
Facts and charts that show the world is getting better - nikolasavic
https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news
======
grecy
I'm in the middle of reading "Factfulness" by Hans Rosling, which does an
excellent job of clearly demonstrating that not only are billions of people
living better lives than they did 20 years ago, but that also we're
conditioned not to believe that good news.

The world is a lot different than many people think.

I highly recommend it.

[1] Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are
Better Than You Think - [https://amzn.to/2CXPdCu](https://amzn.to/2CXPdCu)

~~~
amelius
I'm a huge fan, and was shocked when Rosling died last year. Educating people
about these basic facts is important; who will take his place?

~~~
eliaspro
His son and his daughter in law continue doing a great job at Gapminder [1].
They also finished and published Hans' book after his death.

Max Roser's fantastic project "Our World In Data" [2] does.

Steve Pinker [3] as well.

[1] [https://www.gapminder.org/](https://www.gapminder.org/)

[2] [https://ourworldindata.org/](https://ourworldindata.org/)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker)

------
seltzered_
If you want to read some interesting dissent to the Pinker-esque positivism,
try Nicolas Guilhot's review of 'enlightenment now':
[https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/1993064/h-...](https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/1993064/h-diplo-
commentary-1-enlightenment-now-case-reason-science)

"There is a lot that is wrong with this line of thinking. But what is truly
disturbing is not so much the methodological fallacies due to scale as their
ethical implications: the ‘big picture’ rhetoric obfuscates massive
disparities but it also denies their systemic character."

------
el_benhameen
I used to cite facts like those in these charts to try to convince myself or
others that things are on an upward trajectory and that we’re just at a local
minimim, if anything. But man, I just can’t stomach it anymore. Most of the
points made by these charts will be moot at best and reversed at worse if the
concerns outlined in that latest climate report come true, and we’ve got
politicians and a population who at best don’t give a shit. It seems naive to
try to make the “everything is getting better!” point anymore.

~~~
kauffj
My understanding is that the IPCC estimates put the costs of climate change at
~2% of world GDP, and more aggressive estimates still have it under 10%.

Is there a reason that cost would eliminate all of the gains cited in this
article? Or are you basing the expected impacts off of another source?

~~~
incangold
That’s the IPCC estimate assuming we take urgent global action now.

But instead of taking urgent global action, Brazil are about to open the rain
forest to agri-business; the White House does not believe it is possible to
stop climate change and is rolling back environmental protections and pulling
out of the Paris Accord (which was nowhere near enough in the first place, and
which none of the other signatories were achieving anyway); and Europe is
distracted by Brexit and demagoguery. China are looking more serious, but are
also pissing in the wind at current levels of effort.

The IPCC report is in any case probably extremely optimistic on the impact of
releasing the methane stored in permafrost. That could catapult temperatures
up far too quickly for the ecosystem to adapt to, or even humanity to adapt
to, even if we science very, very hard.

So 1.5 degrees is what we get if we put in unprecedented effort that none of
the important countries are showing any signs of doing, and also if we use
probably-optimistic models.

At least 4 degrees is more likely on current trajectory, and that is
absolutely terrifying. North of that we get into the end of civilisation in
anything like its current form.

Also, arguably the most important gains of the last decades are from what used
to be called the developing world dragging itself out of poverty. A
disproportionate share of the economic and human cost of climate collapse will
fall on those countries. Which doesn’t seem very fair because they haven’t had
enough time to significantly contribute to or benefit from burning
hydrocarbons.

It is quite frustrating because doing what we need to do to stop all of this
is relatively simple, if quite difficult, is basically inevitable anyway
because renewables are increasingly cheaper than fossil fuels, and will make
the world better in all sorts of other ways.

Get your shit together humanity.

~~~
kauffj
A quick attempt to find costs for 4 degrees C found ~7% of GDP, which would be
inline with the figures from my original post.

Source (first result for "gdp global warming 4 degree celsius"):
[https://phys.org/news/2018-08-trillion-lost-temperatures-
deg...](https://phys.org/news/2018-08-trillion-lost-temperatures-degrees.html)

Do you have alternative numbers? 7% of GDP is a big hit, but it's not "end of
civilization".

