[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.