Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

1. Deaths due to wars are at all time lows.
2. Fewest people (per capita) below the poverty line in all of human history.
3. Least amount of starvation in perhaps all of human history.Just those three things alone tip it towards "getting better" in my estimation. I don't know what the numbers are on democracies worldwide, but that probably looks good as well.Just 2 or 3 generations ago you had to worry about your child dying from diseases that no parent has to worry about today. 100 years ago the average life expectancy was much lower than it is today.In my opinion, this has a lot to do with humans creating the most deadly weapons ever made: the nuclear bomb. A war between superpowers will lead to utter destruction of one or both superpowers, so they are limited to small proxy wars. Times of peace have lead to times of prosperity.Could this all go in the opposite direction in the future? Maybe. However, that's not the quesiton. If you are asking about right now, then this is the best time in human history to be alive, on average.

Lowest poverty in all of history, lowest starvation rates, fewest wars, most freedom . . . if that is God's judgement being brought down on us, then I say we do whatever we can do get more of it. Right now is the best time to be alive in the entirety of human history.

The big one would be food, and from what I can see there is still plenty of arable land available across the globe. The Green Revolution has produced massive increases in food yield per acre, as well as created new varieties that can grow in places where it couldn't be grown before. If we look at the basics of what a human needs, the Chinese are WAY better off. They are no longer threatened by famine. They have access to good housing. Child mortality has plummeted, and access to health care for everyone is much better. Is it better to move into a middle class per Western ideals? I think most Chinese think it is better.If we want a hard and fast measure of improvement we could chart the number of people who buy KFC chicken. I think we could say that the current conditions of the human species is finger lickin' good.

There are also false prophecies.

That's what all the false prophets say.

For a comparison, in the 5-7 year span of WWII the death tolls were 20 million Soviets, 20 million Chinese, 7 million Germans, 5 million in the Holocaust, 6 million in Poland . . . well, you get the idea. There isn't anything really approaching these numbers right now.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So you would be okay with those southern border gate crashers getting on a boat and entering the country through Ellis Island the same way the Italians, Germans, and Irish did? Why couldn't we set up the same thing at the southern border? How long would they have to wait if they did it that way? How long would they have to stay in life threatening situations? I agree, we can't take in everyone who wants to come here. However, we can take in a lot more than we are currently taking in, and do so fairly and compassionately.

Why not?

Trump's entire campaign was spent scaring people about evil immigrants who were going to jump across the border and murder their family.

So you deny that this was part of Trump's campaign? Really?Do you ever stop and think about anything? Is your hearing selective?

So you deny the idiotic hysteria that Trump tried to use during his campaign?

There's the idiotic hysterics from the Right that we are talking about. You are getting feedback from the hysteria in your own echo chamber.The major problem is that conservatives refuse to accept the science.

Have you read your own posts? Trump denies that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for climate change. If Trump said that he accepts all of the science pointing to humanity's impact on global climate, but wanted to get the policies right, then I would give him some credit. However, he denies the science as do many in the Republican party.This is the first thing that needs to get fixed. We can't fix a problem if people deny there is a problem. Perhaps you can be a voice inside conservative circles that can start to budge Republicans on this issue. Why can't building new sources of energy be profitable and improve the economy? We could start building solar panels in coal country, as one example.

Why would someone act to reduce carbon emissions if they don't think it is causing any problems? This is a bit confusing. What is the volume of water that has been added to the ocean, and how much sea level rise would you expect from that volume of water? Also, you need to factor in thermal expansion. Sea level can rise without adding more water to the oceans. Reforestation doesn't reduce carbon emissions. We don't need to ignore the truth just because it's scary. Sometimes, the truth is scary. Avoiding the truth doesn't make it go away. What good people do is face the scary truth, overcome their fears, and solve the problem.

That's a bit silly. We could drastically reduce carbon emissions by replacing all fossil fuel power plants with nuclear plants, and switch as much of our transportation as possible to electric. We wouldn't have to shut down all human enterprise. We could research alternatives for powering transport ships as well.