.
In greek one guy was so poor that "he couldn't even afford a slave."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_Census
In 1860's the US had above 6% percent of the population of the US was a slave. Total Population: 31,443,322 Slave Population: 3,953,762


Cancer and heart attacks are the killers today when Disease used to wipe people out. It's why your grand parents had 10 kids. Those kids were either going to die at child birth, or die before they were ten, and in the case of women, die from giving child birth.
https://www.statista.com/statistics...eath-in-the-us/
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.e...sent-and-future




Drug Usage is up, but it's like heart attack where it's people committing suicide by making unhealthy choices due to a bad environment.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db329.htm




The US can easily feed everybody in the country and a sizable percentage of the world . The USA work force is made up of less then 2% farmers, when in 1900's 80% of the work force was farming.
Farming was hard work and risky.

https://markets.businessinsider.com...19-5-1028242678
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/

All those jobs are gone to automation and the world is better for it. There are new jobs, like generic rear end computer touchers.

https://www.scaruffi.com/politics/world18.html#wor1018
https://www.scaruffi.com/news/opin1112.html


Hydroponic and Mixed Farming are staring to be utilized
In India
https://www.forbesindia.com/article...inesses/54327/1
Mixed Farming in the world.
https://venngage.net/p/223277/mixed...vestock-farming


But Biologist in Boston are making head way into Artificial intelligence



Stock pile of nuclear weapons has been going down.
https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons
https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weap...nuclear-forces/

There are a couple missing
https://www.iflscience.com/technolo...-hell-are-they/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device

And vice found supposedly found some explosive on the black market - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c4f4NJSB_4

Well it was going down until Trump Supporters wanted to reverse that
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ous-than-before




Wars are less deadly.
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace


We are living in one of the most peaceful times in human history.




Sure climate change is a problem. But it's not a problem. Humans are good at fixing any problem. If we put energy into it. Climate change could be fixed in a snap.
The fix is Humans don't die. Humans can nuke the planet till all life is dead, and the earth doesn't give a gently caress about you and will keep on making life till the sun's heat death
The aliens will be sad of all the animals that died.
The Real fear of climate change is your worthless life being ended by death, or living a miserable life starving and then dying.
All the older people don't care. They believe they are dead before dealing with consequences. Pretend they were all dead right now. Would the world still look the same?


Less Military would reduce pollution
https://qz.com/1655268/us-military-...tries-combined/

If people could reduce the necessity to drive and not buy cheap poo poo, that would also reduce emissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_c...e_gas_emissions


Poverty: The 70's had the hugest amount of world poverty, and it's almost gone, but that last couple million people is hard to bring out. UBI tomorrow could fix that.
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/do...ic-end-poverty/

How the US measures poverty.
https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resources/...verty-measured/

How the world bank measure poverty
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/measuringpoverty

Dollar Street
https://www.gapminder.org/dollar-street/





The real problem are the people that stand in the way. Same people that don't wear masks, vote in Trump and force you to vote in lesser leaders, don't allow for UBI, and exploit workers around the world and millions of other problems.


Sure yea I benefit from it, but if you gave me a magic wand to change poo poo to what ever experts say would be the best for the world and humanity, I would wave that wand, and you would too. Many people would, except for those crazy people.


But gently caress if I'm ever going to say "the world is getting better."

Too many "intellectuals" KNOW the worlds is getting worse for their short term perspective.
https://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/
Why We Cling To The Police - Carlos Maza
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0smZ8oYe60

And it is possible for the world to get worse. (Because of Covid the Millennial generation will lose a couple years of their life span)
Also when people think something is bad they are more motivated to fix that problem.




~~~~ So don't quote this poo poo. ~~~~


So yeah. The world is poo poo. We're all gonna die in five years.

mazzi Chart Czar has issued a correction as of 16:05 on Aug 11, 2020

Daikloktos
Jan 1, 2020

by Cyrano4747


e-dt posted:

Nnice, less children are dying. dont know why theres a thread about it though
Let's see where it goes. Maybe it'll end up being useful to somebody

mazzi Chart Czar posted:

Crime in the United States Peaked in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime...e_United_States
(prison is still high.)


Wars are less deadly'
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
Yes, thank you! Who doesn't love looking at some good data.

T-man
Aug 22, 2010


Talk shit, get bzzzt.



what was the island like dr pinker

animist
Aug 28, 2018

yeet



mazzi Chart Czar posted:

Sure climate change is a problem. But it's not a problem. Humans are good at fixing any problem. If we put energy into it. Climate change could be fixed in a snap.

quote:

The Adorable Optimism of the IPCC

People have noticed.

I got it in Lviv. I got it in an epic email interview with BiFrost. I get it in pubs and emails, and from one disapproving professor at Concordia who— clearly regretting having invited me into her classroom— asked “So why do you even get out of bed in the morning?”

“You once described yourself as an angry optimist,” Erwann Perchoc asked me a few weeks ago. “Is that still true?”

Perhaps the tone of my writing has changed over the years. It was always what some insist on calling “dark”— but perhaps the shadows have deepened. Even a dozen years ago, the backdrop of my stories— not the plot or the theme, mind you, just the context in which the story took place— might have been described as a forlorn fire alarm: Jesus Christ, people, can’t you see the cliff we’re headed for? We have to hit the brakes! Now, though— well, in recent years I’ve written at least three stories with happy endings. And the reason those endings are happy is because they end in murder and massacre.

It’s not that I’ve given up hope entirely. But perhaps my narrative emphasis has shifted away from Avoid the Cliff and closer to Make the Fuckers Pay. Hope— dims, as time runs out. Anger builds.

And now, nearly a hundred world-class scientists throw a report at our feet that proves something I’ve recognized intellectually for years, although not so consistently in my gut: I’ve been just as childishly, delusionally optimistic as the rest of you.

Bear with me, though. Read on. I have at least one more happy ending in me.

*

It’s been a couple of weeks now since the IPCC report came out. You know what it says. If the whole drat species pulls together in a concerted effort “without historical precedent”— if we start right now, and never let up on the throttle— we just might be able to swing the needle back from Catastrophe to mere Disaster. If we cut carbon emissions by half over the next decade, eliminate them entirely by 2050; if the species cuts its meat and dairy consumption by 90%; if we invent new unicorn technologies for sucking carbon back out of the atmosphere (or scale up extant prototype tech by a factor of two million in two years) — if we commit to these and other equally Herculean tasks, then we might just barely be able to keep global temperature from rising more than 1.5°C.[1] We’ll only lose 70-90% of the word’s remaining coral reefs (which are already down by about 50%, let’s not forget). Only 350 million more urban dwellers will be exposed to severe drought and “deadly heat” events. Only 130-140 million will be inundated. Global fire frequency will only increase by 38%. Fish stocks in low latitudes will be irreparably hammered, but it might be possible to save the higher-latitude populations. We’ll only lose a third of the permafrost. You get the idea.

We have twelve years to show results.

If we don’t pull all these things off— if, for example, we only succeed in meeting the flaccid 2°C aspirations of the Paris Accords— then we lose all the coral. We lose the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Greenland Ice Shelf (not that it isn’t already circling the bowl, of course). Twice as many people suffer “aggravated water scarcity” than at 1.5°C; 170% more of the population deals with fluvial flooding. The increase in global wildfire frequency passes 60% and keeps going. Marine fisheries crash pole to pole. The number of species that loses at least half their traditional habitat is 2-3 times higher than would have been the case at 1.5°C. It goes on.

There’s no real point in worrying about a measly 2° increase, though, because on our current trajectory we’ll blow past 3° by century’s end (the Trump administration is predicting 4°, which is why they’re so busy dismantling whatever pitiful carbon-emission standards the US had already put into place; what’s the point of reducing profit margins if we’re headed straight for perdition no matter what we do?). We don’t really know what happens then. Methane clathrates released from a melting Arctic could turn the place into Venus, for all I know.

You probably know all this. You’ve had two weeks to internalize it; time to recoil, to internalize the numbers, to face facts.

To shrug, from what I can see. To go back to squabbling over gender pronouns, and whether science fiction has too many dystopias.

