[aabeshou]

Look, I am all for self-care and not overexposing yourself to terrible news all day every day. But to act like negative news is making us think the world is worse than it is is just sheltered.

The reality is the world has a lot of terrible things happening all day every day and humanity is basically not doing anything to stop it as of now. Here are a few:

(1) in the US, a lot of people don't get enough healthcare because they can't afford it, and just go bankrupt when they get cancer

(2) black people are still terrorized and murdered by police, who largely get off scot-free

(3) the US and its business partners perpetrate crimes against humanity in the middle east on a regular basis

(4) the daily gruesome reality of poverty in the US

(5) We continue our slow but sure march towards climate apocalypse which will largely affect the most vulnerable among us.

This idea that "the standard of living" is higher... well sure, if you have a certain amount of money. But many people don't get healthcare, don't have any leisure time, don't have money to travel. And yeah, there's peace here, but what about in Yemen? What about in Honduras? Iraq? Afghanistan? So what, because we have iPhones we're supposed to think everything's amazing?

[freehunter]

But here's my problem with that... what am I supposed to do to help? With any of that?

It seems to me like I've got two options:

A) Filter/slow my news consumption to just the stories that are relevant to me plus the big huge actual breaking news stories and miss out on all the bummer stories about how bad it is in Yemen

or

B) Keep reading the news unfiltered and worrying about people in Yemen that I can't help and then switch to worrying about people in Honduras that I can't help then worrying about wildfires in California that I can't help and then worry about everything else until eventually I get so upset by the state of the world and how helpless I am that I fall into deep depression and end up harming myself or losing the will to live altogether.

Flipping your comment around, I'm all for being well-informed and reading the news, but what am I supposed to do about it? I vote. I pay taxes. I donate to local charities. Yeah the situation in Yemen is bad but what good does reading a news story do? Is my reading of how bad Yemen is going to help the people in Yemen? Is my inevitable mental health decline going to make their lives better?

What can I do with that information besides say "yeah Yemen is pretty bad isn't it"?

[aabeshou]

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.

[freehunter]

I personally strongly disagree (the world is bad but it's far better now than it ever had been) but I understand your point of view and I'm okay with it. Different people have different world views and different lenses they see the world through, so everyone has different tolerances. Personally I can't watch hours of bad things back to back without feeling bad, and if I see heartwrenching stories of war-torn Afghani families I'm going to be an emotional wreck for the rest of the day. It legitimately has a negative impact on my day-to-day life. I also have an addictive personality so one thing leads to another.

Some people can drink socially. Some people can function in their daily life as alcoholics. Some people find out they can't be around alcohol at all without relapsing to destructive alcoholism. It's the same for any addictive substance, and "news" definitely is addictive.

[aabeshou]

you absolutely should not expose yourself in a way that harms you excessively. noone is helped by your torment.

I like Dr. Bronner: "1st: If not for me, who am I? Nobody! 2nd: Yet, if I’m only for me, what am I? Nothing!"

I think we all have to find an appropriate personal balance.

[chris_va]

But, on each of this metrics (minus climate change), the US is better off today than it was 50 years ago.

The world conflicts that you cite involve fewer civilian casualties, today, than before. There are obviously horrible things going on in the world, but the mindset that people are generally worse off today is largely shaped by the media and false.

Don't take my word for it. Go plot violent crime rates worldwide. Or poverty rates, or quality of life, or starvation rates. Or access to medical care (you think it's expensive today, those treatments weren't even available 50 years ago!). None of those things are trending in the wrong direction. Except maybe the US cost of medical care, that stuff is mind boggling.

[mycall]

> Except maybe the US cost of medical care, that stuff is mind boggling.

It is just greed, wealth concentration and regulatory capture at work.

[chris_va]

Given that no spot in the value chain is particularly profitable (drug companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, insurance companies), I am more inclined to believe there are structural issues rather than greed.

[ujki1]

The police only kills about 1000 people per year in the USA, and some of those kills are justified. Including it in the same list as global warming is IMO an example of 'Availability bias means that after we see negativity, we overestimate its significance' mentioned in the article.

[alexilliamson]

You're downplaying the damage those murders do black communities. And for every black person murdered, 1,000 more are terrorized with less than lethal force.

[aabeshou]

police disproportionately harass and kill black people, and unarmed black people, and you can find this in about 2 seconds in a google search

EDIT: apology for the personal attack, I have deleted it.

[JKCalhoun]

> But to act like negative news is making us think the world is worse than it is is just sheltered.

I disagree, I think that's exactly what negative news does.

Your 5 terrible things actually underscore another point, often the negative news makes us also feel helpless.

We can all vote; some of us have free time to volunteer; some of us have spare cash we can donate.

I'm not sure what I am supposed to do though on a day-to-day basis as the horrible news keeps coming.

Anecdote: I cut the wire (nixed cable TV) over 20 years ago when I started a family.

What a shock it was then when on road trips our family would find ourselves in a Best Western breakfast room with cable news showing explosions, people being set on fire by Isis, planes crashing, dead children washing ashore. I would have a momentary panic attack thinking that, just as we headed out for vacation, the world decided to come crashing down.

I learned to calm down, remind myself that, at any given time there is always something horrible happening on Earth and that the news is going to make sure you know about it.

I'm informed. I vote. But I also want to have a waffle from time to time without my hands shaking with fear.

[aabeshou]

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.

[balfirevic]

> But to act like negative news is making us think the world is worse than it is is just sheltered.

You can't falsify "negative news is making us think the world is worse than it is" by giving a list of bad things happening (which are all true, not disputing that).

[aabeshou]

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

[balfirevic]

> it's inherently a subjective question, based on what you value.

It's not. It's an objective question that compares "how the world is" vs. "how people think the world is".

[aabeshou]

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.

[makerofspoons]

Worse yet, what many consider a standard of living increase such as air travel, cheap energy, and an abundance of material goods shipped from all over the planet are actually contributing to the climate crisis.

[Zooper]

I was thinking that this article showed signs of distorted "optimistic" thinking.

[aabeshou]

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