
2017 was probably the best year in the history of humanity - moat
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/opinion/sunday/2017-progress-illiteracy-poverty.html
======
spodek
Just looking at the pictures of Lebanon's shores after a regular storm
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/world/middleeast/trash-
le...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/world/middleeast/trash-lebanon-
beach.html), the amount of garbage is shocking, even after seeing tons of
pictures of garbage.

Maybe nature destroyed affects me more than others, but they're pictures of
regular, ordinary life these days. People didn't hunt for them.

For those who remember the 1970s "Crying Indian" public service announcement,
the chart in this article [https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/remember-single-
tear-anti-...](https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/remember-single-tear-anti-
litter-ads-from-70s-youll-cry-too-at-our-pollution-levels-today.html) shows
its place in the context of global plastic production.

When past generations considered garbage levels a crying shame, the global
amount plastic produced _ever_ looks something like what we produce in a week
today.

That's just plastic. There's also CO2, mercury, etc, plus depletion of
topsoil, fish, rain forests, species diversity...

I should add my point isn't to bring people down first thing in the morning
but to call to action to reduce our consumption. We can act on these things.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

Such a simple concept, but seemingly impossible to get people to actually
understand _why_ it's so important.

~~~
tw1010
People won't change unless the incentive structure (monetary or in the shape
of social pressure) is in place to make them want to do it.

~~~
spodek
I have, in several ways, and they've improved my life.

One example is avoiding food packaging, which has made my diet more delicious
and convenient. More social too, in knowing my farmers and hosting more guests
for dinners [http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/avoiding-food-
packagin...](http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/avoiding-food-packaging).

YMMV, but it's been one of my life biggest improvements.

~~~
tw1010
On an individual level, of course. But wishing that people would "just get
it", or letting it affect you emotionally in any way, is a losing battle since
the bigger picture social behaviour won't change unless the incentives are in
place. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean monetary incentives. It could mean
introducing carrots and sticks in the form of new social norms and dynamics.

~~~
spodek
Is anyone suggesting only working on an individual level, just wishing, or
getting down emotionally? As for me, I'm inspired by past leaders who have led
change and movements on this scale before.

Unless I misunderstand you, "People won't change unless the incentive
structure (monetary or in the shape of social pressure) is in place to make
them want to do it." seems inconsistent with history.

My podcast, Leadership and the Environment
[http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast](http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast), is an
initial step I'm taking, but just a start.

~~~
tw1010
I think we're actually in agreement. You seem to be doing something about it,
with your podcast, and that's great! My point was mostly aimed towards the
first poster, whose stance seemed to be to mostly complain and wish that
people would "just get" that recycling is the key to the problem. I'm not
saying recycling isn't the solution. I'm saying the strategy of waiting or
wishing for people to start recycling won't work unless incentives change,
such as introducing new social norms, or changing our culture or relationship
towards recycling. Bringing the subject into public discussion, like what
you're doing, is a great strategy to make that happen, I think, so props to
you!

~~~
KozmoNau7
My complaint is that it should be self evident that we're over using the
planet's resources, and that we should take steps to reduce that.

But people don't care, or are even actively working against it. Because it
doesn't inconvenience them right here, right now.

When it does, it'll be too late.

~~~
tw1010
When something "should" be true, but isn't, a better course of action than to
wish things were not the way they are, is to take it upon ourselves to fix the
thing, to educate those we're in touch with who don't get it, in as patient
and pedagogical and understanding a way as possible. If we don't do this, then
we have no right to complain.

~~~
KozmoNau7
I am certainly trying to do that, and trying to set a good example.

Unfortunately, "not buying new stuff all the time" isn't really something that
resonates with most people.

------
CalRobert
2017 was good. So was 2016.

If I take my mortgage money and blow it all at the casino, that's probably fun
too.

We've been taking out loans from the atmosphere and the oceans for a hundred
years and spending like mad. In the end, nature will prove to be a more cruel
lender than any human.

~~~
sudhirj
This just made me think of an interesting point. We’re basically running
humanity as a whole like a startup. We’re consuming resources like crazy, just
running full speed ahead to a future where the loans taken in the present will
be offset by some kind of technological revolution - fusion power, weather
control, large scale desalination, drone reforestation and ocean cleanup,
underground builds, clean energy and space elevators.

People do actually like nature. When technology advances far enough, humans
will use it to restore nature again, not necessarily because we feel obligated
to, but because it sells houses.

