This was written for the wedding ceremony of Ruby Bloom and Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg, as part of a section dedicated to affirming their shared values. The aim was to convey a sense of just how much incredible progress humanity has made, how fortunate we all are, and to motivate a feeling of hope for the future. I found it really enjoyable and motivating to write, and thought others here might find it interesting and/or motivating to read.

 

The world today isn’t perfect - far from it. But it’s also much, much, better than it used to be. Just as it’s impossible for us to really feel the full extent of the suffering in the world today, we also can’t really feel the full extent of the progress humanity has made. 

But it’s vital that we do, because it’s that sense of progress that will give us hope, hope that the future can be better.

Having hope isn’t always easy. We look to the past, and we see suffering. We look at the world today, and we also see suffering. It’s hard for your brain to tell the difference. 100,000 people dying feels roughly as bad as 1,000,000 people dying. But 100,000 deaths is a lot less than 1,000,000, even if it doesn’t seem it. It’s incredible progress.

To really see progress, first we have to look backwards. Imagine what your life would have been like had you been born just 300 years ago -  as an average person living in the 1700s. There was no middle class back then, so chances are you’d be poor - very poor. So poor that you stood a real chance of starving. If you were lucky, and managed to keep enough food on the table, you’d still be severely malnourished - enough that you could easily be killed off by any one of the various common diseases of the time. And deadly diseases were common: if you were born in 1700 in Europe, by the age of ten you’d have lived through two smallpox epidemics, a measles epidemic, and a famine. Add to this the constant threat of infection - without running water and soap, without antibiotics, a mere cut could easily kill you.

You worked hard - not just long hours, but physically gruelling agricultural or industrial work. Not just physically demanding, but also physically dangerous. If you got injured, you’d be on the streets, begging.

As a woman, you’d avoid this physically threatening labor of work, of course - replaced with your own special kind of physically threatening labor. You’d probably be pregnant most of the time you weren’t nursing. Infant and child mortality were ridiculously high, so you could expect to lose a lot of kids - maybe half or more. Your chances of dying during childbirth would be much, much higher than they are today - add to that the fact that you’re giving birth about ten times as often, and childbirth is one of your biggest risks of dying.

You couldn’t vote - a privilege reserved only for landowners. You probably couldn’t read - less than half the population could. There’s no electricity or heating, obviously, so you just have to get used to those cold, winter, nights, and pray that the bad weather doesn’t kill your crops - and your family. Your life expectancy is around 35.

Now think about your own life: your warm house, electricity, clean, running water. Your smartphone, internet connection, maybe that holiday you’ve got booked for a few months’ time. Sure, you have stresses and worries: that you might not achieve what you could, that you don’t have time to do all the things you enjoy, that someone you care about could get a rare illness. But you’re only able to worry about these things because of a whole host of other worries that don’t take up your time: you don’t have to worry about getting enough food, about getting a small cut, about keeping fifteen children alive.

The progress we’ve made over the past 300 years is immense. And 300 years is nothing - an absolutely miniscule amount of time in the hundreds of thousands of years of human history.

We’ve made insane amounts of progress. Sometimes I look at the world around me, remembering that once humans were hunter gatherers living in the natural environment, vulnerable to predators and extreme weather, and everything looks amazing. How did we get here? How did we manage to create these huge, intricate, buildings, interwoven with technology so complex most of us can’t even begin to explain how it all works?

Somehow, life developed on Earth from the most basic elements - and somehow incredibly, we, humans, evolved from that first basic life. We learned to hunt, to make fire, to use tools.

We developed writing, allowing us to share and pass on knowledge from generation to generation. We learned to farm, leading to the agricultural revolution, and allowing people to spend their time doing things other than searching for food. Gradually, new, more complex societies were born: cities and states with different classes of people. We learned to create our own fuel from coal, built the steam engine, and began producing goods in factories. We developed more and more advanced methods of transportation, allowing us to explore the world, share ideas, and grow in wealth and power. We learned how to make vaccines, and eradicated deadly killers such as smallpox, saving 100 million lives. We invented electricity, cars, and human flight. We put a man on the moon. We built computers, and connected them all via the internet. We made these computers small enough that anyone could carry one round in their pocket at all times.