*

One of 43 reasons why that prof from Concordia doesn’t like me all that much.

Remember last year’s New York Magazine article by David Wallace-Wells? It came pretty close to outlining the fate we’ve made for ourselves, closer than any bureaucrat or politician has ever dared. Remember the pile-on that happened in its wake? Activists and allies all decrying the story as hyperbolic and defeatist? Remember the Hope Police insisting that we had to inspire, not doomsay?

Where are they now?

One of them is Michael Mann, Climate Science superstar. Back in 2017 he shat on Wallace-Wells with everyone else: “There is no need to overstate the evidence, especially when it feeds a paralyzing narrative of doom and hopelessness.” And now here he is, just a few days ago: admitting that even this stark doomsday report is “overly conservative“, that it understates the amount of warming that’s already occurred. And Mann is still an optimist compared to, say, Prof. Jem Bendell, who argues that society is bound for inevitable collapse just a decade down the road and that we might as well start grieving now and avoid the rush. (He even wrote up a paper to that effect, but the policy journal he sent it to wouldn’t publish it until he rewrote it to be less “disheartening”.)

Still. Optimistic or not, this latest report is unprecedented by IPCC standards. It effectively offers, as The Tyee points out, a simple choice between Catastrophe and Disaster. It does, as a thoroughly-vindicated Wallace-Wells proclaims, give us “permission to freak out“.

So. Are we?

In terms of media reaction, the usual suspects say the usual things. Big Think and Rolling Stone go straight down the middle, admit the sitrep is dire, express doubts that we’ll doing anything about it even now. David Suzuki— well, zero points for guessing where David Suzuki comes down. The Tech folks are talking about geoengineering again. The Guardian talks about food. Over at Medium, Daniel Estrada tries really hard to put a good spin on it, to work within the timeline of the IPCC Report and the US Election cycle to explore ways in which we might achieve the merely-disastrous Best Case— and then, halfway through, admits that he doesn’t really think any of it will happen, that this is merely a hopeful thought experiment, and in his heart of hearts he thinks we’re all well and truly hosed.

The dotted line is where we are now. Nowhere to go but up.

Over at the National Post— Canada’s answer to Fox News— some idiot named Kelly McParland blames the activists for everything, because they hectored and warned and complained for so long that who could blame the rest of us for tuning out? But perhaps the most telling reaction from the right wing comes courtesy of petro-shill Anthony Watts, who— unable to deal with the actual science— simply ran a cartoon showing IPCC authors whining for more money, alongside a guest editorial suggesting that even if it is all true, it would be way cheaper to just give everyone air conditioners.[2]

Of course, none of these folks wield any actual power. What they think doesn’t matter. What about the people who actually call the shots? How have the World’s Leaders responded to this latest 10-alarm fire, to this 12-year deadline?

Brazil is two days away from electing a far-right reactionary who has promised to quit the Paris Accords once elected. Germany— a world leader in environmental issues, not so long ago— reacted to the report with a profound “Meh”. Australia‘s Energy Minister dismissed it as a distraction from the more-important goal of lowering energy prices for Australians. Back in August France‘s Environment Minister resigned in disgust over his own government’s inaction on climate change; that was before the report’s release, but has Macron had a come-to-Jesus moment in the meantime? Here in Canada, provincial premiers are taking the Feds to court over a measly carbon tax; the government itself permitted an “emergency session” right after the report came out, a parliamentary debate which— as far as I’ve been able to tell— accomplished exactly gently caress-all beyond one side of the aisle yelling Think of the Children! while the other yelled Think of The Economy!

And these are the progressive jurisdictions. I probably don’t have to tell you about Donald Trump’s hilarious “Instinct for Science“, which apparently allows him to dismiss the IPCC’s findings as biased even as he makes clear that he doesn’t actually know what the IPCC is.

And what about the world’s real leaders, the 0.01% who actually hand out marching orders to these presidents and premiers and prime ministers? Turns out they’re retaining consultants to advise them on how to prevent their personal security forces from killing them, once civilization has collapsed and their money’s no good any more. It seems to be a lot more than mere thought experiment to these people: global societal collapse seems to be their default scenario. They call it “The Event.”

Why, it’s almost as though they knew what was coming before the IPCC even tendered their report.

*

To me, one of the most interesting facets of this whole clusterfuck is how eager everyone is to tell us that It’s Not Our Fault. “Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals“, the Guardian charges. “Capitalism Killed Our Climate Momentum“, claims Naomi Klein (who, in all fairness, I’ve admired ever since No Logo). Over at Slate Genevieve Guenther asks “Who Is the We in “We Are Causing Climate Change”?”, and saves us the trouble by answering herself:

Does it include the 735 million who, according to the World Bank, live on less than $2 a day? Does it include the approximately 5.5 billion people who, according to Oxfam, live on between $2 and $10 a day? Does it include the millions of people, all over the world (400,000 alone in the 2014 People’s Climate March in New York City) doing whatever they can to lower their own emissions and counter the fossil-fuel industry?

GQ reassures us that “Billionaires are the Leading Cause of Climate Change“. And I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read that a mere 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global carbon emissions.

To which I say, Bullshit. You’re all to loving blame whether Naomi Klein wants to let you off the hook or not.

Not that I’m denying any of her arguments. They’re all true. We were certainly told— by supposed allies like Greenpeace and the PIRGs, as well as more obviously-nefarious corporations and governments— that if we all just recycled and ate one meat-free meal a week, we’d be Doing Our Part to Save the Planet while BP and the Koch Brothers continued to surprise sex the biosphere. Up here in Canada, the reigning Liberals— for all their noble rhetoric about fighting climate change— are still buying pipelines and forcing Tar Sands down our throats and subsidizing Big Oil to the tune of over three billion dollars a year; the Conservative Opposition won’t even pay mealy-mouth lip service to the issue. Down in the states both mainstream parties are sucking too hard on the corporate teat to do anything that might actually endanger the profits of their owners. Individual actions can’t fix things: the very scale of the problem guarantees that institutional responses have always been necessary. All of this is true.

But you know what, people? There were always alternatives. You could have voted for Sanders. You could have voted Green. You could have voted for Ralph loving Nader, when he was running. Hell, am I the only one who remembers Jerry Brown’s abortive run at the presidency, back in 1980? I still remember his announcement, the Three Priorities he laid out for his administration:

Protect the Environment
Serve the People
Explore the Universe

That’s a damned good mission statement if you ask me. All it got him was jokes from Johnny Carson about how Jerry Brown had locked up the Grey Whale vote, and jokes from everyone else that usually revolved around the fact he was loving Linda Ronstadt.

Of course he didn’t have a chance. Of course voting for him, or Nader, or the Greens was “throwing away your vote”. None of them had a chance.

And that’s my loving point. It’s not that no one had heard of these people. It’s not that you weren’t familiar with their platforms. You knew what they stood for and you wrote them off. You were told they were fringe, that they never stood a chance, so you went out and made it true. You voted en masse for the status quo and the corporate teat-sucklers. Now Darby and Klein and Guenther trip over themselves to let you off the hook, to blame Capitalism and Neoliberalism and its stranglehold on the groupthink of modern politics— but how did you end up with leaders who so willingly abased themselves at that altar in the first place, you ignorant poo poo-heads? There were always alternatives, and you saw them, and you laughed.

Sure, the Neolibs conned you. Because you wanted to be conned.

Reap the whirlwind, you miserable fuckers. May your children choke on it.

*

So what’s left?

Every pundit on the planet is fond of pointing out that politicians can’t look beyond the next couple of election cycles— but twelve years is a couple of election cycles, more or less, and we’re still accelerating toward the cliff. Last weekend, The BUG and I talked about how we’d have to kill our cats before abandoning the house. We weren’t joking.

And yet— in my own way, I’m right with you in The Nile. I can still laugh at The BUG’s jokes. I still watch Netflix. I lie in bed with a sore back because Minion has been sitting on my chest for an hour and I don’t have the heart to disturb her. Sure, there are fewer insects, fewer frogs, less wildlife than I remember from childhood (more pigeons, at least. More raccoons)— but the ravine across the fence is still green, the sky still blue. The tag line on this ‘crawl remains as true as ever: I’m still In Love With the Moment, because I am not starving yet, because those I love are still doing okay, because all the birds have not quite come home to roost and there’s something so indescribably wondrous about being sapient, being able to look around and wonder at the universe. There is still so much to love in the Moment.

But the second part of that line is even truer: I am scared shitless of the future. Because those birds are closer than even I allowed myself to think, and not so far from now I could be a skeleton in the background of a Mad Max movie.

The only hope I can see lies in Donald Trump.

Don’t worry. This isn’t one of those contrarian bits of agitprop designed to provoke a reaction. I’m dead serious.

But when I speak of hope, I’m not talking about the world. I’m talking about hope for my country. I’m talking about hope for my family. Hope for maybe an extra decade or two before the ceiling crashes in. That’s the limited, desperate, end-of-need hope I pin on Trump and his enablers.

Help us, Obi-Don. You’re our only hope.

