25 charts and maps that show the world is getting much, much better

[Axulus]

See the link for details. Here are the 26 things:

1. Extreme poverty has fallen

2. Hunger is falling

3. Child labor is on the decline

4. People in developed countries have more leisure time

5. The share of income spent on food has plummeted in the US

6. Life expectancy is rising

7. Child mortality is down

8. Death in childbirth is rarer

9. People are getting taller

10. More people have access to malaria bednets

11. Guinea worm is almost eradicated

12. Teen births in the US are down

13. As is smoking

14. War is on the decline

15. Homicide rates are falling in Europe...

16. ...and the US too

17. Violent crime in the US is going down

18. We've rapidly reduced the supply of nuclear weapons

19. More and more countries are democracies

20. More people are going to school for longer

21. And literacy is, predictably, up as well

22. The US unsheltered homeless population has fallen by nearly 32 percent since 2007.

23. Moore's law is still going

24. Access to the internet is increasing

25. Solar power is getting cheaper

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/charts-thankful

 

[Jayjay]

How many of those would sitll be true if you consider absolute rather than relative numbers?

A million people in extreme poverty is still a million people, regardless of whether the entire world population is 1 billion or 10 billion.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I will say for "world" too many maps the do focus on the United States and Europe a lot.

 

[NobleSavage]

Dude or dudette, this forum is about complaining about the world. Nobody, cares about your good news.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The people may be getting better but I question that the planet is. I need to see the one that shows the planet is gaining in it's ability to support all these well fed literate people.
It's all going to come crashing down. We're doomed. Doomed I tell you.

 

[Axulus]

How many of those would sitll be true if you consider absolute rather than relative numbers?

A million people in extreme poverty is still a million people, regardless of whether the entire world population is 1 billion or 10 billion.

But isn't the relevant criteria is the relative number in poverty? What are the odds that a person born today will grow up in absolute poverty? Using absolute criteria, one would be lead to believe that the globe was far better during the middle ages. However, this is merely an artifact of the far lower global population. Isn't the important thing to determine which situation you would rather be born into under a veil of ignorance, one in where there are 7 billion people and 1 billion in absolute poverty vs one where there are 1 billion people and 500 million people in absolute poverty? Which situation would you rather be born into if you had no ability to choose which of those 1 billion or 7 billion you'd be?

Using absolute criteria, it also doesn't make logical sense to only count people alive today. Isn't just one person in absolute poverty mean that there is one additional human throughout the history of the human species in poverty, and thus a sign that things are actually getting worse?

 

[untermensche]

Imagine how much better the world would be doing if the wealth created was not concentrated and controlled by so few hands.

And all this will change when we begin to run out of oil unless the current system is drastically changed.

That is if the climate doesn't reach an unforeseen breaking point and humans rapidly become extinct.

 

[Axulus]

Imagine how much better the world would be doing if the wealth created was not concentrated and controlled by so few hands.

And all this will change when we begin to run out of oil unless the current system is drastically changed.

That is if the climate doesn't reach an unforeseen breaking point and humans rapidly become extinct.

Climate change won't cause humans to rapidly become extinct, even in the more extreme scenarios. You are falling for the fear propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Furthermore, have you ever once considered that the system that creates the most wealth may also be the one that results in the wealth being concentrated, and this may actually be the better outcome for the poor compared to one that limits the concentration of the wealth but severely stunts its creation?

 

[untermensche]

Imagine how much better the world would be doing if the wealth created was not concentrated and controlled by so few hands.

And all this will change when we begin to run out of oil unless the current system is drastically changed.

That is if the climate doesn't reach an unforeseen breaking point and humans rapidly become extinct.

Climate change won't cause humans to rapidly become extinct, even in the more extreme scenarios. You are falling for the fear propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Your promise is not worth a thing. We are losing species everyday. We are losing them as fast as they disappeared in the last great extinction. We have no idea how far it can go until large mammals can't survive.

Furthermore, have you ever once considered that the system that creates the most wealth may also be the one that results in the wealth being concentrated, and this may actually be the better outcome for the poor compared to one that limits the concentration of the wealth but severely stunts its creation?

Yes Pangloss, the best of all possibly worlds just happens to be the one that concentrates wealth and then uses that concentrated wealth to keep everybody else subservient.

Why do Americans not have universal health insurance?

The answer is, concentrated wealth and it's influence over elected politicians.

 

[Axulus]

Climate change won't cause humans to rapidly become extinct, even in the more extreme scenarios. You are falling for the fear propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Your promise is not worth a thing. We are losing species everyday. We are losing them as fast as they disappeared in the last great extinction. We have no idea how far it can go until large mammals can't survive.

Furthermore, have you ever once considered that the system that creates the most wealth may also be the one that results in the wealth being concentrated, and this may actually be the better outcome for the poor compared to one that limits the concentration of the wealth but severely stunts its creation?

Yes Pangloss, the best of all possibly worlds just happens to be the one that concentrates wealth and then uses that concentrated wealth to keep everybody else subservient.

