[Off-Topic] The World Today Is Very Good! Happy 2013!

Update 1/15: Here’s another article, Why 2012 was the best year ever, saying the same thing: we’re much better today than at any other point in the past. Why does it seem like we aren’t? Because lots of alarmists say the opposite. And why do they spread the idea that the world is getting worse? Obviously, so they can feel like “heroes” for doing “something,” so they can make you feel worse for not doing what they do. Of course, we should always be improving, but not at the cost of irrational alarmism and panic.

I decided to start this year of 2013 with an article that I hope resonates as a positive message to start the year well. The message is simple:

The world today is good, very good, and it's getting better and better.

On the other hand, I get frustrated every time I see theoretically “educated” people who prefer to believe the world is getting worse, that we’re worse today than we were yesterday. Today we’re “impersonal,” we don’t play in the street anymore, we don’t have solidarity anymore, we burn our forests, all corporations are villains, people suffer more.

Let me say that I, respectfully, disagree with all those and all the other ideas that we’re getting worse. One of the symbolic reasons for this article today is because we made it through 2012, one of the last known “End Times” prophecies, and we went through it as if it were nothing (incidentally, it never was anything).

Of course, anyone who reads the news knows we have increasingly overcrowded metropolises, violence outbreaks happening all the time in various parts of the world, we still have several wars happening in the Middle East, religious intolerance and terrorism, natural disasters that “seem” to be the result of the infamous “Global Warming.”

All of that is true. None of it is any symptom that the world is getting worse.

The World Is Better

Despite all the cataclysmic prophecies, I’ll summarize quickly: the world is better today than it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or millennia ago. Fortunately, there are people in science, doing serious research and work, who have managed to accumulate data for years and years, and today we can compare item by item. One of these organizations is Gapminder, which makes all of this data available so you can see it with your own eyes.

I recommend watching the TED talks by Hans Rosling interpreting this data. He’ll demonstrate how in recent decades we have actually increased the life expectancy of most people in the world, improved quality of life, dramatically decreased poverty levels, decreased malnutrition, decreased differences. In summary, the vast majority of people today live better, with more comfort, and for longer. Violence is also decreasing, as shown in this TED talk by Steven Pinker. The book Abundance by Peter H. Diamandis will also give you more data about this era of abundance.

And even the feared Global Warming is constantly questioned. Many scientists aren’t convinced by the data we have. And it doesn’t matter whether Global Warming is “real” — clearly there are people making a lot of money and notoriety from the “fear” caused by this possible natural phenomenon. Watch the documentary Cool It where researcher Bjorn Lomborg will demystify each of the items that you — a reader of this blog — certainly haven’t stopped to think about until now.

Example: if the Kyoto Protocol had been successful as the lobbyists wanted, it would only lower the world’s temperature by 0.008 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100! And the European Union’s climate policy would only decrease the temperature by 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit at the ridiculous cost of USD 250 billion annually for the next century! With half that money we could end poverty, hunger, and diseases in the world.

Even if everyone in the United States started driving a Prius, it wouldn’t contribute even 0.5% of the carbon that technically should be cut by mid-century. And even if everyone in the United States started using only energy-saving lightbulbs, it wouldn’t contribute even 0.2% of the carbon to be cut.

Comedian George Carlin explained this in the clearest way I’ve ever seen:

Getting it?

Who Does This Benefit?

No “small act,” like recycling an aluminum can, individually makes much difference today — don’t worry, it doesn’t hurt by itself either. What really makes a difference are the continuous advances of science. It was disciplined experimentation and accumulation of knowledge that one day led us to agriculture, eliminating the possibility of famine with the world’s overpopulation — something that has been regressing with fads like “organic food”, which denies years of evolution of agronomic technology that guaranteed our generation’s existence.

Now the reason for this article is to question the obvious: who does all this benefit? The answer that seems most obvious is the large corporations that know how to take financial advantage of it. But they aren’t the problem. The problem is the people who make it easy for the corporations, transforming all these discussions into moral judgments.

Today, if I say I don’t help any “social” cause, I’m somehow guilty of someone’s misfortune. A story that disturbs me to this day was told by a friend of mine whom I respect a lot. He told me how he, a successful businessman, feels a little guilty for having more than others. Because of that, when he can, he offers alms and things of the sort. One day, if I remember correctly, one of these beggars snubbed that alms. And that friend of mine didn’t know if he could feel frustrated the way he was feeling.

That’s my long discussion about the Rights of Man. And to be very clear, I’ll say it in all words: I have no obligation to help anyone, just as nobody has any obligation to help me.

The key word here is “obligation.” I always have the choice to help or not, but never the obligation. Exercising that choice is an individual option that should not be judged by anyone.

The world is simple: everything I produced, by my effort, is mine and no one else’s. If I want to donate to someone, it’s my choice. If I want to throw it away, it’s another absolutely valid choice of mine. And no one can have a right to something that’s mine, and no one can judge what I do with something that’s mine. The reciprocal is true: I will never have a right to anything of anyone’s for free, and I should never judge what others do with their own possessions. It’s simple.