Because what do you do when your family is starving and the guys next door have food? What does any country do when drought and famine and heat waves are decimating its taxpayers while the cooler, luckier land to the north has enough— well, if not for all, at least for some? Will the governments of imploding regimes just sadly shake their heads, and— wracked with remorse for their shortsightedness— resign themselves to well-deserved apocalypse?

Of course, Canada’s hardly immune from the unfolding catastrophe (anyone from Fort McMurray could tell you that much). But we’ll still be better off than the US. Smaller temperature jumps. Less agro impact. Hell, our growing season could actually improve in the short term— and there’s lots of room to move north with the isotherms, even if northern soils don’t hold a candle to what we’re used to. Sorry, Inuit. You lose again.

So, yeah. If your family is starving and the house next door has food, you break in. You invade. And if the US invaded us now, we wouldn’t stand a chance. They’d Spread Democracy north of the 49th without breaking a sweat, and our pathetic little armed forces wouldn’t be able to do a damned thing about it. (Hell, the West Edmonton Mall used to have a bigger submarine fleet than the Canadian Navy; the only reason that’s not still true is because the Mall shut down their sub attraction in 2006.)

After a couple of terms of Trumpism, though, who knows?

The US is already at war with itself. It tears itself apart even as we speak: wagons circled, guns beyond counting all pointed inward. Trump and his ilk seem only too happy to spur them on. Maybe, given enough time, they’ll waste all that ammo on each other. Maybe that hypermilitary will be so busy guarding gated communities and mowing down protestors that they’ll forget to invade anyone else. Maybe— if Trump has his way— they’ll be so busy eating each other that by the time they remember us, they’ll have too many self-inflicted wounds to do much about it.

Maybe then we’ll have a fighting chance. Or maybe they’ll just leave us up here to die in peace, a few decades further down the road.

See? I told you I wasn’t out of happy endings.

Taintrunner
Apr 10, 2017
Probation
Can't post for 36 hours!


yes, videogames are good

Breakfast All Day
Oct 21, 2004

And what haunts me is that in all the faces of all the bears, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature.


WONKBLOG

Pingui
Jun 4, 2006

WTF?


mazzi Chart Czar posted:

Yeah the world has been getting better. (barring the current pandemic / Riots)


https://www.gapminder.org/
Wander around these videos, to see people raising healthy children.
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/?from=world$chart-type=bubbles

How important washing machines are.
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/ha...ashing-machine/


Crime in the United States Peaked in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime...e_United_States
(prison is still high.)



Cancer and heart attacks are the killers today when Disease used to wipe people out. It's why your grand parents had 10 kids. Those kids were either going to die at child birth, or die before they were ten, and in the case of women, die from giving child birth.
https://www.statista.com/statistics...eath-in-the-us/
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.e...sent-and-future


Drug Usage is up, but it's like heart attack where it's people committing suicide by making unhealthy choices due to a bad environment.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db329.htm


The US can easily feed everybody in the country and a sizable percentage of the world . The USA work force is made up of less then 2% farmers, when in 1900's 80% of the work force was farming.
Farming was hard work and risky. All those jobs are gone to automation and the world is better for it. There are new jobs, like generic rear end computer touchers.

https://markets.businessinsider.com...19-5-1028242678
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/

Stock pile of nuclear weapons has been going down.
https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons

Wars are less deadly.
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace


We are living in one of the most peaceful times in human history.

Sure climate change is a problem. But it's not a problem. Humans are good at fixing any problem. If we put energy into it. Climate change could be fixed in a snap.

Poverty: The 70's had the hugest amount of world poverty, and it's almost gone, but that last couple million people is hard to bring out. UBI tomorrow could fix that.
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/do...ic-end-poverty/

The real problem are the people that stand in the way. Same people that don't wear masks, vote in Trump and force you to vote in lesser leaders, don't allow for UBI, and exploit workers around the world and millions of other problems.


Sure yea I benefit from it, but if you gave me a magic wand to change poo poo to what ever experts say would be the best for the world and humanity, I would wave that wand, and you would too. Many people would, except for those crazy people.


But gently caress if I'm ever going to say "the world is getting better.
Too many "intellectuals" KNOW the worlds is getting worse for their short term perspective. (https://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/)
And it is possible for the world to get worse. (Because of Covid the Millennial generation will lose a couple years of their life span)
Also when people think something is bad they are more motivated to fix that problem.




~~~~ So don't quote this poo poo. ~~~~


So yeah. The world is poo poo. We're all gonna die in five years.

I realize that you agree the world is poo poo, but in case you actually believe the dumb statistics you quoted:

Child deaths will massively increase as a function of the pandemic, the depression and the complete overload of the hospital industry.

Crime will go up as a global pandemic and depression is sweeping the planet.

Yes reducing endemic diseases are good, but noting the reduction in disease during a loving pandemic is laughable. "If we just discount this massive source of death, numbers are looking good". Particularly silly when Covid-19 is not just an effective killer, but leaves people maimed that will die a few years later.

Drug usage is up and will only grow to new heights between the Covid victims in permanent pain and everybody else in existential pain.

It is great that fewer people have to work to feed the population, not so great that it is rapidly depleting aquifers and is therefore completely unsustainable.

The nuclear arsenal reduction treaties mostly resulted in more warheads on each missile (MIRVs):
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016...tart-data-2016/
"Moreover, New START contains no sub-limits, which enables both sides to take advantage of loopholes. Whereas the now-abandoned START II treaty banned multiple warheads (MIRV) on ICBMs, the New START treaty has no such limits, which enables Russia to incorporate MIRV on its new ICBMs and the United States to store hundreds of non-deployed warheads for re-MIRVing of its ICBMs. Russia is developing a new “heavy” ICBM with MIRV and the next U.S. ICBM (GBSD) will be capable of carrying MIRV as well.

Similarly, the “fake” bomber count of attributing only one deployed strategic weapon per bomber despite its capacity to carry many more has caused both sides to retain large inventories of non-deployed weapons to retain a quick upload capability with many hundreds of long-range nuclear cruise missiles. And both sides are developing new nuclear-armed cruise missiles."

Wars are only less deadly if we look at "battle-related death", most deaths in wars are not the result of combat. Have a look at your own source, check "Conflict deaths per 100k" and realize that the death toll is back to 1995 levels.

The global poverty metrics have been heavily criticised:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547200/
"Thus, the tighter definition of poverty used by the World Bank tends to lead to a better-looking poverty trend, because the poverty line is too low the trend it reports is too rosy."

And finally this notion of skipping over global warming as just a matter of a "snap" is laughable. The effects are baked in over a multi-decade timeline.

Washing machines being good however, I will grant.

Victory Position
Mar 15, 2004

Don't call me a hero.









according to that.chart, 90% of all children who made it to 15 immediately died

bedpan
Apr 23, 2008



Victory Position posted:

according to that.chart, 90% of all children who made it to 15 immediately died

sick!

Relin
Oct 6, 2002

You have been a most worthy adversary, but in every game, there are winners and there are losers. And as you know, in this game, losers get robotizicized!

is this the anti natalist thread

But Rocks Hurt Head
Jun 30, 2003

DAMN, THAT MUST BE KOOPA. I'M SURE IT'S ALSO HIM WHO'S TAKEN THE PRINCESS AWAY. OK, LET'S GO GET HIM TOGETHER!


Pillbug

Lawman 0
Aug 17, 2010





Grimey Drawer

Relin posted:

is this the anti natalist thread

Look at every other thread in cspam op

Lawman 0
Aug 17, 2010





Grimey Drawer

I don't know why permadepression crew even bothers posting.

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010





Heated Gaming Moment posted:

Hoping your posting rate follows the same pattern, op

Regarde Aduck
Oct 18, 2012

haha


Grimey Drawer

Lawman 0 posted:

I don't know why permadepression crew even bothers posting.

I think it's a instinctive desire to spread the despair as to share it and maybe lessen it? But as we're all detached from each other on the internet it just spreads the despair and doesn't make anyone feel any better. Kinda like a virus.

Pingui
Jun 4, 2006

WTF?


Regarde Aduck posted:

I think it's a instinctive desire to spread the despair as to share it and maybe lessen it? But as we're all detached from each other on the internet it just spreads the despair and doesn't make anyone feel any better. Kinda like a virus.

If anybody wants to make the world a better place, it needs to be communicated that it isn't currently happening and won't happen if we just lean back, pat ourselves on the back and say "job well done". So if you still believe that the World Bank is acting in good faith, when they claim that global poverty has been practically eliminated, you need to be dissuaded of this illusion. Their measure is trash and they are not helping (and they never have).

This goes for practically any other statistic mentioned here, "we have reduced the nuclear stockpile!" (except they didn't, they kinda-sorta reduced delivery vehicles), "wars are less deadly now!" (unless you are a civilian) or "agriculture can feed the world!" (except it is unsustainable).

Call it spreading the despair or call it optimism that things can change if someone actually tried. The neoliberals are not actually trying, they have never actually tried and they will never actually try.

Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010



this is why zoomers are so annoying. they're too safe... for now...

StashAugustine
Mar 24, 2013

Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.









Heartache is powerful, but democracy is *subtle*. Incrementally, you begin to notice a change in the weather. When it snows, the flakes are softer when they stick to your worry-worn forehead. When it rains, the rain is warmer. Democracy is coming to the Administrative Region. The ideals of Dolorian humanism are reinstating themselves. How can they not? These are the ideals of the Coalition and the Moralist International. Those guys are signal blue. And they're not only good -- they're also powerful. What will it be like, once their nuanced plans have been realized?

Gene Hackman Fan
Dec 27, 2002



Regarde Aduck posted:

I think it's a instinctive desire to spread the despair as to share it and maybe lessen it? But as we're all detached from each other on the internet it just spreads the despair and doesn't make anyone feel any better. Kinda like a virus.

misery, like margarine, gets thinner as you spread it around

Giga Gaia
May 2, 2006

360 kickflip to... Meteo?!

5

animist
Aug 28, 2018

yeet



normally i am a bright-eyed and cheerful poster but when somebody starts posting steven pinker's jerk off material i get mad

StashAugustine
Mar 24, 2013

Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.









animist posted:

normally i am a bright-eyed and cheerful poster but when somebody starts posting steven pinker's jerk off material i get mad

Pretty sure that'll get cops called on you

vyelkin
Jan 2, 2011

Jozy loves scoring like a fat kid loves eating cake.



College Slice

quote:

It’s exhilarating to watch “The best stats you’ve ever seen” today – partly because of Rosling’s nerdy, high-energy stage performance, but also because it seems to shine the bracing light of objective fact on questions usually mired in angry partisanship. Far more than when he delivered the talk, we live now in the Age of the Take, in which a seemingly infinite supply of blog posts, opinion columns, books and TV talking heads compete to tell us how to feel about the news. Most of this opinionising focuses less on stacking up hard facts in favour of an argument than it does on declaring what attitude you ought to adopt: the typical take invites you to conclude, say, that Donald Trump is a fascist, or that he isn’t, or that BBC presenters are overpaid, or that your yoga practice is an instance of cultural appropriation. (This shouldn’t really come as a surprise: the internet economy is fuelled by attention, and it’s far easier to seize someone’s attention with emotionally charged argument than mere information – plus you don’t have to pay for the expensive reporting required to ferret out the facts.) The New Optimists promise something different: a way to feel about the state of the world based on the way it really is.

