I see all these articles and posts about how better the world has gotten. if one foolishly ignores left tail risk of annihilation then it is better. But 100 years ago millions would die from diseases but human race would continue, no tail risk. Today, risk of ruin is huge. Poll:
-
-
Couldn’t you have made this same critique of optimism 100 years ago, and 100 years before that? To be fair, tail risk will never go back to pre-atomic levels, so why factor that in your analysis? (Genuinely curious..)
-
It isn’t that optimism is a problem. Its just incorrect to sell a narrative of eternal “improvement”/optimism. “Improvement” is relative. Ex: there were few diseases prior to domestication of animals. Yet pinker tells us we’re improving because there’s less now than 100yrs ago?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.