Why do Americans not have universal health insurance?

The answer is, concentrated wealth and it's influence over elected politicians.

You don't think the wealth is concentrated in Europe, where universal healthcare is widespread?

What level of wealth concentration would be acceptable to you?

Do you think the Chinese are far better off today, with more concentrated wealth and far more billionaires, than 40 years ago when there was little concentration of wealth (and little wealth overall)?

Income equality and wealth equality doesn't mean much when everyone is equally poor and many are suffering from malnutrition, infant mortality, filth and disease:

I personally have very little problem with it so long as trends seen in the 25 charts and maps or other similar data in my OP continue.

 

[laughing dog]

Climate change won't cause humans to rapidly become extinct, even in the more extreme scenarios. You are falling for the fear propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Whether it makes humans extinct is less relevant than the potential havoc it may cause. Of which the costs will fall mostly on those least likely and able to deal with it.

Furthermore, have you ever once considered that the system that creates the most wealth may also be the one that results in the wealth being concentrated, and this may actually be the better outcome for the poor compared to one that limits the concentration of the wealth but severely stunts its creation?

While that is a possibility, one would have to show that the former will necessarily be better than the latter - something I do not believe can be done.

 

[Axulus]

Whether it makes humans extinct is less relevant than the potential havoc it may cause. Of which the costs will fall mostly on those least likely and able to deal with it.

Agreed - we just need to be realistic in the costs and not make spurious claims such as "it will lead to rapid human extinction".

While that is a possibility, one would have to show that the former will necessarily be better than the latter - something I do not believe can be done.

Yep. I think there is a balance somewhere. untermenche has not demonstrated that his proposed balance, which is on the extreme side of mitigating income and wealth inequality, will lead to better outcomes for society than current levels of inequality or even something less extreme than his ideal. Norway, the most prosperous society in the history of the human species, with high marks in most aspects worth caring about (income, life expectancy, high school and college completion rates, hours of leisure, unemployment levels, homelessness, etc.) are very good and it still has the feature of high levels of wealth inequality. Perhaps Norway is the right balance to achieve the best outcomes for society? untermenche certainly hasn't come close to disproving it.

 

[untermensche]

You don't think the wealth is concentrated in Europe, where universal healthcare is widespread?

Nice dodge. Again, the reason the US does not have universal health insurance is because of the control of Congress by concentrated wealth that is making a lot of money with the current system.

What level of wealth concentration would be acceptable to you?

What I want is a worker owned and run system that puts wealth into the hands of the people that create it as opposed to into the hands of hedge fund managers and corporate executives and the stock portfolios of the rich.

I oppose the current top down dictatorial economic system. Which is the reason for concentrated wealth at a level it can control the government.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Climate change won't cause humans to rapidly become extinct, even in the more extreme scenarios. You are falling for the fear propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Furthermore, have you ever once considered that the system that creates the most wealth may also be the one that results in the wealth being concentrated, and this may actually be the better outcome for the poor compared to one that limits the concentration of the wealth but severely stunts its creation?

Directly, no. Fighting over the habitable land, maybe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you think the Chinese are far better off today, with more concentrated wealth and far more billionaires, than 40 years ago when there was little concentration of wealth (and little wealth overall)?

Income equality and wealth equality doesn't mean much when everyone is equally poor and many are suffering from malnutrition, infant mortality, filth and disease:

I personally have very little problem with it so long as trends seen in the 25 charts and maps or other similar data in my OP continue.

Yes and no.

In general I agree, the lot of the poor in China has been going up. I've been going there since the late 90s, the changes I have seen are tremendous--and the changes my wife has seen dwarf what I have seen.

However, in the last couple of years food prices have been going up rapidly--faster than my impression of how the income of the poor has gone in those years.

 

[Axulus]

Do you think the Chinese are far better off today, with more concentrated wealth and far more billionaires, than 40 years ago when there was little concentration of wealth (and little wealth overall)?

Income equality and wealth equality doesn't mean much when everyone is equally poor and many are suffering from malnutrition, infant mortality, filth and disease:

I personally have very little problem with it so long as trends seen in the 25 charts and maps or other similar data in my OP continue.

Yes and no.

In general I agree, the lot of the poor in China has been going up. I've been going there since the late 90s, the changes I have seen are tremendous--and the changes my wife has seen dwarf what I have seen.

However, in the last couple of years food prices have been going up rapidly--faster than my impression of how the income of the poor has gone in those years.

That is anecdotal. Food has been inflating faster than overall inflation, but overall inflation remains within reason:

 

[fast]

People are getting taller?

 

[Axulus]

People are getting taller?

Demonstrates the decline of malnutrition

 

[Underseer]

I have to disagree with the Moore's law claim. So far as I know, Moore's law is still valid largely because we keep changing the definition.

 

[fast]

People are getting taller?

Demonstrates the decline of malnutrition

Oh okay, thanks.