~~~
CalRobert
"When technology advances far enough, "

This is not a given. It presupposes the continued existence of modern
civilization. Who spends time researching carbon sequestration when their
flooded neighbors from the next city over are trying to take your resources by
force?

Also,the atmosphere is the ultimate tragedy of the commons problem, and we
haven't fixed it in decades of trying.

The planet will return to a sustainable state. Sadly the loss of nearly all
vertebrates and billions of dead is sustainable. Hell, so is Venus. Saying how
great things are while dancing on top of the landmine, as this article is
doing in a sense, seems foolhardy.

------
danso
I wouldn't presume to question Nicholas Kristof's awareness of world and
humanitarian affairs, given that his career is so focused on it. And I applaud
what I perceive to be his intent, to remind all the folks (mostly east coast
media folks) that there is a world beyond Trump's tweets, and that it is not
all crisis.

But I'm unclear how he can say 2017 is the best year in human history. Is it
merely an argument of numbers? That since hundreds of thousands more people
every day have electricity and water, that the net amount of suffering has
surely decreased?

To put it another way, what kind of disaster would have to happen in 2017 for
us to say that 2017 was worse than 2016? According to his numbers, nearly 100
million people get access to water and electricity every year (300K per day).
If we had got into a nuclear war that wiped out 1M people, could we still see
stay that 2017 was, all things considered, a better year?

Last year, the UN said the Yemen/Africa crisis was the worst humanitarian
crisis since WW2. That sounds like something that would disqualify 2017 from
being considered as "probably the very best year in the long history of
humanity." Unless it is the case that we had far fewer wars and crises
elsewhere in 2017? Is that the case?

Edit: forgot the link [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/11/world-
faces-wo...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/11/world-faces-worst-
humanitarian-crisis-since-1945-says-un-official)

~~~
oconnor663
> Last year, the UN said the Yemen/Africa crisis was the worst humanitarian
> crisis since WW2.

Looking that up real quick, it sounds like it's put 20 million people at risk
of starvation, which is very bad. But the Great Leap Forward in China had an
actual death toll (not just a risk estimate) that was even larger than that,
1958-62.

~~~
danso
Sure, but the OP isn't saying that 2017 was better than the 1950s, he says he
believes it to be "probably the very best year in the long history of
humanity". Which means it's better than 2016, 2015, 2012, etc. Is it possible
all those other years had similar continent-level crises that make them less
bad than 2017? I get that his larger point that Western suffering is a small
part of the equation. But it seems to me there was a lot of suffering
elsewhere too. Not Holocaust or Spanish Flu levels of suffering, just maybe
enough to make it less great of a year than others this decade.

------
RickJWagner
I really believe these will be considered great days. Ignore the political
hyperbole, see the actual good being done.

------
anovikov
What's even more important, this progress is happening without, or with
limited amount of, its downsides.

Like, fewer and fewer children dying does not result in uncontrollable,
Malthusian population explosion: number of children in the world remains
constant, population grows just because of growth of life expectancy.

More and more people getting electricity does not mean we are using more and
more non-renewable resources: consumption of coal and oil remains nearly
constant and only natural gas is on the rise (while this is the cleanest fuel
and there is a lot of it left).

Same can't be said about clean water, though.

~~~
sharemywin
There's a lot of desalinization projects going on in the middle east and
Africa.

------
bryanlarsen
quote from the article: "The world is registering important progress, but it
also faces mortal threats."

------
zerostar07
I presume there is a very large proportion of years in the history of humanity
which were record best, so not sure how newsworthy this is.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
It's a bit like all time highs in the markets, not that surprising really.

------
croon
The graph may still have gone up during 2017, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't worry about the derivative.

~~~
spodek
If the value went up, the derivative would still be positive. I think you mean
the second derivative.

~~~
croon
Your clarification is of course correct but the graph of the first derivative
would be going down was my insinuation.

------
dpweb
How would serious historians weigh in? Im skeptical because the tendency to
assume we are always think, THIS is the greatest moment in human history. The
last few centuries built up an amazing amount, but also tore alot apart.

