South Africa has the single worst inequality in the world [0], and up until very recently there was apartheid ruled by the descendents of dutch colonizers. This still fits the pattern of imperialists coming in, and enriching themselves at the expense of local populations. It's just that in this case the occupying population hung around permanently. But they're still hoarding the wealth.
how about the history of imperialism where some countries came in, exploited the local population and their natural resources, and reaped the benefits of historical, compounding wealth?
how about the history of how those wealthy countries then turned around and squashed democratic uprisings in order to install oppressive, right-wing regimes that were more friendly to their interests?
how about the history of trade sanctions which further cripple countries which are already disempowered and exploited?
these social darwinist explanations always seem to miss the simple facts of history
> Is everyone insane or is there something I'm missing.
in a sense, much of the world is insane because they pursue narcissistic types of social status.
but I also do think this is just fun - putting aside the idea of getting a cameo as a status symbol, it's just fun to get a message from some public figure whose work you admire.
Id be surprised if you get much signal out of demographic info.. but I would think music correlates more with general aesthetic taste which may transfer.
It's an interesting idea. Do you have reason to believe that people's preferences in different areas are correlated? Not saying they're definitely not, but that's my first skeptical thought.
thanks, that was interesting. i'm still curious about why maillard reacted food is more nutritious/bioavailable, that article didn't seem to address that. the OP may have but i got exhausted scrolling
this article was terribly written. totally meandering, unorganized, rambling. I was desperately curious to understand it but it barely explained anything and went around in circles, with gratuitous jokes that just served to further delay the info.
the choice of metric that defines "how the world is" is where the subjectiveness lies, as my comment explains. the article was generally about "how bad the world is." if you find some result specifically about people's estimates of specific metrics, e.g. child mortality, poverty, etc, then we can have the discussion you're trying to have.
it's inherently a subjective question, based on what you value. if you value access to technology, then you'll think things are better than ever. if you enjoy arguments based on "average" and "median" then you might find some data to support an optimistic worldview. but if you look at the lot in life of those who suffer most, you will find a different story. if you value access to healthcare, access to leisure time, access to peace, you will find a different story. everyone has to make their own judgment of the world but in my opinion the articles tone is inappropriately optimistic
that's why I say self-care is important. there's no point in torturing yourself over everything. we have to vary how much responsibility we want to take based on how hopelessly things feel outside our control. but deluding yourself into thinking the world isn't bad is just putting your head in the sand. yeah, it sucks, but we're all in this together. By being aware, if the opportunity arises to do something about it (e.g. by lobbying a presidential candidate, or a president), then you will be able to. If you don't know about it, you can't do anything even if some opportunity arises.
that's why I say self-care is important. we can't take too much individual responsibility for the world's issues. and if we don't let ourselves enjoy life when we can, then there's no point in even saving this world. but that's different from saying "the world is actually better than we think it is." the world is actually terrible. but we can still carve out some joy for ourselves when we can without deluding ourselves.
I hate to use the word "privileged" because it is so loaded but I do think that this shows privileged thinking. "The world is great!" yeah because you have enough money/power to go about your life comfortably, and you're ignoring the plight of those that don't. "You only think the world is bad because of these cognitive biases".... lord take me now
You say that Cuba has done bad things too.
Therefore imperialism doesn't have consequences?
Can you fill in the blanks for me in your nonsequitur?