Posted: Feb 25, 2014 4:54 am
tuco wrote:I have two points.
1. Whats better is subjective and since reasons of the people mentioned in OP: A lot of people think it's getting worse and worse in this world are not stated nor obvious, I fail to see what the statistical evidence is to support. Oh yeah, that the world is getting better ..
But isn't "better" (an) objective after "good" is defined, like "progress"? Can't it be said an entity is objectively better when the good has been improved?
People generally consider "suffering" a bad thing. Fighting suffering by reducing poverty and violence could then be considered a good thing, and succes in this fight would make the world "better".
2. Statistical evidence presented has limited value as it covers fraction of what the world consists of. It does not cover butterflies for example. While humans are .. the most important things in this world, they do not live in vacuum. Then to talk about the world as equal to human, predefined, well-being is at least simplistic.
I wouldn't say simplistic. In the web of life humanity is our clan. Their suffering is our suffering. Their fate is also mine. Yet, on occasion, we have room to care for butterflies too. Perhaps even more so in the future if our suffering is further addressed succesfully
BTW are people today happier than people say I dunno 5000 years ago? They should be since they are getting better.
I don't know. Let's think of an example: I would say that the loss of a child would make a parent very unhappy. I would contend that this was also the case for parents 5000 years ago. With not many options to prevent having children and not many options to prevent them from dying you would have to claim that people 5000 years ago don't depend much on their children for their happiness. That losing a child wasn't so much of a big deal as it is now. I don't know if I can see it that way.