Fine, I'll bite.
You're right to look for optimism — and I understand the instinct to reframe the data positively.
I don't know what to think about this statement. "The instinct to reframe the data positively." I get the Dunning-Kruger, but I think in general the instinct is for negativity on things outside your control. Positivity is what takes effort. It's easier to lay down than stand up. So, my first thought was to take issue with this suggestion that optimism is just following baser instincts while negativity is the heightened state of mind fighting the foolish animal self. (And, to the extent that is the intention, I do take issue).
But then there's "You're right to look for optimism." What a concession. Looking for optimism is "right" in some way. The takeaway would be that dwelling on pessimism is "wrong," yes?
But I think you're missing the core of the argument. This isn't about being pessimistic or ignoring that some people live comfortably. It's about acknowledging the massive scale of avoidable suffering that still exists — and questioning a system, and a condition of existence, that tolerates or requires it.
I have a hard time believing that your purpose in general on any post isn't about being pessimistic, lol.
I didn't realize there was an argument for which I could miss the core. If you'd like it to be an argument, could you define what it means for someone's life to be a "mistake" and explain your proposed criteria for the mistake being "corrected"?
And as for happiness data — self-reported surveys taken in various cultures, under vastly different social norms and pressures, are not a reliable reflection of whether life is just or worthwhile. Many people normalize their pain or learn to survive in numbness. The ability to report "5.5/10" doesn't erase the structural violence of being born into poverty, disease, war, or abandonment.
I like to leave that subjective valuation to individual people. You would override them? The number is an average, so if someone who reported 9/10 even though they are born in a place with disease and war you would tell them they've normalized their pain and therefore that life is still a "mistake?"
"Normaliz[ing] pain" and "learning to survive in numbness" are indeed skills. While total numbness sounds bad, balancing numbing pain with maintaining good/joy is to be commended. It's learning strength and endurance.
I will say, if you have better actual data to contradict what I've presented, please by all means share. Otherwise, it's what we have to go on. You can talk about war and I can talk about sunny days and holding hands but the only thing that actually matters is the experience of the individual, not what you or I think their experience should be.
The point behind "Your birth is a mistake you'll spend your whole life trying to correct" isn't statistical — it's existential.
Okay so, as I expected, this is not so much an argument as a vent. Which is fine. This is a good place to vent.
It's the cry of those who were brought into a world that requires suffering, labor, compromise, and harm just to stay alive.
So it's not your cry, you are crying for others, even those who don't cry for themselves (because they evaluate their life as a positive)? That seems to be contributing to the world's negativity, no?
To illustrate: there is a person who - like everyone - feels a combination of pain and joy, but they evaluate the joy to exceed the pain to a significant degree rendering their life worth living. (aka, most people). They were born in a "bad" place with fewer resources, increased war and disease, etc., but have mentally overcome these hurdles. Then, you have a person born in a "better" place with significant advantages; somewhere where suffering is relatively minimal. That latter person is taking active time and energy to cry out - feel additional sadness/pain - for the sake of the former person.
Who does that benefit? Is the former person likely to be happy this is happening? Or has this exercise only been an effort of throwing one more scrap on the world's entire collective pile of sadness?
Not everyone is lucky enough to be born into safety or comfort. And even those who are will one day age, decay, lose, and die — because that's the final truth about life. All joy is temporary. All security is fragile.
All joy and all pain are indeed temporary. Many find meaning in the transient nature of their life - something to be experienced as a whole from start to finish.
And none of us asked to be here.
But the majority ask to stay. "I didn't ask to be here" is a fine statement in favor of one's individual suicide, but not for labeling another's life a "mistake," when their view is "I didn't ask to be here, but I'm glad I'm here now."
That means 419 million people still defecate in the open — in fields, alleys, or roadsides, often in unsafe, humiliating, or disease-prone conditions. Should we celebrate a world where 1 in 19 people still lack basic sanitation as a success?
What was it before? The natural state of being would be that 1 in 1 people lack what is considered by modern standards to be "basic sanitation."
Should we celebrate that we've gone from 1/1 to 1/19? Yes, actually, we should. We should try to keep pushing it down, but 'yes' we should celebrate the progress.
And 2.4 billion lack proper toilets — a third of the planet. This is a metric of how far we still are from universal human dignity.
700 million in extreme poverty (under $2.15/day)
3.5 billion more under the upper-middle income poverty line ($6.85/day)
That's over 4.2 billion people — more than half the world — living in conditions that most people in developed nations would consider unacceptable or desperate.
What we privileged people consider to be acceptable doesn't matter. If those people find it acceptable - even if not preferable! - then their life is not a mistake.
We privileged people have put far too much emphasis on the material. This is something that most people agree on, and then they continue to focus on the material. If others suffer in body but are more fulfilled in soul I admire them, and think their life is arguably less of a "mistake" than a miserable comfortable person.
So yes, technically, many are "above" the extreme poverty line. But "not starving to death today" is not an adequate standard for a life worth celebrating.
Again, that still means 1.6 billion people — 1 in 5 — lack adequate shelter, and 150 million are homeless. Do we seriously believe that's a success story?
Again, the natural state of being is 1 in 1 being homeless. Getting to 1 in 5 is a success story. The story isn't over, and maybe we're stagnating, which is not great, but we've shown great progress and therefore the potential for more progress.
What's you number for success? If we got to 1 in 100, would you make posts about existence being great?
Four billion people — almost two thirds of the world's population — experience severe water scarcity for at least one month each year.
Saying "only" 1 in 10 people don't have enough food is not a defense of life — it's a condemnation of the systems we're born into. A decent world wouldn't allow even 1 in 1000 to go hungry, let alone 1 in 10.
Where is your example of this decent world?
If it is "non-existence": in that sick place,
no one has access to water or food. On top of that,
no one ever experiences the indescribable comfort, warmth, and joy of holding a loved one close. There isn't even anyone there aware of that possibility! That place is certainly quite dreary. Right now, in this world, the net sum of good minus bad is positive, and there exists
hope that the ratio could get even higher.
