Don't Worry, Be Happy

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
linkage

In 1958 liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith's best-selling "The Affluent Society" assured us that living standards had risen so far they couldn't rise any further. In 1960 Prof. Paul Erlich concluded that 65 million Americans would perish from famine in the 1980s and food riots would kill millions more. Scientific American predicted in 1970 that in 20 years the world would be out of lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver. And Jimmy Carter's 1980 "Global 2000" report forecast that mass starvation and superplagues would ravage the globe in the final year of the millennium. They all more or less agreed with English philosopher Thomas Hobbes that our lives would be "solitary, nasty, brutish, and short."

And they were all dead wrong.

...


Life expectancy in America has increased from 41 years at the beginning of the 20th century to 77 in 2000; we live almost twice as long as we did a century ago. And both longevity and health are bound to get better. Infant mortality is down 45% since 1980, and we spent 50% more on health care per person in 2002 than in 1982. For example, there were 200,000 knee replacements in 2001 at an average cost of $26,000. That's $5.2 billion for a health-care procedure that didn't exist a decade ago.

? Incomes are up. Inflation-adjusted per capita income has doubled since 1960. And we're working less for more money. The average American worked 66 hours a week in 1850, 53 hours in 1900 and 42 today. The total number of working hours in the average lifetime has declined linearly for 15 consecutive decades. In 1880 the typical American spent two hours a week relaxing; today it is 40.

? Poverty is down. Twenty-two percent of Americans lived in poverty in 1960; by 2001 that rate had declined to 11.7%. Mr. Easterbrook concludes that to avoid becoming poor in the U.S. "you must do three things: graduate from high school, marry after the age of 20, and marry before having your first child." Only 8% of those who do all three become poor; 79% of the poor failed to do them. Contrary to pessimist mantra, democratic capitalism forces poverty on no one.

We are not running out of any resource--oil, natural gas, copper, aluminum or anything else. Pollution is down; today's new cars emit "less than 2% as much pollution per mile as a car of 1970." Man and technology are not the enemies of the natural environment. In Connecticut the population tripled and agricultural production quadrupled in the 20th century, yet the state is 59% forested today compared with 37% in the 19th century.

? Illegal drug use, alcohol consumption, teen pregnancy and the divorce rate are all down. Crime is substantially down. Food production, educational attainment (12.3 years on average, the highest in the world), white-collar jobs (which now outnumber blue-collar ones) and house size and ownership (70% own their own homes today, compared with 20% a century ago) are all up.

? The goods available to us are overwhelming, and getting cheaper all the time. Mr. Easterbrook notes there were 11 million cell phones in the world in 1990; there are now more than a billion. Regular gasoline costs the same in real terms as it did in 1950. Cheeseburgers that cost 30 minutes of work at typical wages when the first McDonald's opened now can be bought for three minutes of work. The 1880s prairie farmer knew little of what was happening in the outside world; today television and the Internet give him hourly access to global information on the economy, war and peace and the NFL playoffs, and of course he can see every fire, crime, disaster and political accusation produced.

All this progress is not just in America or wealthy nations. Middle-class men and women in Europe and America live better than 99.4% of humans who have ever lived. In 1975 the average income in developing nations was $2,125 per capita; today (inflation adjusted) it is $4,000. Global adult literacy was 47% in 1970; 30 years later it was 73%.

Interesting read.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
n/m

Edit again to say - Charrison and I posted the same thing. Mine was "But equally important to not dwell on it." - same meaning -different words at the same time.

:beer: to charrison

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
But equally important to not dwell on it.

But it is bad to dwell on it.

And these automated responses come from where and what aspect of your conditioning or, Im sorry, your sophisticated personal experience? Do you know whereof you speak, really?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But equally important to not dwell on it.

But it is bad to dwell on it.

And these automated responses come from where and what aspect of your conditioning or, Im sorry, your sophisticated personal experience? Do you know whereof you speak, really?

Is what we both posted not true?

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
You answer my question asked first and I'll be happy to answer yours. You can't go in a straight line, huh. I'll give you this partial. Your question isn't asked for an answer but as a way to go back to sleep. Now you will want to take that new datum and run in circles with it. For the time being attempt to ignore it and stick to the original question. If you can of course. :D
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
Charrison, what do you mean by interesting read. Are you afraid to be happy? It certainly looks like good news to me. Are you perhaps suspicious and don't want to commit? A lot of people have trouble assimilating good news.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Charrison, what do you mean by interesting read. Are you afraid to be happy? It certainly looks like good news to me. Are you perhaps suspicious and don't want to commit? A lot of people have trouble assimilating good news.

So you are saying good news can not be interesting?
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
I think a good question would be...

If those people wouldn't have said anything, would they're predictions come true?

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You answer my question asked first and I'll be happy to answer yours. You can't go in a straight line, huh. I'll give you this partial. Your question isn't asked for an answer but as a way to go back to sleep. Now you will want to take that new datum and run in circles with it. For the time being attempt to ignore it and stick to the original question. If you can of course. :D

You made a statement and we both came back with statement of our own. You seem to want to challenge them. Are they not true? We weren't questioning the truth of your statement, merely adding reality to it.:D Please answer the question - were our statements not true?

But as to your "question" - They came from reality. Yes, being able to look at the dark, knowing it is there, and understanding the trials that may infest that darkness is important, but chosing to focus on the light and move forward with purpose is equally important. Without focus and direction one loses their way in the dark.

Anyway - answer the question and/or get back to the topic of the article.:)

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
So you are saying good news can not be interesting?

No I wasn't saying that necessarily. I was saying that I think you meant something else. I was saying that to imply that the article was interesting actually masked a different emotional experience, an emotional issue and axe, perhaps, you wished to grind, and that it would be far more direct to make your point. So I'm not saying good news can't be interesting. I find this whole thing very interesting. My question was why. Why is this article interesting? What is the personal content? What gets you off about it. I was, you see, sort of practicing looking in the dark, not to dwell there, of course, but to peek.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Peeking is important, from time to time, to remind us of our darker desires, and of our worst fears. For some their worst fear is simply coexisting with one whose opinions differ from their own. A constant state of comeuppance, of upstaging the other as to reinforce thine own insecurity.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,800
6,775
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You answer my question asked first and I'll be happy to answer yours. You can't go in a straight line, huh. I'll give you this partial. Your question isn't asked for an answer but as a way to go back to sleep. Now you will want to take that new datum and run in circles with it. For the time being attempt to ignore it and stick to the original question. If you can of course. :D

You made a statement and we both came back with statement of our own. You seem to want to challenge them. Are they not true? We weren't questioning the truth of your statement, merely adding reality to it.:D Please answer the question - were our statements not true?

But as to your "question" - They came from reality. Yes, being able to look at the dark, knowing it is there, and understanding the trials that may infest that darkness is important, but chosing to focus on the light and move forward with purpose is equally important. Without focus and direction one loses their way in the dark.

Anyway - answer the question and/or get back to the topic of the article.:)



CkG


I seemed to want to challenge them? Couldn't it be that I was merely adding reality of my own? :D

But as to your answer "- They came from reality. Yes, being able to look at the dark, knowing it is there, and understanding the trials that may infest that darkness is important, but chosing to focus on the light and move forward with purpose is equally important. Without focus and direction one loses their way in the dark." I guess it's not a reality I can readily identify with. Perhaps there's more than one kind of dark. So while I can't make heads or tails of your answer and don't really want to go through the agony of determining why, I guess I'll pass and vige you your answer.

The statement:

But equally important to not dwell on it.

But it is bad to dwell on it.

The question, are they true or not. (By the way you didn't get into my implication that the answers were reflexive, but never mind. We will get nowhere there either.)

I believe that your question came up as a defense against having to consider deeply the question I asked first and so the answer is sought not as an answer to a genuine intellectual curiosity, but as a way to avoid. That being said, there most definitley is something wrong with your answers. Because humanity is upside down, the dark is where there is light, and the light is where people are blind. If the truth is something easy to see everybody would know. But the truth possesses a unique property. It is never where we look. It's always 180 from there. The truth is protected by nature of the fact that it is the worst news you can possibly imagine. It possesses one additional interesting feature. The horrible truth that you feel most deeply to be true is in fact a lie.

Now what I think you meant by your remarks was that to get caught up in the notion of the reality of your inner feelings is a bad thing, because you add to the belief in the lie. The connundrum, however, is that to know that the horrible truth that you feel is true is actually false, you have to feel how true you feel it to be. You have to be profoundly honest and you have to let go. You have to see that you are only feeling a feeling, not experiencing the truth. The truth comes next, that the feeling is a lie. The feeling makes you remember.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,804
6,361
126
Originally posted by: ELP
I think a good question would be...

If those people wouldn't have said anything, would they're predictions come true?

Best post so far.

It is very possible that each or many of those "predictions" were indeed correct. There are always some(scientists and other technicians) who dedicate themselves to these types of problems. Another thread was posted recently(may have been in OT) about some British scientists working on possible solutions to the Global Warming/Climate Change problem, for just an example.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Good post. Now if we did away with the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking we would be even better off.