Entry 2191, on 2021-12-14 at 16:33:23 (Rating 2, Comments)
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us,...
This, of course, is the famous opening of Chalres Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, making comparisons between London and Paris during the French revolution in the year 1775.
But we could apply a similar thought to any time, and not necessarily comparing two different cities, or cultures, or countries, because it could easily be applied to contradictory attributes of a single culture, or even the world as a whole.
And, of course, that's exactly what I am going to do regarding modern Western culture, motivated by a recent podcast I listened to where the guest started off by claiming that things in our society are better now than ever before, then went on to describe a series of increasingly bleak aspects of the same society!
So let's look at some positives first. We have amazing technology which, despite its obvious negative components, has made many people far better off now than ever before. There are negatives, sure, but they are far outweighed by the positives. Work is far easier and safer now than in the past, thanks to automation and machines. People are far better informed (and yes, I know there is misinformation too), and can communicate better with others today thanks to the internet and related technologies, like smart phones. The world is relatively peaceful, thanks (rather ironically) in part to nuclear weapons.
So, in many ways, we live in "the best of times"", something I discussed in a post titled "An Optimistic Message" from 2014-03-16. But you wouldn't know that, after considering some of the more negative rhetoric we see around the world, especially from the legacy media (a derogatory term I have started using to describe tradition news services like CNN, BBC, etc).
For example, is climate change an existential threat? Is inequality making the world unstable and dangerous? Do we have more racism, sexism, and other antisocial behaviour that before? I think the answer to all of these is no.
In fact, there is a psychological phenomenon which is fairly well understood and which explains a lot of these perceived problems. That is, that people need to be challenged, they need causes to fight for, they need a narrative where they can be seen as heroes overcoming hopeless odds.
In the past there were real challenges. There were dangerous and extremely unpleasant workplaces; there was blatant inequality, slavery, and genuine repression of rights; and, of course, there were wars. These were real challenges and, while they may all seem very negative, they gave people a genuine cause to unite them with others who identified with that same cause. For example, some veterans talk about the best time of their lives as being while in combat, because of the close dependencies they had with their fellow soldiers.
So it seems that many people really need a cause to unite them. But what happens if there is very little wrong with the world to provide genuine issues? Well, they just have to create them, even when they don't really exist.
The silly hysteria we see around the world involving movements such as metoo, black lives matter, extinction rebellion, etc, are all examples of this. Note that I am not saying there isn't some small element of truth behind all of these, because there have been women treated unfairly in the workplace, there have been examples of black people being treated as if they were less important than others, and climate change does create some risk to the world, but these have all been hopelessly exaggerated for political effect.
Because, although women have been disadvantaged in some work situations, they have been given undeserved advantages in others. Some jobs have been set aside for women only, some workplaces have quotas which require the company to employ a certain percentage of women, and women are treated with extra care because this whole issue has become so politicised. You might make a case to say all of these interventions are justified (although I wouldn't), but even then these are advantages women have over men, which are generally ignored by metoo and other similar movements.
And a similar argument applies to BLM. There is very little real evidence that black people are systematically given lesser treatment than others. In fact, just like the situation for women, there are numerous examples where they are given (what I would call) an unfair advantage. And the same argument also applies regarding this: maybe it's justified, maybe it isn't, but it is real.
Finally, there is climate change. This is a real phenomenon, and will definitely have some negative consequences, but what is the source of the vast majority of greenhouse gases, and is the cure worse than the disease? Why degrade the quality of life of people in countries who contribute almost nothing to climate change while ignoring those who produce the majority of emissions? And why ignore the negative consequences of remedial actions, and why not compare them with their positives to achieve some balance?
While there are certainly many problems which should be dealt with, we do need to get some perspective. While the rich-poor gap is increasing, the overall rate of poverty is lower than in the past. While there are still some issues around sexism and racism, the level of systemic bigotry - at least in the Western World - is almost non-existant compared with the past. And there are issues with environmental degradation, but there are many positive trends in protection of the environment too.
So, if we ignore the uninformed whining from feminists, race activists, and climate change extremists, and look at the empirical facts instead, we should conclude that things are getting better. In fact, the main factor in modern society which is likely to reverse many of these positive trends is the poorly considered attempts at remediating them.
If women want better pay then they should study engineering instead of gender studies. If black people want fewer interactions with police then they should do less crime. If environmentalists want a better natural world then they need to support nuclear power, genetic engineering, and efforts to drag people out of poverty. (Note that this paragraph makes a lot of assumptions and uses some stereotypes, so treat it as a rhetorical point rater than a precise formulation of the problem!)
The world is getting better, but the failure to see this, and the insistence on counterproductive interactions to fix a problem which really doesn't exist to the extent many believe will, ironically, drag us back to a worse time from the past. We are doing OK the way things are; we don't need to destroy the patriarchy, or capitalism, or colonialism, or most other existing Western values.
We need to cut the hysteria and start thinking logically. We need to stop listening to activists and ignorant young people. Let's listen to the grown ups who have got us to the quite auspicious position we are in now. Maybe we don't need any of those big changes we are often encouraged to adopt. We are doing OK. We don't need any major course changes to make things even better, just some minor adjustments. It really is the best of times.
I have just re-read this blog, and find it most interesting, and thought provoking. It is strange that it has not provoked more comments. Perhaps it is because basically everyone agrees with the underlying sentiment. After all it is mainly when a reader disagrees with your thoughts that they are moved to comment. When there is agreement they fail to say well done.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 22:13:15:
Thanks for reading, or even re-reading by blog! I do appreciate any readers, and especially commenters. You are right that I get few commenters, even though the logs show a decent number of visitors. I'm not sure why I don't get more comments. I try to leave a comment (assuming a comment system is available) for every blog I visit, YouTube video I watch, etc. I think it's a way to show appreciation for the content-creator's efforts.
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2022-01-28 at 22:13:55:
"We need to stop listening to activists and ignorant young people" Actually, maybe we should listen to all arguments and judge them on their merits, rather than, as you suggest, ignore anything from "young people" (whoever they might be).
Comment 4 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 22:15:58:
Notice that I didn't say all young people, just *ignorant* young people. Not implying all young people are ignorant or all ignorant people are young. Actually, I might have been implying that, but I don't really believe it! :)
Comment 5 by Anonymous on 2022-01-28 at 22:16:32:
And the “activists”?
Comment 6 by OJB on 2022-01-28 at 22:17:01:
I think, in general, that activists are also extremists, so their opinion is usually ignorable. No doubt it depends on your exact definition of an activist, and I'm sure you could find exceptions, but in most cases ignoring them is a good general rule.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE