So let me get this right. Because civilization is advancing, it means nobody should complain and try to make things better for those that are the worst off?
You see, you're only focusing on the "things are getting better" part. The problem with your article is how it takes that and runs.
This is where it goes errant. It conflates progress with acceptance. There are still hungry people in the world, there are kids that go to school hungry in the U.S. There are people who die from lack of healthcare in the U.S.
I imagine your touting of this is all about your desire for climate change to not be seen as a serious problem because in this translation of Pinker's work, suddenly there are no real problems and everything is great, we should all just be happy and not worry about anything. It is precisely the people who do worry, who do something about these problems that makes things better.
The idea that "progressives really hate progress" and that's all there is to it is a broad generalization. Some of those "progress hating" people fought for civil rights, gay rights, the rights of everyone. That's just an appeal to authority and ridiculous.
You seem to oppose the end of the biofuel crime against humanity so it is strange to see you talk about trying to make things better for the poor...
One of the more basic elements of human nature would be a tendency towards tribalism, yet a good case could be made that it has not remained constant but rather declined over the past centuries - or certainly at the very least shifted away from geographical and ethnic prejudices - and a large part of that is due to passive or indirect consequences of improvements in communications and travel. If largely passive developments can so noticeably counteract a basic element of human nature, why on earth would you assume that our active and culturally-ubiquitous push towards acquisitiveness would have no effect at all? Especially when all indications seem to be that we are in fact consuming more and aspiring for more wealth?
A 2005 paper by researchers at the economics department in the University of Milan:This paper argues that television viewing produces higher material aspirations, by enhancing both adaptation and positional effects, thus lowering the effect of income on life satisfaction. . . .
One Rolex short of contentment, published in the Guardian December 2013There has long been a correlation observed between materialism, a lack of empathy and engagement with others, and unhappiness. But research conducted over the past few years seems to show causation. For example, a series of studies published in the journal Motivation and Emotion in July showed that as people become more materialistic, their wellbeing (good relationships, autonomy, sense of purpose and the rest) diminishes. As they become less materialistic, it rises.
In one study, the researchers tested a group of 18-year-olds, then re-tested them 12 years later. They were asked to rank the importance of different goals – jobs, money and status on one side, and self-acceptance, fellow feeling and belonging on the other. They were then given a standard diagnostic test to identify mental health problems. At the ages of both 18 and 30, materialistic people were more susceptible to disorders. But if in that period they became less materialistic, they became happier. . . .
These studies, while suggestive, demonstrate only correlation. But the researchers then put a group of adolescents through a church programme designed to steer children away from spending and towards sharing and saving. The self-esteem of materialistic children on the programme rose significantly, while that of materialistic children in the control group fell. Those who had little interest in materialism before the programme experienced no change in self-esteem.
Another paper, published in Psychological Science, found that people in a controlled experiment who were repeatedly exposed to images of luxury goods, to messages that cast them as consumers rather than citizens and to words associated with materialism (such as buy, status, asset and expensive), experienced immediate but temporary increases in material aspirations, anxiety and depression. They also became more competitive and more selfish, had a reduced sense of social responsibility and were less inclined to join in demanding social activities. The researchers point out that, as we are repeatedly bombarded with such images through advertisements, and constantly described by the media as consumers, these temporary effects could be triggered more or less continuously.
In terms of the thread topic, these findings might help explain why we often seem to scarcely even care - at least on a social/policy level - about the effect which our overconsumption is having on the planet's other species, on the broader environment and ultimately on future generations.
All human societies and organizations are tribal, everywhere and always. I lived for 18 years outside the US, and traveled abroad extensively even when based here. The fundamental characteristic of tribalism -- who speaks is more important than what is said -- remains fully in force.
The rest of the research you cite is unfortunately of the "water is wet" variety and confirms the truth conveyed in countless popular songs: money can't buy me love, or happiness.
They also confirm (again unsurprisingly) that exposure to advertising and consumer signals tends to orient people towards money/materialism at the expense of social wellbeing and happiness. Which is what I initially said and you instantly dismissed as 'fantasy piled on fantasy':
"what is now approaching almost 24/7 bombardment with advertising and consumerist/materialist culture and values does pretty much fit the trajectory of "abandonment of those enlightenment ideals" and much of our fundamentally human characteristics. . . .
It is axiomatic that a content person has nothing they want to buy, after all, meaning that the overall impetus of marketing strategies in our societies must tend towards promoting an endless ladder of dissatisfaction, and we need only look at the millionaires who still want more and the billionaires who still want more and the mega-billionaires who still want more to see how that works out."
Okay. But what do people with a full brain know? :lol:
'Overpopulation' is a buzzword which amounts to little more than the rich world scape-goating the poor, not least because population growth has slowed or reversed in richer countries. Yes, the bottom nine-tenths of world population do have environmental impacts of their own; but it's the top 9% who own over 85% of global wealth and by implication contribute over three-quarters of our species' environmental impacts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...l-pyramid-of-wealth-infographic/#67ff245c558b
It's a pretty big planet - there's more than enough land and resources to satisfy ten billion people's needs, if it comes to it. But there is far, far too little to satisfy even one billion people's greed.
Before we start talking about restrictions on having children - one of the most biologically and existentially important things we do - maybe we should talk a little about the greed-driven, advertising-saturated materialistic over-consumption orgy that we call our 'culture' first? Christmas being perhaps the best time of year to do so...
That's because it is fantasy if you're looking for a new influence on human nature. It's not new, and neither is the desire to acquire.
There is nothing to connect relative wealth to environment impact. By implication or otherwise.
I never said that it was "new" - even the ancient Egyptians used papyrus to advertise slave sales. Seems you're trying to retrospectively create a strawman as some kind of cover for the obvious error of your knee-jerk reaction.
In only 200 years human population went from 1 billion to 7 billion!
Humans are like a virus that spreads and destroys the host, in our case planet earth. The amount of vegetation and wild life we have destroyed is nothing to be taken lightly.
We keep spreading, destroying forests and wildlife for shelter and agriculture. Everyone with half a brain knows that the planet will not be able to sustain human race unless drastic measures are taken to curb population growth.
We need to start thinking about what drastic measures to take to put a stop to this uncontrolled spreading of the planet’s most destructive living organism.
Limit children to 2? Limit agriculture and find substitutes to cattle? I don’t see how planet can support us for next 200-400 years... people tend to think about now, next 5 years, never a lifetime away..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?