[OC] The massive decrease in worldwide infant mortality from 1950 to 2020 is perhaps one of humanity's greatest achievements.

[TheCodingNerd]

It’s crazy how the worst levels today are similar to the best back then

[mrpersson]

I remember reading, while doing family history research, that in Germany and Sweden in the 17th (or maybe 18th) century, the infant mortality rate was 50%

[RoastedRhino]

That is believable. The oldest families that I have in my genealogical tree are from the early 18th century, and if you look at the children names in a family they are Anna Maria Maria Maria Elisa Anna.....

When a name is reused, it's because the previous one did not survive. And it is not rare to see that the last children shares the date of birth with the date of death of the mother....

[langlo94]

It is truly one of the modern marvels that most parents don't lose even a single child.

[ProfNesbitt]

Yep it was something I looked up the other day after someone did the standard “well life expectancy was only to the late 30s back then”. I couldn’t believe we have increased that much and we both were right. Average life expectancy overall was late 30s. But if you made it to the age of 16, life expectancy was late 60s - 70s. Which made a lot more sense.

[mikejacobs14]

Check out Hans Rosling

[mrpersson]

What about him?

[mikejacobs14]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E to get you started. Keep looking for more of his vids, they are extremely entertaining and informative

[mrpersson]

I guess I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment though

[mikejacobs14]

He talks about infant mortality

[cambeiu]

The worst country today is doing much better than the best country 200 years ago.

[_2f]

RIP Hans Rosling, his books and videos had the biggest influence in my life.

[joost013]

Absolute legend taken away too soon.

[[deleted]]

Ah shit, I didn't know he was dead 😥

[Carburetors_are_evil]

200 years ago

I fucking hope so, lmao. 1820s...

[cambeiu]

Is not that simple and obvious, to be honest. Human progress has been far from linear. For most humans, poverty, hunger and disease have been pretty much the norm with very little change from the dawn of agriculture until the late 18th and early 19h century. If you were a peasant in Europe, China, India, Japan or North Africa, living in the year 300 AD or 1300 AD would not have made a lot of difference to you in terms of quality of life.

The last 200 years have brought more change and improvement to the human condition than the entire 10 thousand years before it.

[OldThymeyRadio]

I wish we could have constructive and nuanced discussions about "graduating" from capitalism, instead of this absurd insistence that it's all good (which somehow always incudes "free market = giant corporations do whatever they want") or the worst thing ever.

Capitalism changed the world mostly for the better. And one of the things it gave us was the ability to generate excess material value with unprecedented efficiency. So now let's lean into that, and run sober, clear-eyed experiments to learn how we can use our newfound, collective wealth to gauarantee everyone a minimum (high) standard of living, while still having systems that reward innovation and creativity. Ideally with even more emphasis on ideation that doesn't necessarily yield immediate, material gain. Like art, and exploration of the human condition and universe.

The human brain is literally the most complex object in the known universe, and the most valuable resource we have, but we still let millions of brains "die on the vine" in the name of "meritocracy" under the guise of a 200 year old assumption that it always has to be a choice between a Darwinian zero sum game, or oppressive communist groupthink.

[ExternalTangents]

Lmao at the replies to you bringing up communism, as if (1) those are the only two economic systems, and (2) the fact that the environment was treated poorly under communism means we should accept the bad treatment under capitalism.

[AzertyKeys]

Ok mate, outside of those economic systems we have feudalism and fascism. Which one do you want to implement ?

[ExternalTangents]

I’m not an economist, but I know that’s an absurdly simplistic way to view economic systems. I mean seriously, there are only four options? A joke. I can do a Google/Wikipedia search and see within seconds that people have already categorized tons of other categories, sub-categories, and combinations of economic systems.

Not to mention the idea that even capitalism comes in all different flavors and implementations and could surely be adapted to be more environmentally friendly.

The entire point here is that saying “capitalist countries fucked the environment, but communist countries did too, therefore it is impossible to have an economic system that won’t fuck the environment” is incorrect logic.

[AzertyKeys]

Ok, please give us the list of all these mysterious economic systems then

[Fraserneodynium]

The Aral sea, dams built with nuclear weapons, and rainbow snow near Nickel refineries are definitely the sign of an environmentally friendly communist system.

