[Letmesleep69]

> The idea that "You’re 37 times less likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning than you were at the turn of the century" makes a large difference in the happiness of people is ridiculous.

I believe he put that in as an interesting, somewhat unexpected benefit of modern life. His next few arguments are what really backs up his points.

> Maybe its because rates of marriage and church attendance are on the decline.

As someone from a country where the church held far too much sway and still tries to hold back the rights of gay people and forbid abortions I take a lot of hope from the fact that people are attending church less.

> Maybe its because of the debasement of our culture and education.

I don't think western culture or education has been debased at all. Can you elaborate?

[TeMPOraL]

Plenty of people complain about their culture disappearing, and being replaced by the universal culture (usually, but wrongly, called "Western culture" or "American culture"). It's one of the many factors contributing to the present rise of nationalism in Europe.

Personally, I don't mind the universal culture. But then, I'm just comfortable in it; many people are not, and cling to their local traditions.

[coldtea]

>usually, but wrongly, called "Western culture" or "American culture"

Usually, but not wrongly. Not only because bona fide American culture (even morals and soapiness) are the majority of what's replacing local cultures, but also because the little of regional cultures that becomes international does so after it passes from an American filter/lens.

>Personally, I don't mind the universal culture. But then, I'm just comfortable in it; many people are not, and cling to their local traditions.

In other words, you don't mind a base monoculture and the loss of untold regional treasures and ways of human expression.

[TeMPOraL]

Let me clarify what I meant: it's not wrong that it's Western/American because it's where it happens to be coming from, which is just the function of US being currently the biggest economic and cultural influencer. But I say it's wrongly called because at its core it's not American - it's older than America, and lots of its part have nothing to do with the US or the Western world.

The universal culture is, simply, what wins on the cultural market.

Looking through this lens, McDonald's and Coca Cola, and cars and Internet shopping, are present worldwide not because of American imperialism, but because they are better, in many aspects, to what they replace locally. People find utility in fast food restaurants, sweet beverages, urbanization, "western" healthcare, etc. The US isn't parking its aircraft carriers in the Baltic to tell Poland that we have to open Starbucks (and similarly structured competition), nor does Sweden threaten us with another Thirty Years War if we don't start buying prefab furniture. All of those won on the cultural market, and they're only associated with the West because the West is leading in economy and innovation, contributing the most to the universal culture at this time.

> In other words, you don't mind a base monoculture and the loss of untold regional treasures and ways of human expression.

Actually, I don't. Or put another way - I'm not particularly fond of trying to artificially protect existing local cultures and old traditions. Cultures are mostly arbitrary anyways; I don't care much for what kind of folklore dance I am supposed to engage in at weddings. But I accept that other people do, so I'm also against forcing the choice. But not forcing the choice is also precisely what makes universal culture universal - it's the set of things people adopt on their own over what they did previously.

[e12e]

Artificial? As opposed to the natural mechanic that paints billboards with coca cola commercials, or undercut things like tap water in terms of price through hostile negotiations for water rights?

[Pyxl101]

The phrase he used was "artificially protect". This would be in comparison to allowing culture to change over time naturally.

[e12e]

Yes, but what is "natural change", and how does it relate to commercial interest? Or indeed overt colonialism?

[coldtea]

There's no "naturally" when one side has all the might and the bucks.

[dwaltrip]

Previously, human groups were like two separate containers, one containing coffee and one containing milk. Now, through technological advancements and many other developments, they have been brought together into a single cup. The laws of physics demand that the two liquids in the cup combine into a homogeneous mixture.

This is an imperfect metaphor -- in reality, the separate containers have only been partially brought together, and human individuals are more complex than beverage molecules. But I think the idea expresses noteworthy amounts of truth.

[rjkennedy98]

Dickens was the most popular entertainer of his time. Shakespeare was widely popular as well. Both are considered too difficult for most audiences now days. Can you imagine a writer like Dickens being the most popular in contemporary America or in the UK? Our most popular figure is Kim Kardashian.

And my point about the Church was not to say that religion is all good, but to point to the fact that people are disconnected from communities. UK just hired a Minister of Loneliness. Its a serious issue.

[morsch]

When Oliver Twist was published (1838), a third of the British population couldn't read[1].

[1] https://www1.umassd.edu/ir/resources/laboreducation/literacy...

[rjkennedy98]

14 percent of adult Americans demonstrated a “below basic” literacy level in 2003, and 29 percent exhibited a “basic” reading level.

That is with public education.

[dragonwriter]

> Dickens was the most popular entertainer of his time. Shakespeare was widely popular as well. Both are considered too difficult for most audiences now days.

Difficult largely because of the relatively rapid rate of drift in English idiom (which is a unique feature of English); but less popular largely not because of difficulty but drift in taste for entertainment media which is more about shifting fashion than any issue with capacity.

[claytoneast]

I think you are disregarding the degradation of the human attention span that modern media has brought to our minds. If you really think there is no difference in capacity between the minds of that time and now, just google "technology and attention span" and spend some time with the results. If you can manage to hold your attention long enough to read through them :) I know hardly anyone anymore who can sit on a couch and read for even 5 minutes without a break in attention to do something on their phone. The capacity absolutely is not there.

[dllthomas]

Dickens was serialized - there was only so long you could spend reading new Dickens before you ran out of it. (I haven't been able to find the typical length of a portion, though.)

On the other hand, plenty of people will spend a weekend on the new Harry Potter.

[kps]

32 pages. <http://dickens.wpi.edu/history.html>

[zild3d]

> I know hardly anyone anymore who can sit on a couch and read for even 5 minutes without a break in attention to do something on their phone.

I definitely don't align with this sentiment, sounds more like who you are surrounding yourself with. Many of my friends and coworkers are avid readers, and books are a common discussion topic.

There is also a flip side to how technology has affected our attention span. Consider how many people now "read" while driving, working out, doing chores. Yes we may crave more stimulation, but it means while doing laundry or dishes we are going to seek out audiobooks and podcasts. I read more than ever now that I can get just about any book instantly, and read on the go