~~~
graeme
I don't think any economic models are reliable in the event of 4 degrees of
warming. The system is far too complex to forecast with any precision.

We can conclusively say it would be bad, but "how bad" can't be stated
quantitatively. Only qualitatively, in terms of "X percent of land would be
rendered uninhabitable" or "X% increase in crop failures".

Those are numbers, of course and can be estimated better. I'm saying they
can't be combined to a global gdp total. The system is too large, and there
will be cascading effects. Some sort of war is also a likely result, and then
all bets are off.

------
sievebrain
Not a big fan of vox but this is a nice article, such reminders are always
welcome. It is however unfortunate that the journalist feels a need to start
with the usual silly bashfest - democracy is dying you see, except for this
graph in our own article that shows democracies have never been more common. I
realise this journalist is distinguishing between "democracy" and "liberal
democracy" but for an article filled with graphs you'd think they could show
some data to back up the point.

~~~
cabaalis
It's kind of a form of virtue signaling (edit: or at least tribalism.) Like
saying: "I'm about to say good things about the state of the world, that don't
jive with your current feelings about things. I know, I know, we're on the
same team, and none of what I'm about to say is at all attributable to that
awful politician we all hate."

------
paulpauper
Steven pinker wrote about this in 2007. his words still ring true despite an
increasingly partisan and negative media and political landscape.

------
wiz21c
FTA :

>>> 4) People in developed countries have more leisure time

which is justified by a decrease in the number of work hours iin a week. As it
occured to those guys that if the number of working hours decrease it's
because unemployment increases. And, in my country, unemployment is not
exactly leisure time, it's stressful time, ain't money, must find a job...

>>> 8) Death in childbirth is rarer

Well most of the progress were down in the 19th century, so they're counting
mostly insignifcant things (statistically, I don*t mean childbirth is
insignificant at all, got kids)

>>> 9) People have been getting taller for centuries

That's in europe, i.e. a small part of the world

>>> 17) We’ve rapidly reduced the supply of nuclear weapons

didn't know that, it looks much better than those anti-nuclear guys said to me
last time. Good news indeed.

>>> 18) More people in the world live in a democracy now

That's so wester/occidental... Who says that democracy is such a good news ?

>>> 19) More people are going to school for longer

What about the other countries ?

>>> 22) Access to the internet is increasing

Read the exact opposite 2 days ago (lost the source though :( )

...

~~~
coldtea
_> >> 17) We’ve rapidly reduced the supply of nuclear weapons >didn't know
that, it looks much better than those anti-nuclear guys said to me last time.
Good news indeed_

On the other hand the "reduced supply" is irrelevant, since they're still more
than enough to kill millions and impact the lives of billions. The important
question is if we reduced the likelihood of them being used, not if they went
from 1000 to 200 in some hangar...

~~~
labster
It does matter, because it reduces the attack surface. For mission critical
security tasks, it's helpful to deprecate old services.

~~~
coldtea
That's a valid point, was thinking from the "states actually using them"
tangent.

------
Gys
A nice optimistic view on the development of mankind in this world. Its
probably very human to think mankind is the only kind that really matters, so
mankind = world.

~~~
robbrown451
I'm concerned about all the pebbles. Does anyone think of the pebbles?

------
hliyan
Perhaps this article is not truly complete without a graph representing the
general trend of economic inequality since the early 1980's...

~~~
nabla9
Google "elephant curve".

Only those with income in top 75-99 percentiles have not followed the richest
1 percent.

West bitches about income inequality because our working class and middle
class have low productivity growth. In the rest of the world incomes have kept
up.

~~~
mistermann
> low productivity growth

Low productivity growth, or low wage growth (and possibly, especially when
compared to productivity growth)?

Do you believe those bitching have a legitimate grievance?

------
chiefalchemist
But. Not all those betters are better.

For example, spending less on food is not the same as eating healthier. In the
first world obesity is creating a crisis.

Taller? That traslates to needing more resources. More to feed. More to
clothe.

I'm not waiting to be a cynic. But using 20th century metrics nearly two
decades into the 21st century is not a status quo that makes me comfortable;
especially as I extrapolate into the future.