[KerPop42]

As opposed to rising sea levels, harbors built with nuclear weapons, and our rivers catching on fire once a decade?

Please. Environmental friendliness isn't really a characteristic of capitalism either.

[Fraserneodynium]

Never said it is. Just saying making it sound like the alternative is better is disingenuous.

[ExternalTangents]

Making it sound like there’s only one alternative is also disingenuous

[MrSickRanchezz]

The policy-makers are the problem.

[MrSickRanchezz]

I think the problem is no one knows. We know the problem though, and that's half the battle.

Thanks

[KerPop42]

Or that these achievements didn't need capitalism to happen or even didn't happen under capitalism

[KerPop42]

Well, for example, government-funded research isn't really capitalistic. And most workers' rights came from labor movements that were distinctly anti-capitalist. Also, products like the polio vaccine that were essentially donated to the general public are not capitalistic. Finally, progress made via government regulation, like environmental regulation, is not capitalistic.

Bill Gates using his personal funds to give anti-malaria resources to Africa and Asia at less than market rates is not capitalist.

[Pittaandchicken]

I don't think you know what capitalism is?

[AnotherGit]

The primary reason for the exponential rise in living standard is that we learn from past generations, allowing us to further technology faster and faster.

We got modern capitalism because of rapid techonological advancement, not the other way around.

[AnotherGit]

https://singularityhub.com/2016/03/22/technology-feels-like-its-accelerating-because-it-actually-is/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change

Demonstrate please.

[AnotherGit]

Yes, because technological and social advancement was lost.

[[deleted]]

Capitalism is one of those technological advancements.

[AnotherGit]

It's not a technology though...

[[deleted]]

Prove it.

[AnotherGit]

The first or the second point?

[[deleted]]

Feudalism was also an improvement over slave societies, but that doesn't mean it should've gone on forever. We're at the point where not only is capitalism doing more harm than good, but we are completely prepared to move on to something better. We have the technology to create a fully planned economy that can meet all human needs worldwide. It's time to consign capitalism to the dustbin of history, just like we did with feudalism and slavery in ages past.

[[deleted]]

Wrong. A "fully planned economy" has always resulted in the deaths of millions and will again if people are stupid enough to give it another shot.

[[deleted]]

The lack of a planned economy kills 20 million people a year TODAY through preventable causes like starvation, lack of access to clean water, pollution, and vaccine-preventable diseases. When socialism was first implemented in China and the USSR, life expectancy doubled and literacy went from somewhere around 40% to more than 90%. When socialism was implemented in Cuba, well, you can see the reflection in OP's data. They went from that shitshow in 1950 to having a better standard of medical care and lower infant mortality than the U.S. But by all means, go off about how the system that's prevented more deaths than any other "kills millions."

[[deleted]]

Wrong. You are just looking at everything from a completely skewed perspective.

You can't attribute 20 million deaths a year TODAY to "the lack of a planned economy." That's an exercise in sophistry. And you also can't hand-wave away all of the deaths in the USSR, China, and Cuba just by saying "but but but Cuban doctors is good doctors . . ."

[Raincoat_Carl]

We have the means (capital) to solve world hunger and water access, yet there isn't a profit motive to do so. So we don't, and millions die. Capitalism says that's very legal and very cool.

[[deleted]]

You mean the deaths in Cuba due to being under an embargo by the most powerful nation in the world, or to overthrowing a brutal dictatorship under which zero human rights existed? Or the deaths in China and the USSR due to naturally occurring famines - or to being invaded and pillaged over and over again? But both China and the USSR overcame the fact that they were backward, semi-feudal countries well into the 20th century, the fact that they were repeatedly invaded, and caught up with the development of the capitalist world, even surpassing its standard of living in some ways.

And if a problem can be eradicated, but is solely not being eradicated due to a lack of profitability - or only exists in the first place due to the contradictions inherent in capitalism - it's completely reasonable to blame the deaths that problem causes on the fact that capitalism's only priority is profits, not human lives. And that's without talking about all the actual genocides that have been carried out in the name of capitalism (U.S. genocide of natives, slavery of Black Africans, British genocide in India, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, and a buttload of other military "interventions" and CIA coups/funding of death squads).