~~~
oblio
Not really. During the peaks of economic cycles, yes, we believe that we're on
top of the world. But for most of the time,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age)

You can't get stuff like MAGA without this psychological factor.

------
HugoDaniel
Nevermind the global warming

~~~
jcbrand
or the species collapse, ocean acidification, disappearing coral reefs or
ocean gyres full of plastic

~~~
graphitezepp
Increasing teen suicide rate, skyrocketing expenses going towards mental
health resources ...

~~~
refurb
This may be depressing to you, but there will never be a point in time where
there are no problems to be solved. You better enjoy the small wins when you
can.

~~~
graphitezepp
I probably shouldn't be so negative. But on the other hand I think its
important to not get too caught up in celebrating our success and pay
attention to what we lose to what is generally considered progress. Their are
clear social problems that come from the nature of our technologically
advanced society that need acknowledged.

------
nickthemagicman
2017 had a few metrics that were better than other years. That's all.

Also, there's a difference between 'thriving' and 'surviving'.

Less people starving is good, but, less people around the world are
'thriving'.

Fascism is on the rise, nuclear war, environmental devastation, Inequality is
massive.

This article picks a few metrics but they're not the full picture.

------
TheAdamAndChe
Yes, things are improving on a global scale, but that doesn't mean that the
sense of unease within the United States is baseless. Quality of life for the
lower and lower-middle classes has been declining, particularly in rural
areas. Medical, educational, and housing costs have been increasing far faster
than inflation. Social media combined with legalized bribery and
gerrymandering threaten or have destroyed our democracy, with social media in
particular amplifying everyone's us-vs-them mentality to the point that
everyone feels persecuted. Anxiety, depression, and suicide rates are up.
Economic growth is mostly limited to a handful of large cities with high costs
of living that complain of labor shortages, yet more affordable rural areas
continue to suffer from work shortages.

Global growth and improvement is great, but if pockets of instability don't
get addressed and corrected, those trends may change.

~~~
diggan
Now I'm writing this comment on a website hosted in the US, about a article
from a US newspaper, to a person who probably live in the US. And I'm not from
the US.

But I think the point of the article is to point out: sure, the US is getting
worse and worse (maybe) but you can't just throw up your hands in the air and
say "the world is going to shit!" as the world isn't going to shit. Most of
the world is improving, but it's hard for the US media to present that view
(maybe because good news doesn't sell? I don't know). The author points out
that news focuses on bad news, and in the US, probably on US news. But there
are other places in this world too.

I frequently see people from the US claim that the world improvements will
end, because the US is getting worse.

But the good news is, the world is in fact getting better, even though the US
might not be improving a lot currently.

> Global growth and improvement is great, but if pockets of instability [in
> the US] don't get addressed and corrected, those trends may change.

I've added the text in the brackets. If I understand your message correct,
you're saying that if for example housing costs in the US doesn't improve,
global growth and improvement might slow down? I'm sorry but that seems small-
sighted and exactly what I'm writing about above.

Edit: fun thing to do, search for "world worse" on Twitter or social media of
your choice, and see how many people are writing about how the
world/everything is getting worse, on a article about something US specific
that won't impact anything outside the US borders.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
> I frequently see people from the US claim that the world improvements will
> end, because the US is getting worse... But the good news is, the world is
> in fact getting better, even though the US might not be improving a lot
> currently.

> If I understand your message correct, you're saying that if for example
> housing costs in the US doesn't improve, global growth and improvement might
> slow down?

I believe that if the US doesn't improve, global growth would slow, yes. In
the US, our "economy" is growing because globalization has lowered operating
costs while spreading wealth to poorer nations. This is the absolutely largest
reason that global poverty has declined. However, because the US has such a
high quality of life, our lower class cannot compete.

I believe that if this trend continues, the US will reach a tipping point
where people revolt. Because the US is the largest economy in the world,
globalization would slow down or reverse for a bit, reversing the positive
global trend.

I'm not saying that the world wouldn't adapt and overcome. The world doesn't
need the US in the long-term. But it would be rough for a while.

If you disagree, I would love to know why.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I suppose the ultimate conclusion of globalisation is a levelling out of
living standards around the world. Whether this means Western nations becoming
less well off is an interesting question.

I'm not sure the US is as important as you think now, there is an inertia in
developing nations that might slow but is probably quite hard to stop.

