Is the world getting better or worse? A look at the numbers | Steven Pinker

if we look at the human race's success across time though we've survived many pandemics and many hard to adapt to events. I guess it entirely depends on your scale of perspective, from individual and short term to species and long term. An example of support for success could be: ▶ this video (Steven pinker TED talk)

"Is the world getting better or worse? A look at the numbers | Steven Pinker" ▶ this video tl;dr: it's getting better. We're living longer, homicides are down, fewer wars and autocracies, etc..

> there's been an increase in stability and decrease in risk throughout the centuries. Wars, disease, and poverty have been on the decline [0], which is great and makes things more stable and predictable, and therefore debt is less risky and less expensive. It would be great if these trends continue and don’t reverse. However I can’t help but think of the risks climate change will introduce to our world. A world with more extreme weather events is going to chip away at all this stability we have and push us into a less predictable world again [1]. [0] Is the world getting better or worse? A look at the numbers ▶ this video [1] How climate change threatens to wreck the economy link

"Maybe people don't want to bring children into a world that will be worse off in many ways than the one they grew up in?" Objective measurements show that the world better off than it was and still improving. [0] [0] ▶ this video

> at best a marketing gimmick Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is not wisdom. A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past; he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future. The future can be better than the past. According to the data it has been [1][2][3]. So optimism isn't a fluffy ideal to scoff at. Newton's laws make it clear that approaching vacuum allows for greater speeds. An object in motion will remain in motion unless an outside force acts upon it [4]. Therefore, the greater part of truth is out of reach of cynicism. What is more likely, that a man who heads a company that works in the space sector would think that moving through a near-vacuum was honestly more efficient [5]? Or that he would propose it merely as a marketing gimmick? And why can't it be both ? [1]: ▶ this video [2]: link [3]: link [4]: link [5]: link

A quick google search puts the average number of deaths due to car crashes at 3,287 per day [1]. Another one gives me a list of four deaths attributed to autonomous vehicles [2]. Not four per day. Just four. Ever. Memory leads me to recall that statistical reports indicating that vehicles with assistive features like autopilot have a better than traditional safety record [3]. I especially disagree with your thought experiment, because I've watched YouTube videos of situations in which Tesla's autopilot avoided accidents both through stopping and through swerving out of the way [4]. I don't agree with your claim that robotic cars tend to have more severe accidents than traditional cars. [1]: link [2]: link [3]: link [4]: link The short seller thesis for TESLA is that since the company is one which is valued based on its story, not its underlying fundamentals, it follows that its price will be volatile in response to negative press (accidents, missed projections, etc). There is a clear path from this observation to making money via negative press. If you're interested in hearing more about how the world is a lot better than you thought it was, but the truth of our situation is distorted by competing forces, here are some cool TED talks [5][6]. [5]: ▶ this video [6]: link