Things have gotten better and progress has been made from times past, it just seems worse now because we have more access to information. We’ve come far, and have further to go!

  • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    the last two are easily debunked. I hate shit like this because it reinforces an idea that time = progress. There are influential and powerful people alive today who would reverse any of these trends if it meant money in their pocket.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This meme effectively expired in 2019. COVID reversed out the direction on all of it. About the only thing we haven’t stopped backsliding on is “shareholder value”.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    While “technically” true. We all know the average lifespan was brought down by a high infant mortality. So comparingbthat to when peopke retired is meaningless. That said, it dies seem worse because with more information we realize how much better it could be. 100 years ago, the average american had no idea how common slums were outside the US. And those that knew considered those slum people less than human. So what we have really done is expanded who is considered human, and who matters. That certainly does make it look worse.

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, mean lifespan is meaningless if the distribution is bimodal. Median would be a more useful average.

    • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, significantly less dead babies increasing average lifespan is a very happy way to boost that number

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The less/fewer distinction is arbitrary Victorian bullshit flying directly in the face of how English is used. The only point of it was to try and make English more like Latin and allow aristocrats who spoke Latin to look down on those without expensive private education.

          Please dont perpetuate it.

            • Womble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I do beg your pardon, it was Georgian not Victorian era when this nonsense was dreamed up for no reason other than preference for trying to cram Latin-esque cases into english.

              https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-genuine-rule-dictates-the-use-of-less-or-fewer-cs25kv8s5

              The very notion of a neat distinction between fewer and less according to whether the noun is countable or not is a myth. It was invented out of whole cloth by an ill- informed 18th-century pedant called Robert Baker in his book Reflections on the English Language (1770). He proposed this distinction not as a hard-and-fast rule of grammar, moreover, but as a tentative suggestion with caveats (“I should think . . . it appears to me . . . ”) that you won’t find in modern style guides.

              The wiki article on it notes that

              The Cambridge Guide to English Usage notes that the “pressure to substitute fewer for less seems to have developed out of all proportion to the ambiguity it may provide in noun phrases like less promising results”. It describes conformance with this pressure as a shibboleth and the choice “between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less” as a stylistic choice.

              i.e. it is a shibboleth for saying “I am educated unlike you uncultured lot who use natural sounding language”

                • Womble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You cant say “the worst” when talking about an uncountable group, you have to say “the least good” because I prefer that and it makes me sound smart by correcting you. Apparently that is sufficient for it to be understanding language and for you to be wrong.

    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      100 years ago, the average american had no idea how common slums were outside the US.

      This was and still is very true. The level of the poverty in places like that is astounding and beyond the experience of most anyone in a 1st world country. I grew up in America, in poverty of the level that my single mother was only eating what she could scrounge at work some years so she’d have enough to feed us kids. Yet when I deployed to Panama in the mid 90’s for a 2 month military operation, and had to operate in many of the rural areas of Panama during those missions, I had my eyes opened to what real 3rd world poverty looks like. The way I grew up would have been a huge improvement for many of the people I saw there. You can’t really understand it until you’ve seen it with your own eyes.

    • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep, and now there’s not a deluge of dead children dragging the average down, which is objectively pretty great

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, in particular the “average age of death” might be 51 if the average includes a lot of people who died as children. OTOH, the average person dying at 51 is fundamentally different in how you think of it.

        • Seudo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Life expectancy at, is used by academics when relevant. Average at birth, adulthood and even once they’re over the hill have utility. Like identifying outliers.

          Regardless, the average person is going to use average as a nebulas concept occasionally informed by science but hearsay and superstition on an average day.

  • migo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The extreme poverty one is laughable especially when criteria to define extreme poverty is ridiculous. Extreme poverty in places where you earn less than $1.90 but can still have subsistence farming and community doesn’t make sense - also if living in San Francisco and earning $2/day isn’t extreme poverty… I don’t know what is.

    Poverty shouldn’t be tied to capital but to standards of living - that would be a completely different story.

  • metapod@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The environmental problems are critical, though. And it’s what ultimately will decide the fate of our species. There is room for optimism in some aspects of our society, but that is not an indication that in the end everything will be alright.

  • BallShapedMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you like this post maybe read The Progress Paradox. It goes in much more detail than this meme, it then poses the question but then why aren’t we happy. Without giving answers it does point to possible paths. It’s a good book.