>And yet in reality, somehow the world moved towards a much better place despite those things.
It's not "somehow", you're glossing over the very real losses and very avoidable tragedies (fed by bigotry and fear) that happened during the AIDS crisis, which is my whole point. Progress isn't free and by ignoring the real losses and avoidable tragedies we repeat the same mistakes. That's why we have to confront the uncomfortable parts of the past and present. If we only focus on the superficial elements of success and progress, we make problems more difficult to actually confront.
But isn't the point that despite the very real and avoidable tragedies along the way, things have continued to improve quite quickly? So as we continue, we can expect more preventable tragedies (whatever "preventable" actually means), but also more progress to benefit the vast majority of us who do make it?
I don't think we need to get bent out of shape about the aspects of human nature that cause horror and tragedy, since they seem so greatly overshadowed by aspects of the same nature which are driven to continuously improve. The good guys are winning, by a lot.
>progress to benefit the vast majority of us who do make it
So what level of sacrifice should be required of those that don't make it? Going back to the AIDS example, government involvement was delayed because of bigotry, because it only affected people who didn't make it. Our economy is currently propped up by low wage workers both locally and globally who aren't making it. We don't do a good job at taking care of the sick and the poor. We're doing a terrible job at taking care of the environment. As you both have said, none of this is new, but it doesn't have to be this way. We know how to solve many of society's problems and we choose not to do so. If the core reason for these things is "human nature" and we shouldn't try to change, I don't think I have the defeatist attitude in that case. My attitude comes from seeing solutions that we aren't even trying to do, not that we -shouldn't- try.
>The good guys are winning, by a lot.
I don't see the good guys winning. The good guys currently have the high score, but the bad guys are on the upswing and scoring points on the good guys, who are just standing around.
> So what level of sacrifice should be required of those that don't make it
The same as it has always been for all living things: pain, suffering, and death.
> low wage workers both locally and globally who aren't making it
Pretty sure quality of life is up by pretty much every measure for "low wage workers" both locally and globally.
> none of this is new, but it doesn't have to be this way.
> We know how to solve many of society's problems and we choose not to do so.
You could have made this statement at any point in history, and people might agree with you. If this is the only way it ever has been, why do you think it doesn't have to be this way?
We know in theory. There is a vast, uncrossable gulf between theory and practice, as various communist experiments have shown. There is no known solution to ingroup/outgroup tendency, sociopathy or naked self-interest.
> If the core reason for these things is "human nature" and we shouldn't try to change
We should totally try to change! But we shouldn't expect to succeed, and we shouldn't be surprised or disappointed when awful things happen. We should instead realize that, looking at the past few centuries of history, this is an amazing time to be alive, by every metric. Better to accept humanity the way that it is, space rockets and genocides and all, and realize that it's still a net-positive, than despair that humanity doesn't hold up to some sort of fictional ideal.
>Pretty sure quality of life is up by pretty much every measure for "low wage workers" both locally and globally.
Wages are stagnant and certainly haven't kept pace with productivity. They can buy more TVs because electronics are cheaper, but costs for basics are going up. Metrics don't capture "having to pee in a bottle" because of work demands.
>You could have made this statement at any point in history, and people might agree with you. If this is the only way it ever has been, why do you think it doesn't have to be this way?
Was it true in 2500 BC that they had the resources to feed everyone on the planet consistently? 1500 AD? We can feed everyone now, yet people go hungry in the wealthiest nation in the world. Has it been true at any point in history since the industrial revolution where we could provide healthcare and advanced education for everyone in an industrialized nation? It works for many of them, but not the wealthiest one. Are we doing everything we can to solve these problems? I understand life is about prioritizing and understanding tradeoffs, but food and healthcare are among the most basic needs for a healthy individual and education is one of the basic needs for a healthy society.
>There is no known solution to ingroup/outgroup tendency, sociopathy or naked self-interest.
So why do we structure society to encourage and reward these behaviors instead of trying to mitigate their effects?
> Wages are stagnant and certainly haven't kept pace with productivity
Wages have never been tied to productivity. They're derived from supply and demand for labour. Gold miners are very productive fiscally speaking, but they don't make any more than coal miners.
> Metrics don't capture "having to pee in a bottle" because of work demands.
Why do you think people shouldn't have to pee in bottles? Or be exposed to dangerous conditions? You seem to be operating from a moral ideal that gives a very clear idea of how things ought to be. Where do you derive it from?
> Was it true in 2500 BC that they had the resources to feed everyone on the planet consistently? 1500 AD?
You'd be surprised how much grain was hoarded by ancient Pharaohs and Medieval Lords. It was likely enough to prevent much of the starvation their populations experienced. We could always feed more people than we do, and people with wealth and power have always preferred expensive trinkets and shows of status to feeding the hungry.
The US is fundamentally build on individual liberty. This idea is in opposition to involuntary social obligation. If a person doesn't want to use their wealth/time/energy to the benefit of others, do they have to? Should you force them? To what degree? Are people entitled to be helped or should they have to ask? People disagree axiomatically on these things.
In absence of an oracle to tell us who is right and who is wrong, and given that we are all morally equal, it seems to follow that no one has a strong case to impose their answers to these questions on anyone else. Why are you so sure that helping people is "right"? Why do you think everyone has to work towards your idea of a "healthy society"?
> So why do we structure society to encourage and reward these behaviors instead of trying to mitigate their effects?
I'd say our current social structure is the best we've got for mitigating these effects. Entrepreneurship allows people to harness their self-interest to the benefit of others. Democracy limits the effects of corruption. This is why our society is able to innovate as much as it does, and therefore prevail in the ongoing competition with other societies and other ideas.
It's not "somehow", you're glossing over the very real losses and very avoidable tragedies (fed by bigotry and fear) that happened during the AIDS crisis, which is my whole point. Progress isn't free and by ignoring the real losses and avoidable tragedies we repeat the same mistakes. That's why we have to confront the uncomfortable parts of the past and present. If we only focus on the superficial elements of success and progress, we make problems more difficult to actually confront.