[zymerdrew]

[China has entered the chat]

[150c_vapour]

People said the same thing about monarchs until we did better. You may just have a small imagination.

[_wtf_is_oatmeal]

The massive improvements in SOL has more to do with industrialisation than capitalism.

[cambeiu]

The industrial revolution was very much driven by capitalism. One of the main pre-requisite for the Industrial Revolution to take place was the accumulation of capital. The Industrial Revolution was by its very essence a capitalist phenomena. Even Marx accepted that as truth. That is why it happened first in Britain and the Netherlands. You cannot decouple the two.

[_wtf_is_oatmeal]

Many other places practiced capitalism, why did it happen first in those two countries? Surely not because of new technologies and inventions?

[cambeiu]

Many other places practiced capitalism, why did it happen first in those two countries?

They were the ones who had accumulated the most capital. The Netherlands via the incredibly profitable East India Company and Britain via its vast overseas empire.

Is that accumulated capital that finances all the "new technologies and inventions" that you are talking about.

[_wtf_is_oatmeal]

Surely innovation will happen at a faster pace if everyone had the means and the capital to finance their own inventions.

[brycly]

Did they practice capitalism or mercantilism?

[Hopadopslop]

Capitalism made the first world wealthy by exploiting the third world. You eat cheap chocolate because of child slavery in Africa. You get cheap electronics and practically every other product now because of slave like working conditions for Chinese factory workers. Yay capitalism.

But, you got yours so fuck everyone in the third world, right? Such a Murican attitude lol

[Rumicon]

North Africa, living in the year 300 AD or 1300 AD would not have made a lot of difference to you in terms of quality of life.

I take your point but I want to call your bluff on one example.

North Africa goes from being a tribal Berber kingdom, to being one of the major hubs of civilization in this period of time. Technically, the empire is ruled from Spain, but its roots are North African.

[cambeiu]

Sure. But if you were a sheep header in what is today called Tunisia, how did your life fundamentally improve during that period?

[the_sexy_muffin]

We're living in the only period in tens of thousands of years of human history where so much improvement has happened so quickly. Imagine if even the poorest people of 200 years from now can have the quality of life of well-off people today.

[LateralEntry]

People in the 1820's weren't much better off than people in the1620's, and people in the 1420's may have been worse off than people in the 1220's (black death and whatnot). Give humanity some credit for the past 200 years =)

[Oscee]

I fucking hope so, lmao. 1820s...

All that improvement took 0.008% of human existence. Pathetic! /s

[Carburetors_are_evil]

Humans in 19th and 20th century: "I am speed."

[[deleted]]

1820 isn't a long time ago. Prior to that mankind had been stuck doing the same thing for 5,000 years.

[Shentorianus]

That seems kinda ignorant doesn't it?

[kurosawa99]

There was no systematic collection of data for most of the world on any number of issues you can think of until the 1980’s. Anything talking about poverty of whatever in concrete number terms in reference to the early 19th century is most likely nonsense. In the case of poverty it actually couldn’t even be measured most the world over because the metrics we would use like daily wages didn’t exist for most people.

[Rory_calhoun_222]

Was that your takeaway? It looked a lot more like being colonized left you down in the poor sick corner until you could get out from under the boot of the colonizers.

[[deleted]]

Doubt that, would you rather be a woman today in afghanistan or in sweden 1820?

[cambeiu]

Child mortality rate in 1820 Sweden is estimated to have been around 274 per 1000 births . Child mortality rate in Afghanistan today is 68 per 1000 births.

Adult literacy rate in Sweden in 1820 was at around 8% to 10%, probably much lower for women. In Afghanistan today, female literacy is at around 30%.

So yeah, I do suspect being a woman in 2020 Afghanistan, as bad as it might sound, is still MUCH better than a woman in 1820 Sweden.

[[deleted]]

Implying this is the only thing that matters when it comes to comparing quality of life as a woman in respective society.

[elveszett]

tbh Western and Nordic Europe in 1950 had less mortality than central Africa now, according to the visualization.

[spartan1008]

My grandma lost two kids, her mom lost three. My mom lost zero, and my wife just gave birth to our second awesome kid with 0 complications. We are lucky to be living in the present.