But after steeping yourself in their work, you begin to wonder if all their upbeat factoids really do speak for themselves. For a start, why assume that the correct comparison to be making is the one between the world as it was, say, 200 years ago, and the world as it is today? You might argue that comparing the present with the past is stacking the deck. Of course things are better than they were. But they’re surely nowhere near as good as they ought to be. To pick some obvious examples, humanity indisputably has the capacity to eliminate extreme poverty, end famines, or radically reduce human damage to the climate. But we’ve done none of these, and the fact that things aren’t as terrible as they were in 1800 is arguably beside the point.

Ironically, given their reliance on cognitive biases to explain our predilection for negativity, the New Optimists may be in the grip of one themselves: the “anchoring bias”, which describes our tendency to rely too heavily on certain pieces of information when making judgments. If you start from the fact that plague victims once languished in the streets of European cities, it’s natural to conclude that life these days is wonderful. But if you start from the position that we could have eliminated famines, or reversed global warming, the fact that such problems persist may provoke a different kind of judgment.

The argument that we should be feeling happier than we are because life on the planet as a whole is getting better, on average, also misunderstands a fundamental truth about how happiness works: our judgments of the world result from making specific comparisons that feel relevant to us, not on adopting what David Runciman refers to as “the view from outer space”. If people in your small American town are far less economically secure than they were in living memory, or if you’re a young British person facing the prospect that you might never own a home, it’s not particularly consoling to be told that more and more Chinese people are entering the middle classes. At book readings in the US midwest, Ridley recalls, audience members frequently questioned his optimism on the grounds that their own lives didn’t seem to be on an upward trajectory. “They’d say, ‘You keep saying the world’s getting better, but it doesn’t feel like that round here.’ And I would say, ‘Yes, but this isn’t the whole world! Are you not even a little bit cheered by the fact that really poor Africans are getting a bit less poor?’” There is a sense in which this is a fair point. But there’s another sense in which it’s a completely irrelevant one.

At its heart, the New Optimism is an ideological argument: broadly speaking, its proponents are advocates for the power of free markets, and they intend their sunny picture of humanity’s recent past and imminent future to vindicate their politics. This is a perfectly legitimate political argument to make – but it’s still a political argument, not a straightforward, neutral reliance on objective facts. The claim that we are living in a golden age, and that our dominant mood of pessimism is unwarranted, is not an antidote to the Age of the Take, but a Take like any other – and it makes just as much sense to adopt the opposite view. “What I dislike,” Runciman says, “is this assumption that if you push back against their argument, what you’re saying is that all these things are not worth valuing … For people to feel deeply uneasy about the world we inhabit now, despite all these indicators pointing up, seems to me reasonable, given the relative instability of the evidence of this progress, and the [unpredictability] that overhangs it. Everything really is pretty fragile.”

(from here)

get out of here dr. pinker

Tulip
Jun 3, 2008

I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world.




Lawman 0 posted:

I don't know why permadepression crew even bothers posting.

I don't know why people outside of permadepression crew even bother posting. We at least feel like we don't have anything better to do with our time, after all.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

fabergay egg
Mar 1, 2012

it's not a rhetorical question, for politely saying 'you are an idiot, you don't know what you are talking about'




Regarde Aduck posted:

I think it's a instinctive desire to spread the despair as to share it and maybe lessen it? But as we're all detached from each other on the internet it just spreads the despair and doesn't make anyone feel any better. Kinda like a virus.

the internet is full of mind viruses and something awful is something of a melting pot for them. i’ve seen it said that some of them were created by the government, but it is mostly been said during a complete meltdown so ymmv. anyway you’re posting in one

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply