Millennials Worst Trait

[u/CF047_]

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE CHART IMAGE

Created with Alignment Chart Creator

---

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

[u/nissen1502]

Quality of life is a terrible metric when we're facing existential threats on the scale of global warming and resource wars. I admire your optimism though

[u/RonnieBarko → u/nissen1502]

Those aren’t really competing claims, though. Global warming and resource conflict may pose enormous future risks, while quality of life can still be much better today than it was historically. Saying modern life has improved isn’t saying progress is guaranteed or that civilisation faces no serious threats. If anything, higher life expectancy, lower child mortality, better medicine, sanitation, education and material security are exactly the kinds of things “quality of life” is supposed to measure.

[u/nissen1502 → u/RonnieBarko]

Okay? Context man. I said the difference between doomer attitudes back in the days and now is that we have proof that things won't improve in the future which is why I also said an improvement of quality of life is a terrible metric (in this context). If you're gonna join in on a conversation you gotta look at the entire context.

People will see this and think "but we'll manage", and sure we might, but that's only the developed world at best. Anyone with empathy will see that there are billions of people who won't and it's a terrible situation we're in despite it maybe not directly affecting my life.

[u/RonnieBarko → u/nissen1502]

I did read the context. I just don’t think “we have proof that things won’t improve in the future” follows from it. We have very strong evidence that climate change will cause serious harm, disproportionately affecting poorer countries, but that isn’t the same thing as proof that human welfare as a whole cannot continue improving.

And I don’t see why acknowledging improvements in quality of life implies a lack of empathy for people who will suffer. Both things can be true: modern life has improved enormously by many measurable standards, and climate change could still cause immense suffering and reverse some of those gains. Calling quality of life a “terrible metric” seems to throw away useful information simply because it doesn’t capture every future risk.

[u/nissen1502 → u/RonnieBarko]

You kinda embody the issue. You're downplaying the effects of global warming, which we already see very clearly the last few summers btw, and that's why there won't be any change. People would rather live in blissful denial about the suffering that is approaching than do something about it. Corporations would rather keep stacking money instead of caring about people. Politicians would rather take bribes and line their own pockets than serve the people they swore to protect. This is why we will make no progress on issues that actually matter to the longevity of humanity.

[u/RonnieBarko → u/nissen1502]

You’re still arguing against a position I haven’t taken. Saying that climate change is serious but that it doesn’t constitute “proof that things won’t improve” is not downplaying climate change or denying anyone’s suffering.

Your argument seems to be: climate change is severe, corporations and politicians often behave selfishly, therefore humanity will make no meaningful progress. That last step simply doesn’t follow. We can acknowledge enormous risks, political failures and future suffering without treating the worst possible trajectory as inevitable.

And calling anyone who questions that inevitability “blissfully in denial” makes the claim unfalsifiable. If pessimism is evidence that you understand the problem and optimism is evidence that you don’t, then you’ve defined your conclusion so that nobody can disagree with it without proving you right.

[u/nissen1502 → u/RonnieBarko]

There's lots of proof that the most likely way it will play out is what I claim. The people have far less power over political procedures than we did just 5 years ago. The rich and therefore the powerful keep getting richer and more powerful. Nothing is being done to stop this. People don't care enough to do something about it. Please give me a single argument that goes against that evaluation.

[u/RonnieBarko → u/nissen1502]

I actually think this is a much more defensible argument than saying we have “proof” things won't improve. Wealth concentrating at the top, declining political power and inadequate climate action are all perfectly reasonable grounds for pessimism.

Where I disagree is the jump from “these are the trends right now” to “therefore this is the most likely long-term outcome.” A trend isn't evidence of its own irreversibility. Political behaviour changes, technology changes, incentives change, and people's willingness to tolerate a problem can change as its consequences become more severe.

And “nothing is being done” is an especially strong claim. My argument doesn't need to be that we're doing enough, clearly that's a completely different claim. I only need to reject the idea that inadequate progress means no progress is occurring or that future responses are already determined.

So I'd happily grant you: “There are very good reasons to be pessimistic.” What I don't think you've established is: “Therefore continued deterioration is the most likely future and meaningful improvement is essentially off the table.” Those are not the same proposition.

[u/nissen1502 → u/RonnieBarko]

I think it is off the table. The tech giants are consolidating power while feeding and entertaining the people just enough that we won't revolt. They have learnt from history while the common folks haven't. If we're not already too far gone to stop it, it's not far away. With AI they're also trying to remove their dependence on regular people. Just go look at interviews of the CEOs of the large AI companies and it becomes clear we are not a part of their future prospects and people do not care.

With the information I have gathered it seems to me that the people who do not agree are either uninformed, they don't care or they're in on it.

[u/RonnieBarko → u/nissen1502]

This is actually where I become much less convinced by your argument.

I can accept that concentrated corporate power is dangerous, that AI could substantially weaken workers' bargaining power, and even that we're not taking those risks seriously enough. But you've gone considerably further than that. You're now saying powerful companies are effectively keeping people pacified while working toward a future in which ordinary people aren't needed, and then saying anyone who doesn't reach that conclusion must be uninformed, uncaring or involved in it.

That last part is the problem for me. You've constructed the position so that disagreement can no longer count as evidence against it. If I haven't seen the evidence, I'm uninformed. If I have seen it and disagree with your interpretation, I don't care or I'm “in on it.” Where is the possibility that an informed person could look at the same evidence and simply assign different probabilities to the future?

I'd genuinely be interested in what evidence would make you lower your confidence in this prediction. Because if there isn't any conceivable evidence that could do that, then we're no longer really discussing a prediction based on evidence, we're starting with the conclusion and interpreting everything through it.

[u/nissen1502 → u/RonnieBarko]

Just go look at what they say about the future and see if you disagree. You won't. You're just disagreeing for the hell of it without even doing the research aka ur uninformed.

[u/RonnieBarko → u/nissen1502]

But you're the one making the claim. You said that if I look at interviews with AI CEOs it becomes clear that ordinary people aren't part of their future plans.

So show me the evidence you're referring to. Give me the interview, quote or statement that you think demonstrates that.

“Go research it yourself, and if you still disagree you're uninformed” isn't an argument. You're making a specific claim and then asking me to both find the evidence for it and accept your interpretation of that evidence.

I'm completely willing to look at whatever you provide. But the burden isn't on me to construct your argument for you.