Opinion Is the world in decline?

[Mcountry]

I believe this is a central cause to a lot of the decline happening in the last 10years or so.

Very interesting video on how our psychology is being altered by mass Social Media and Internet consumption:

News media is the bigger culprit. Since the passage of information and news has become more easily available bypassing major news outlets, they've grown to sensationalize and radicalize news reported.

Their effect is just playing itself out largely on social media.

This is how CNN has gone from a somewhat decent news source to "this is a whitelash" nonsense. They will report all crimes of whites on blacks as racist, but not blacks on whites. Why? It creates more outrage, more clicks, more bait.

It doesn't help that the amount of corporations who run the major news outlets has trickled down to 3 organizations where it was over 60 when I was growing up. They kept themselves in check by not being so outragous with the news.

People consume their content. They get outraged by the content. They put that outrage into action and this is where we are at. It gets pumped into social media. It forms groups. Groups form into action and we end up with the decay of society and separation we are seeing now.

The major news networks are being very flippant with their responsibility and importance within our society. They have great power and with that comes a great responsibility they do not respect. This could go very bad before it gets acknowledged and we move forward.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Well it comes down to how you define a "decline".

I think in this case, it's more important how you define "middle class". It tends to be defined by an income figure, relative to inflation. But I would say it should be defined by actual lived lifestyle.

If the average middle class family 20 years ago could survive an expensive medical procedure and a job loss over the course of a year, but the average middle class family today cannot, then it's not fair to equate them, since the latter is clearly a decline in quality from the former.

The growth of the middle class is a phenomenon in large parts of what was the "developing world". Some of the largest populations (China and India) have seen an enormous growth of their middle class, and you'd be hard pushed to argue that their world hasn't markedly improved by any measurable metric (typically life expectancy, educational achievement and income).

The middle class is pretty exceptionally vulnerable in a lot of developing nations; one missed paycheck and it's "goodbye".
If 2020's taught us nothing else, it should have been the importance of resilience in the face of the unexpected.

On the other hand it's also true that this development has increased the degree of inequality between the richest and poorest. So if you consider that inequality inherently negative, then you have to justify why an increase in inequality outweighs the growth of the middle class. In developed nations you'd say it's worse due to the decrease in relative economic mobility and effective political disenfranchisement, but that's not really the case in countries like India or China.

For me, there are two reasons I weigh the scope of inequality more heavily than the growth of the middle class:
A) the former is a lot clearer. "Middle class" is poorly and inconsistently defined.
B) A strong middle class is essential, but the size of the middle class is not necessarily indicative of its strength or stability. While, on the other hand, we have seen that growing economic inequality has, more and more, led to worldwide unrest and discontent.

The one is simply a more concrete measure than the other.

 

[Ruprecht]

I think in this case, it's more important how you define "middle class". It tends to be defined by an income figure, relative to inflation. But I would say it should be defined by actual lived lifestyle.

If the average middle class family 20 years ago could survive an expensive medical procedure and a job loss over the course of a year, but the average middle class family today cannot, then it's not fair to equate them, since the latter is clearly a decline in quality from the former.



The middle class is pretty exceptionally vulnerable in a lot of developing nations; one missed paycheck and it's "goodbye".
If 2020's taught us nothing else, it should have been the importance of resilience in the face of the unexpected.



For me, there are two reasons I weigh the scope of inequality more heavily than the growth of the middle class:
A) the former is a lot clearer. "Middle class" is poorly and inconsistently defined.
B) A strong middle class is essential, but the size of the middle class is not necessarily indicative of its strength or stability. While, on the other hand, we have seen that growing economic inequality has, more and more, led to worldwide unrest and discontent.

The one is simply a more concrete measure than the other.

It's been the same definition used, household incomes between $10 and $100 USD per person per day in 2005 PPP terms.
Purchasing Power Parity includes medical care and health expenses.

 

[nostradumbass]

World is showing that a western model that put money over society end up having weak feet

And this have nothing to do with right or left, wich is retards food

That doesn't really mean anything, as the 2 are connected and on the same team. Money has been the driver of societal growth. It's been what leads to higher employment, innovation, and improved standard of living.

This is an awkward one for me. I know that inflation, etc, is taken into account when compiling these statistics - but today's middle class does not "feel" as wealthy as, for example, the 1990s or '80s middle class. I can't dispute the facts, so I am not going to try and argue about the numbers you're giving, but do you think it possible that they do not accurately reflect what it means to be middle class?

Also, is the size of the middle class as important as the size of the wealth gap, which is also growing?

That feeling has more to do with being spoiled and more envious and entitled than previous generations. I hear all the time about "you could raise a family on a ____ salary back in the day", and don't even bother thinking what they did it with. They could raise a family, but they did it with much less than people now. Families didn't have appliances, modern conveniences, cell phones, internet, laptops and tablets, DVR, multiple cars, the houses were smaller and fewer people went to college. They didn't have it better at all, they just didn't bitch as much about and take every modern convenience and luxury as a given.

For your global hunger getting worse number, that's also not entirely true. Sure the WHO(which should be taken with a grain of soy) says there are 9 million more hungry people, but the population grew by 80 million, so it's still lower per capita.

Morale is on the decline, with depression and suicide increasing, not as a result of decreased living standards by any stretch, but for the exact opposite reason. Brain chemistry doesn't change when you get more money and more stuff, so when you stop having real things to worry about, your brain still needs its fix for these rewards and instincts. The 7 deadly sins weren't just picked at random, they are detrimental instincts that everyone shares, and rather than acknowledging that they're the most harmful instincts, decadent societies tend to embrace them at their own peril. That's what people exist to do. Build something up, then tear it down.

In short, it's basically this.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

It's been the same definition used, household incomes between $10 and $100 USD per person per day in 2005 PPP terms.
Purchasing Power Parity includes medical care and health expenses.

Yes. Poorly defined.

 

[Ruprecht]

Yes. Poorly defined.

How is that poorly defined? They do exactly the same thing to measure inequality.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

Yup. Clearly the 90s where the peak decade by far.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

That doesn't really mean anything, as the 2 are connected and on the same team. Money has been the driver of societal growth. It's been what leads to higher employment, innovation, and improved standard of living.


That feeling has more to do with being spoiled and more envious and entitled than previous generations. I hear all the time about "you could raise a family on a ____ salary back in the day", and don't even bother thinking what they did it with. They could raise a family, but they did it with much less than people now. Families didn't have appliances, modern conveniences, cell phones, internet, laptops and tablets, DVR, multiple cars, the houses were smaller and fewer people went to college. They didn't have it better at all, they just didn't bitch as much about and take every modern convenience and luxury as a given.

For your global hunger getting worse number, that's also not entirely true. Sure the WHO(which should be taken with a grain of soy) says there are 9 million more hungry people, but the population grew by 80 million, so it's still lower per capita.

Morale is on the decline, with depression and suicide increasing, not as a result of decreased living standards by any stretch, but for the exact opposite reason. Brain chemistry doesn't change when you get more money and more stuff, so when you stop having real things to worry about, your brain still needs its fix for these rewards and instincts. The 7 deadly sins weren't just picked at random, they are detrimental instincts that everyone shares, and rather than acknowledging that they're the most harmful instincts, decadent societies tend to embrace them at their own peril. That's what people exist to do. Build something up, then tear it down.

In short, it's basically this.

Yes, yes. I'm familiar with the platitudes.
But you are sort of making a part of my point for me in a couple of ways.

1.) No, families back in the day did not have all of the technological conveniences that a family today has, but they also did not have all of the same technological dependencies as an entry cost to living a standard life. Appliances are not just conveniences - they're productivity force multipliers, and not having them simply means that someone else has a competitive edge over you. A cell phone isn't an option - it's a requisite expense. If I didn't have a pc and access to the internet, I couldn't even have applied for the job I have. So, I had to pay for both - it wasn't an option or a maybe.
2.) First-time home buyers have been declining in at least the US and the UK for over a decade, as they've been priced out of the market by those you're saying had less money.
3.) The hunger numbers came from the UN, not WHO. Also an untrustworthy organisation, no doubt. But the fact that we can't trust anyone isn't exactly an indication of good times.
4.) yes, the world population increased. But it always does, and only for the past three years the fight against hunger has been going the wrong direction.
5.) The note you ended on seems to indicate that, yes, you think we're on the downswing.

 

[monster zero]

We need two quarters before we can say if it's a recession or not.

 

[jk7707]

 

[nostradumbass]

Yes, yes. I'm familiar with the platitudes.
But you are sort of making a part of my point for me in a couple of ways.

1.) No, families back in the day did not have all of the technological conveniences that a family today has, but they also did not have all of the same technological dependencies as an entry cost to living a standard life. Appliances are not just conveniences - they're productivity force multipliers, and not having them simply means that someone else has a competitive edge over you. A cell phone isn't an option - it's a requisite expense. If I didn't have a pc and access to the internet, I couldn't even have applied for the job I have. So, I had to pay for both - it wasn't an option or a maybe.
2.) First-time home buyers have been declining in at least the US and the UK for over a decade, as they've been priced out of the market by those you're saying had less money.
3.) The hunger numbers came from the UN, not WHO. Also an untrustworthy organisation, no doubt. But the fact that we can't trust anyone isn't exactly an indication of good times.
4.) yes, the world population increased. But it always does, and only for the past three years the fight against hunger has been going the wrong direction.
5.) The note you ended on seems to indicate that, yes, you think we're on the downswing.

Yes, people are on the downswing, their circumstances are not. We're at the threshold of how easy life can, where a twitter flame war is the most eventful thing to happen to someone that day, and people are going self sabotage for a generation or 2. But again, things are not actually more difficult, so you yourself can just not partake in the misery and live a fine life without society's manufactured problems and outrage. You're not going to convince society to not invent problems. It's not your job to, and if you tried, these miserable would just get pissed at you and cry "you don't understand, maaaaan". My life is fine and there are people who have more than me who are miserable(probably most wealthy people, actually), and people who have a lot less who are happier.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

All I know is, is that I'd rather live in the ascendancy of a civilization than its decline.

 

[Broadcast]

Immoral decline since about 15 years ago. It may all end with a nuclear war!

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Well it comes down to how you define a "decline". The growth of the middle class is a phenomenon in large parts of what was the "developing world". Some of the largest populations (China and India) have seen an enormous growth of their middle class, and you'd be hard pushed to argue that their world hasn't markedly improved by any measurable metric (typically life expectancy, educational achievement and income). On the other hand it's also true that this development has increased the degree of inequality between the richest and poorest. So if you consider that inequality inherently negative, then you have to justify why an increase in inequality outweighs the growth of the middle class. In developed nations you'd say it's worse due to the decrease in relative economic mobility and effective political disenfranchisement, but that's not really the case in countries like India or China.

The improvement in India and China is obvious. The rest of the world? Outside of technological advance which leads to increases in life expectancy and to some degree income, I'm not that sure.
Technological advance obfuscates societal advances. Even failing countries such as Zimbabwe, Afghanistan or Yemen are probably doing better because they now have antibiotics and vaccines they didn't 100 years ago, but I can't say they improved much or anything at all.
Another concerning thing is the refugee crisis, it's product of progress. Poor countries are increasing their population rapidly due to technology which reduces child mortality, which is good, but they can't sustain that population, which is bad, and they need to move away. Is that an advancement?
A parallel can be drawn to the Sirionó of Bolivia. They were an almost paleolithic people, missionaries introduced steel axes to help them, they were able to chop trees and gather more food. Progress, for a while. They collapsed their own environment and were driven to virtual extinction, many died and others were absorbed by the more westernized Bolivians.

 

[freakroor]

we are living on borrowed time at this point. Economic growth has come at great cost to the environment, which will eventually become more apparent. We have not yet “received the bill” so to speak for all of our recent achievements.

just look at the global pandemic, climate change, mass extinctions... It’s obvious where this is headed. Humanity will face some very tough times in the future.

 

[Abazzdeboom]

This world will always need "poor" people so it depends where you sit.

 

[blaseblah]

We had like plus 10 years of peace now pendulum swings other way.

Also #freedomforrhodesia since ts made this thread lol​

When did we have peace?

 

[Cole train]

When did we have peace?

Not full peace of course,always something kicking off somewhere but still very peaceful compared to times in past

 

[blaseblah]

Not full peace of course,always something kicking off somewhere but still very peaceful compared to times in past

When was that?

 

[Cole train]

When was that?

About half an hour ago