We’ve made extraordinary progress in understanding the world around us, in learning to control our environment and guard against threats - large and small, in treating and eradicating diseases and saving lives. Every second, people are dying - but every second people are also defying death, death that would have been inevitable just a century ago.

Compared to almost everyone who has ever lived in all of history, your life is awesome.

Of course, even today, we’re the lucky ones. The average person today is much better off than the worst-off person. Millions of people in the world still aren’t so lucky - millions still live in poverty, still struggle to get enough food to get by, still die from curable diseases. But we now have the power to help people who suffer today, even those living on the other side of the world, at little cost to ourselves. Incredible advances in transport and technology mean that someone living in the Western world can save a life in developing countries at the click of a button. We’re much less violent, much more compassionate, empathetic and altruistic - we have not just the practical ability to help those worse off but also increasing levels of motivation to do so.

We’re going to face some serious challenges over the next century, that’s for certain - and of course it’s possible we won’t make it. But we’ve also got so much progress ahead of us in the next few decades, more progress than we can imagine. The world in 30 years is likely to be pretty unrecognisable to us now. Based on the patterns of the past, if we don’t off ourselves, there’s a chance it’s going to be unrecognisably better - that we’ll have eradicated the vast majority of suffering, that we’ll have a drastically better understanding of our universe and the technology to exert much greater control over it, that we’re going to have moved closer towards the light.

One thing I don’t doubt is that we’re going to put up a hell of a fight. We’re going to do everything we can to survive. We’re not going to sit back and let this universe engulf us. Around me, I see so much drive to fight back: to eliminate suffering, to push humanity forwards into a bright and better future, and that drive only seems to be getting stronger. And that, above all, gives me hope.

 

 

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Excellent post! This important message is unfortunately too often forgotten. Reading this, I realize how utterly spoilt I am, sitting here complaining about bureaucratic research funding bodies. ;) Our ancestors did the hard part!

This is not a particularly accurate portrayal.

e.g. "Your life expectancy is around 35." is a myth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

or "Imagine what your life would have been like had you been born just 300 years ago - as an average person living in the 1700s." and then you go on to state "And 300 years is nothing - an absolutely miniscule amount of time in the hundreds of thousands of years of human history." but in reality the 1700s were an unusually hellish time and things were better for the average human in most parts of history (or - something like that. I'm not a historian; I just know about common misconceptions)

Ah, thanks for pointing these things out! I didn't realise either of these things - admittedly, I didn't have as much time as I would have liked to research the historical facts for this. A lot of these points were taken from some top posts on Quora on a thread about progress over the past few centuries, and I was (perhaps naively) hoping that crowdsourced info would give me fairly accurate info. Anyway, I was thinking of writing a more detailed article about human progress at some point, so I'll definitely try to do a bit more research and take these points into account - thanks for flagging my errors/sloppiness!

I agree that the life expectancy statement may be a bit misleading, but it is factually correct. Life expectancies at older ages have also gone up significantly (if less dramatically). The points Jess is making all seem correct qualitatively even if there are factual errors.

Our world in data has some good graphs on this. Their other presentations also do a good job of showing how much life has improved over the past several hundred years.

Alice, it's an evocative wedding speech not a Science publication! - I don't think this is a helpful or charitable response!

I don't think the life expectancy of 35 is even wrong. Yes, infant mortality of 30% is contributing but noone's arguing that infant mortality is a good thing. And even if you don't die an infant, your life expectancy is going to be perhaps 55, which is still a lot less than the 70 or so years that we might expect to live!

Great article, I always need reminding of the positives! Paywalled, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164070407001358

But Hendry's work shows a 6 fold increase in real wages (500x nominal) since 1860 only - with hours worked dropping considerably. Must have been pretty tough!

Curated and popular this week
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies