The world today compared to fifty years ago

Societal Retrospective Comparison

We do not live in a perfect world; there are significant social problems in almost every human society as well as evidence of injustice, oppression, discrimination, abuse, neglect, and exploitation everywhere, just to name a few of the many types of problems that exist in human communities. However, it is comparatively unproductive to focus on how many problems still exist today instead of working to improve society. From the relatively short perspective of a few years, it is understandable why it may seem that the most significant problems in human society persist indefinitely. Likewise, from the most superficial perspective, it may be understandable that elements of modern social conduct are impolite compared to the social norms that existed fifty years ago.

On the other hand, from a longer perspective, it becomes evident that human societies tend to resolve many of their major problems eventually. In practically every nation on earth, contemporary life is actually much better, by numerous conceptual measures, than it was only a half century ago. Most of those beneficial changes that have improved the lives of so many are attributable to the work of those who worried more about making a positive difference than about criticizing the conditions of their societies. In every generation there are those who merely complain and those who accomplish something toward achieving a better society.

Argument

One common criticism of contemporary society is that there is too great a disparity between the so-called "haves" in the First World and the "have-nots" living mostly in the Third World. Some of those living in the First World who focus on the (admitted) disparity in wealth and opportunity among the peoples of various international regions do so as an excuse for the fact that they are simply too lazy and unmotivated to participate productively in society. They sometimes claim to reject traditional career goals as a function of the unfair disparity between those living in their society and those living in others.

In reality, they are simply using that moralistic argument to justify their lack of initiative. If they were genuinely motivated by their perspective about global welfare, they might reject the traditional career path, but they would only do so for the express purpose of devoting themselves to bettering the situations that they cite in their argument against bothering to do something productive. The criticism is patently flawed because in virtually every scenario, the plight of Third World communities is less dire today than it was a half century ago. Even if it were not, the root causes of poverty and human tragedy in the Third World were not caused by the growth of wealth in the First World, notwithstanding whether or not it could (or should) have been a higher priority to help resolve on the part of wealthier communities.

Generally, those who care about global income and opportunity disparity tend to become actively involved in efforts to do something about it. Conversely, most of those who cite global income and opportunity disparity while doing nothing to better the situation are merely using a disingenuous excuse to justify doing what they prefer to do at this stage of their lives: nothing.

Another argument is that the individuals in society were more civilized and mutually respectful fifty years ago than they are today. In making that point, critics of contemporary often cite examples such as the way people used to dress in public and the way that people were more polite to one another. According to that argument, fifty years ago men typically wore shirts and ties, stood up when women entered the room and opened doors even for strange women, and everybody followed numerous other polite elements of social etiquette in public. By contrast, they argue that even grown men rarely dress well today, except to the extent they are required to at work; they no longer bother holding doors or engaging in other polite gestures that were expected fifty years ago.

In truth, society has merely become less hypocritical and less dishonest. Those who long for a return to the social etiquette of fifty years ago neglect the fact that symbolic displays of respect (such as those expected of men in relation to the politeness shown by men toward women) conflicted dramatically with the lack of equal rights and opportunities of the very women on whose supposed behalf those social gestures were expected. Given the choice, very few contemporary women would choose to trade their equal employment, reproductive, and other rights today in return for more polite social etiquette on the part of men.