~~~
otherme123
Spending less SHARE OF INCOME in food means that on average the food is
cheaper and/or people are earning more. If you can empathize with people
outside the US or Europe, that means that those people that earn $1 or $2
dollars per day all of their income was obviously spent on food. When those
people earn $20 per day, they start to buy other goods.

If you reduce the World to the USA, then the problem is indeed worst food.
That is currently expressed in the lower life expectancy in the US, compared
with the richest countries. But almost any US resident that spends the 10-12%
of their wage (world average) in food is going to be correctly feed.

Taller means that your genetics can express to their full potential. It's a
very good index from when a country can feed the 100% of the needs of the
youngest population. Poor countries malnourishes their youth (not on quantity
but on quality) so they don't grow to their full potential height. Their
people tend to be smaller. As soon as they become richer their youth starts to
be taller. Are you saying that is better to starve the youth to save on future
feed or clothings?

~~~
chiefalchemist
Re: income as purchasing power.

Perhaps. But none the less, as stated, that does not mean ppl are eating
__better__.

Fact: More ppl now die as a result of too much food, than not enough.

~~~
otherme123
Something to eat is __better__ than nothing. You keep reducing The World to
The US and it's not the same thing. Many, many people in the world starved in
terms of vitamins and other nutrients, and they just fill their body with rice
or corn floor. Which is just shy of dying from starvation, and put any body in
the brink of the death at the minimal illness.

In those cases, almost any increase in the quantity of food different from
rice or floor is beneficial. Suddenly, millions of people could add carrots,
tomatoes, oranges, pepper... to their monotonic diet, for the same or even
less money. Yes, billions of people are eating __better__ than 30 years ago.

But you insist this is wrong because some people in the US cannot shut their
mouth and somehow are forced to eat beef in buckets. Please, explain me how
this is related to people starving in Africa 20-30 years ago, or if you are
saying thantobesity is a problem there.

------
TheOtherHobbes
This reminds me of those 'And we can be confident this bull run will last
forever!' financial sermons you see just before a major crash.

There are huge, huge problems in the medium/near term. Faith, hope, and what
used to be called boosterism are a poor substitute for active, tangible
solutions.

------
k__
I always had the feeling much more people were smoking in the past. At least 4
out of 5.

------
CM30
Now all we need is the media to stop being so negative about everything and
break the 'controversy for clicks' bullshit they seem to depend on. Honestly,
just a complete freeze on stories about Trump, Brexit and terrorism for a week
or two would probably cheer up a lot of people and break the 'everythings
going to hell' narrative that's infecting society right now.

~~~
tenukitime
We also need religions to stop insisting that the world is going to hell in a
handbasket.

------
jexah
Interesting to note that Vox is reporting on something real.

------
ben_utzer
Homicide rate have fallen since 1400. Nice. Why starting that far away? People
understand time surrounding them of around 100 years. No one really compares
themselves to people that lived 200 years ago or more.

------
ThomPete
Statistically, humans have one testicle.

The world is getting better statistically, that's the good news. That doesn't
mean that everyone experiences it even if they are part of that very
statistics.

~~~
didibus
I'd be concerned if the world didn't average one testicle.

I understand the min could have gotten worst, the max higher, and the middle
unchanged. And its not like we should all pat ourself on the back and stop
trying. But, if the statistic were showing things to be getting worse, it
would be way worse. So I can't really agree with the defeatist attitude here,
there's no way to put this data in a bad light, this is the trend you want to
see.

~~~
ThomPete
It's not about putting it in bad light it's about showing how the statistics
world can be 100% correct but still not represent the real world.

------
itomato
If you see multiple indicators that rapid and increasing population growth is
assured as a sign that 'the world is getting better', I fear for our future.

~~~
40acres
Taken by itself I don't think population growth is a positive or negative
statistic. People are living longer, death by disease is down, childhood
mortality and death by pregnant mothers is down. These are all good stats.

How population affects climate change seems to be the biggest negative
externality.

~~~
itomato
Alone maybe they are "good stats". The trend doesn't bode well for a sustained
livelihood with our planet when fishery stocks are being exploited and
depleted at an equal rate.

Of the 600 marine fish stocks monitored by FAO:

3% are underexploited

20% are moderately exploited

52% are fully exploited

17% are overexploited

7% are depleted

1% are recovering from depletion

Further troubles exist on land, with global deforestation increasing YOY.

How will more people living longer benefit from these factors?

------
dilap
To say "short term murder rates are down" and then show a graph ending in 2015
is pretty dishonest. (There was a sharp uptick in '16.)

------
amai
Needs a 2014 in the title.

------
pdimitar
Statistical averages are an awful way of measuring anything beyond 100 - 1000
people and I am surprised to see statistics is still practiced in its classic
form to this day.

As another poster said, the average person world-wide has one testicle -- yay
for valuable info? It basically tells you nothing.

As a programmer struggling in Eastern Europe at 38 year old still -- things
are very far from what these rosy articles are trying to convince you of. And
seeing what other people at 22-25 are going through... you don't want to know.

But people are quick to believe optimistic statistics when their livelihood
isn't at stake. As the saying goes, it ain't true until it happens to you.
Then it's suddenly oh so true.

~~~
didibus
Things getting better in the average doesn't mean they're getting better for
you. It does mean that they're improving though. Imagine how hard you'd have
it had the average fallen on all these metrics instead of getting better.

None of that means its all great and well. Which I assume is your point?

Would be interesting to see a plot of this graph at the p0 and p100 (min/max)
to get an idea of the baselines.

~~~
pdimitar
I am saying that this claimed economical well-being is still largely clustered
by countries or even regions. That I am struggling means nothing in the global
scale, that is true -- but when you see almost everybody around you struggle
then you have a very hard time believing these articles.

My mother got a slightly bigger pension -- which changed it from 55 to 60 EUR
a month. That's not a typo. Hooray for 10% improvement?

I feel these stats would be much more credible if they gave you your actual %
more direct buying power in terms of food, tech or leisure time based on your
country -- not on a world-wide average which is non-informative. The way these
stats articles are currently framed though, they are all but useless.

~~~
didibus
I totally agree, some countries and regions could very well be on the decline,
while the average is still going up. And that's a big problem. And if you're
looking for insight into your own area, ya this is not really trying to be an
article to allow you to make data driven decisions about your local politics
and laws. It would have been nice of them to put all these into a tableau
dashboard with many more dimensions so we could have played with the data some
more and gathered better insight.

That said, I disagree about these averages being useless. They're still a
valid indicator of the world average in some specific metrics. And for those,
they're showing a good trend for the better. If we were to monitor them, and
discover a drastic change in one of them, it would be cause for concern.
Similarly, seeing them continue to improve is cause for consolation.

~~~
pdimitar
I would like even these condensed stats much more if they told us where do
these average improvements come from -- and whom they benefit.

I mean, it could just be 20_000 founders in SV getting rich because of the
blockchain hype, and 50_000 Chinese businessmen making a lucky break, and
100_000 agriculture businesses going past $10M annual profits, etc. Add some
more such data points and I still can't see how the world on average is better
off -- it would still show a 5-figure number of businessmen being better off
(less than 0.01% of world population), but not how an average single mother of
two is.

...I guess I ended up trying to paraphrase another sibling comment of mine --
don't you think that if we see these stats without the extreme ends of the
bell curve included, it would give us a better insight on how is the average
folk doing?

------
dc2
This is a breath of fresh air.

------
antoineMoPa
Ok, but what about debt, climate change, pollution in the ocean, loss of
biodiversity, me busting my 2000 free minutes of CI in gitlab, etc.

------
bjt2n3904
While I'm thankful for all these things, empiricism falls short of being able
to tell us about the state of the world.

What are the units of love, and suffering? How do you measure them, and plot
them on a graph? And furthermore, how do you know how these will trend in the
next decade, much less the next year?

~~~
coldtea
Don't give these charts too much credit in the "empiricism" department either.
There's lots of cherry picking and manipulation involved in government
statistics...