Alms and donation are the same thing. I’ll give to whomever I want, when I want, and if I want. And I don’t judge anyone who donates or who doesn’t donate. Now, it really irritates me to see someone have the audacity to think they can judge me for what I do with something that is entirely mine. Go back to my story: why does that friend of mine need to feel “guilty” for something he’s not guilty of? Everything he earned was by his own effort and sweat — it’s his. More than that, his work made many jobs possible, it even made other companies exist, generating indirect wealth for many people. Why does he need to feel guilty for not giving away for free something that’s his?

This is the prostitution of the mind that people who work suffer daily. The more they work, the more they strive, the more they earn, the more proportionally guilty they feel, the more judged by others they feel. And who are these “others”?

This is the real target of my article — I want to explicitly expose those who benefit from this orgy of false-altruism and ignorance. Charismatic people, who speak beautifully, with inspiring speeches (mainly those who talk about justice, inspiration, and motivation), who use lots of hyperbole, who present almost no data from credible sources.

They all use the same speeches, the same pompous and contentless forms — they show videos of the world falling apart, apathetic people, little children, saying the same “We must…”, “We need to…” as always:

"We need to unite," "We need to be more supportive," "We need to care more," "We need to think about our neighbor," "We need to put down the phone and really connect," blah, blah.

BULLSHIT!

Anyone who says a lot of “We need to,” always speaking in the first person plural “we,” clearly wants to be the dictator of a group. Someone who individually has little capacity and therefore incites more people to gain the credibility of the masses. And once there’s a certain number of people, anything they say seems to have some validity.

And this is only possible because we allow it. Because we don’t look at the data, we don’t try to know the facts, we get easily moved by any well-edited video with animals, landscapes, children, especially if it shows videos of children in some miserable region of the African interior. We applaud all these demagogues.

And do you know what demagogues like that do when they have masses following them? They make everyone who is actually working, creating, and producing wealth in the world feel guilty. They make their masses look at these people and pressure them to “share” their property, making them feel bad if they don’t share. And they do this not in a violent way, but in a “cheerful” way, putting property-owners in the middle of their masses and saying things like “guys, wouldn’t this guy be super-cool if he donated what he has for our cause?” clapping and smiling sarcastically, while at the same time shaming, cornering the producer, leaving no way out.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called fraud. It’s a fraudulent, criminal, and obviously offensive activity. Let’s be clear: I won’t subject myself to the suffering of criminal acts. And you shouldn’t either.

The lesson here is simple. If someone comes to talk to you about another person or group, ask the question, “who does this benefit?” If someone tells you “such-and-such company must be going bankrupt since it doesn’t have money even to donate to this very important social cause,” why does the person passing the information care? Who does this benefit? And change the question: “why does the company not donating necessarily mean it’s in bad financial shape?” Of course, because the alternative “because the company has no interest in donations” seems “morally too bad” to be considered. And precisely that alternative is the most obvious. But we’ve reached such a degrading point of morality that it’s almost considered a crime.

Don’t Fall for the Talk

So pay attention: the world today is better than yesterday. Don’t doubt it. And donations, participating in social causes, are all valid things. But judging others for not participating is not: it’s a crime.

Any company, any worker, performs a very simple operation: trades. A worker trades the value of what they produced for money. A company trades a product it produced for money. A person who participates in social causes trades their work capacity for another kind of currency: conscience. Every type of donation is a financial transaction of your money or possessions for “you feeling good about yourself.” It’s effectively a commercial exchange like any other — after all, have you ever seen anyone donate with the goal of feeling bad about it afterwards?

And this is more obvious when you encounter the infamous weekend-solidarity types. People who want to buy positive karma because they’re frustrated, depressed, unhappy with themselves. Then they decide they want to participate in “save the world” movements, donate money, donate time, donate work or something. But as soon as they get tired of it, they’re on the beach, at a barbecue playing soccer, under the sun at the pool. But now they’re “morally in credit” and put themselves in the position of judging others, saying “I helped and you didn’t.”

Just to be clear, I’m not talking about everyone who is supportive. Many take this really seriously — they’re anonymous in most cases, because they’re not in this to draw attention but to help others. But the type I’m talking about is in the business of “feeling good,” and that requires attention, requires telling others how they’re good people, how everyone should do as they do to feel good the same way. Like addicts offering drugs because they make them feel good.

And they’re worried about the little children? See the trauma they’re putting them through by telling false stories of the end of the world:

Now, the existence of people like this is precisely one more piece of evidence of how our times today are better. At the beginning of the 20th century, no one would be giving any attention to “social causes” like today — many didn’t even have enough to eat, didn’t have clothes, died from common diseases.

Except this group is increasingly bothersome, increasingly annoying. If it wasn’t clear, I’m totally in favor of serious social causes, and I totally hate the hipster-weekend-solidarity-types. There are serious movements that deserve respect being stained by these groups. Want to really devote yourself to a cause? Please join organizations like the Red Cross, work on it full-time, and never physically or morally force someone to make the same choice as you.

By the way, this applies to social causes but also to any kind of “cause.” Be smart for a change — there are a lot of clever people wanting you to do the dirty work for them. Suspect anyone who speaks for “us,” for the “good of all,” or any cheap demagoguery of that kind.

The world today is better — check the data, it’s getting better and better, and all we need to do is work and produce more and more wealth. That’s how the world got to today’s point, and that’s how it’s going to keep improving. It’s not by taking (pejoratively also called “sharing”) wealth from others — it’s by producing more.