The best stats you've ever seen | Hans Rosling

>Is losing faith/hope in humanity something others experience as well? Generally considered the 'doomer' political circle. No proper political alignment, often seen as purple or populist. Also not necessarily a pessimistic world view. >s it due to the way i perceive things (i.e. my entourage)? Most likely yes, but can be independently derived. >Am I in a bubble and I don't see it? How do I get out? Should I be in a bubble to keep my sanity? How do I build those filters? Everyone is in a bubble. Imagine a venn diagram of things you know and things you dont know. That's your bubble. Being in a bubble isn't inherently bad. Being in an echo chamber is bad and the probability you are in an echo chamber is very high. To evaluate if you're in an echo chamber, pretend to say something you dont agree with inside your echo chamber just see how it's reacted to. "climate change is false for X reason" >- climate change or how society/corporations/governments are destroying the environment and/or are barely doing anything. All I think about sometimes is how we'll begin to see famines spreading across poor countries until it's all too late... Yet Elon buying Twitter is still in the news till this day. Climate change is often the first one in the doomer field lately. Take extinction rebellion for example, or the maya calendar or y2k doomers. They are all climate change now. Their climate change echo chamber is quite problematic. All this 10 years left or various ultimatums are absurd. They've been saying it'll be 10 years for decades. We're on take 5 or so. In reality climate change is never going to properly threaten human life. We are going to do what is right at the right time and it'll be solved. We have probably 30-40 years to solve this problem without any major controversy. >- social inequality is rising year on year. inflation is a killer for poor families that are barely making ends meet. Yet most corporations are announcing lots of profits and they barely give a sh*t about their workers. Totally a problem. Will inflation lead to mass death or something? No. Social inequality is a problem that is really hard to solve. It derives heavily from the ability to take of debt. "credit score" disallows the peasants from taking on debt and therefore end up missing out on a force multiplier that leads to social inequality. How do you fix this? Given poor people debt? We saw how that worked out after glass-steagal repeal. No society in history has ever had a system that eliminated social inequality and frankly I don't think there ever will be for quite some time. If someone got into fights in high school, got their 51% and gets blackout drunk every day after their mcjob. Their outcome in society must be less than a doctor who did all the extra work to be qualified to be a doctor and saves lives. It builds an incentive system to build people into doctors and not mcjobs. >- workers: all I hear is there's a shortage of workers. shortage, shortage, shortage. But they rarely talk about salaries and wages being so low. This actually has to social equality measures. link In the 1950s before equality ~85% of men were employed. 35% of women. Overall about 60% of society were employed. Today men are around 65% and women are 55%. Yet still around 60% in total. So what happened was we displaced useless men into homelessness and took useful women and told them not to have babies. Which happened within a generation. Birthrates in 1950 compared to 1980 is night a day bad. Tons of benefits from doing this. We have a more productive and more useful population. Egalitarianism was tremendously successful and the few countries that dont do this today are harming themselves. But what did that do? It produced more workers in supply but total jobs more or less stayed the same. Demand didnt change. Simply supply vs demand. Workers are going to be paid les

> if the 1 billion "rich people" drop their emissions down to below average then the majority of the problem will still be here. True. But the "majority" is not as big as you think. > there will be 1 billion less wealthy people Just wrong. There are lots of ways to reduce emissions without any effect in wealth. Eating less meat is one example. > for no particular net gain. Very wrong, there are huge gains: link > I advocate the radical approach of encouraging people to have less children. I knew you would say this, I was just waiting for it. Global birth rates have been in freefall for decades now, it's tragic that people don't know about it. You'd assume that supposedly "better" education in western countries would make people more aware, but western governments are only concerned with maintaining global western hegemony which requires falsely accusing the rest of the world and keeping their citizens ignorant. Also, you can't force people to have less children, that's inhumane. I suggest you go through the following links. link link ▶ this video link link