It’s Better Than It Looks: Reasons for Optimism in an Age of Fear

by Gregg Easterbrook

Is civilization teetering on the edge of a cliff? Or are we just climbing higher than ever?
Most people who read the news would tell you that 2017 is one of the worst years in recent memory. We're facing a series of deeply troubling, even existential problems: fascism, terrorism, environmental collapse, racial and economic inequality, and more.
Yet this narrative misses something important: by almost every meaningful measure, the modern world is better than it ever has been. In the United States, disease, crime, discrimination, and most forms of pollution are in long-term decline, while longevity and education keep rising and economic indicators are better than in any past generation. Worldwide, malnutrition and extreme poverty are at historic lows, and the risk of dying by war or violence is the lowest in human history.
It's not a coincidence that we're confused--our perspectives on the world are blurred by the rise of social media, the machinations of politicians, and our own biases. Meanwhile, political reforms like the Clean Air Act and technological innovations like the hybridization of wheat have saved huge numbers of lives. In that optimistic spirit, Easterbrook offers specific policy reforms to address climate change, inequality, and other problems, and reminds us that there is real hope in conquering such challenges. In an age of discord and fear-mongering, It's Better Than It Looks will profoundly change your perspective on who we are, where we're headed, and what we're capable of.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Sociology, History, Philosophy, Economics, Science

366 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 20, 2018

About the author

I was born in Buffalo, New York and have lived there plus Boston, Brussels, Chicago, Colorado, Pakistan and Washington, D.C. My wife is a State Department official, which accounts for the globe-trotting. We have three children, boys born in 1989 and 1995 and a girl born in 1990.

I’ve published three literary novels, nine nonfiction books, with a tenth nonfiction book coming September 2021. The nonfiction is all over the map – economics, theology, psychological, environmental policy. If I had my writing career to do over again, I suppose I would have focused on a single genre, which makes commercial success more likely. Then again, I’ve always written about whatever was on my mind, and feel fortunate to have had that opportunity.

I am proud of my novels, which have gotten great reviews but not otherwise been noticed by the world. I hope someday that will change. Novel #4 is completed for 2022 publication.

I have been associated with The Atlantic Monthly as a staff writer, national correspondent or contributing editor. I have also written extensively for the Washington Monthly, the New Republic, the New York Times, Reuters and the Los Angeles Times.

My quirky football-and-society column Tuesday Morning Quarterback is on hiatus after an 18-year run. I may revive TMQ in the future. Right now the Internet environment is too toxic for any form of quality writing. I have retreated to books. Which is a good place to be!

Reviews

[Clif Hostetler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book takes a look at current conditions in comparison to the past and concludes that life is much better now than in the past. It's better in almost every way—we live longer, we are richer, we are less subject to violence, and we are more democratic. Along the way Easterbrook acknowledges that there are plenty of problems to overcome and threats to avoid. He argues that the fixes are available and not too hard to attain—though nothing in life is simple.

I can't help but think of those famous opening lines, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." I agree that it is good to be aware of the progress humans have made, but not to the point of complacency. We still need to keep working on solutions and hope for the best.

There are places in the book where I suspect Easterbrook has managed to make the statistics say what he wanted them to say by applying small tweaks:

Recent Census Bureau statistics show if lower taxes, higher benefits and consumer prices are taken into account, since 2000, middle-class buying power was rising at about the postwar average of about 3 percent per year.

The above needs some fact checking before broadcasting. What sort of "higher benefits" was he including?

He also claims that the reason that the proportional size of the middle class is shrinking is because more people are advancing into the upper class than the number entering from below. That may be good news for those who are advancing, but does not erase the reality of wealth disparity. (See excerpt at end of this review.)

On the subject of wealth disparity Easterbrook makes the point that disparity of wealth may be increasing in China, but it was accompanied with the removal of 750 million people from destitution in China over a 30 year period. This probably qualifies as a human achievement of historic proportions, but of not much consequence to western economies except to lower consumer prices (good) and lose manufacturing (not so good).

Among the "easy" solutions suggested by Easterbrook includes the Universal Basic Income in which each adult would receive $1,000 a month unconditionally. It would reduce income inequality and much of its cost would be offset by elimination of government bureaucracy that is currently needed to prevent fraud. On paper this appears to work, but it's hard to imagine the political aspects of accomplishing this.

The following is an excerpt from where the book discusses the "shrinking middle class:"

Backing up the charts was a study released that day by the Pew Research Center, a highly credible organization, reporting that the American middle class was "no longer the majority." Pew concluded that in 1971, 61 percent of Americans were middle-class; by 2015, just 50 percent were middle-class—no longer the majority. Broadcasts like this played a role in planting in the American public mind the "world is ending" sentiment underpinning the Trump victory the following year.

Those who dived into Pew's research saw that in 1971, 14 percent of Americans were in the upper bands of income, 25 percent in the lower bands; by 2015, 21 percent were upper-income, 29 percent lower. This meant more Americans going upward out of the middle class toward high income than going downward toward low income; more Americans were vanishing up from the middle class than were falling down. A subsequent Pew Research Center study would show there are more cities and counties in the United States where middle-class families of all races are going upward economically than are going downward. Most European Union nations exhibit similar numbers—headed-up exceeds headed-down. Positive details such as these tend to be skipped to focus on the scary tease that the middle class has stopped being the majority—though remaining the largest demographic, with the lock on political clout. (p83)

[Tom LA · Rating 3 out of 5]

Five stars for the central concept, two stars for the execution - and for the author’s political bias.
Things have changed so much in the last 7 years - and will change beyond recognition in the next 5 - so much so, that a big portion of this work is already obsolete.

When I say “the execution”, I mean the style and intellectual weight of this work. Admirable goal, overall, but despite all the great research that went into it, it often sounds like you’re listening to a random guy at a bar.

In any case, the core theme stands. Things are irrefutably, categorically and beyond the shadow of a doubt much, much, much better than what the news media try to make us believe they are. And yet so many people keep shaking their bovine heads and say: “Well, with the state of the world today….”

“Factfulness” is a better book on this same topic.

[Scott Lupo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, this was quite the read. First and foremost, as a reader, you will have to decide what the word optimism means to you. If the standard is 'Hey, some people die unnecessarily, some people live in miserable conditions they can't control, some people are just greedy and don't care about others. That's life. You can't save them all and it's unrealistic to really try', then this is the book for you. If the standard is 'We should always be trying to make the world better for people, we should feel compassion for those who are born into inconceivable living conditions, and we should reign in the greedy and the uncaring individuals of the world', then this book will get you hot under the collar. If your standard is closer to the second one, stick with it and read it through. There are important points in the book. For one, I totally agree with the author that every problem and issue the media covers is over dramatized, hyperbolic, and purposefully loaded with emotion. This is on purpose. All political persuasions do it. I know it's all about getting attention in a world filled with so much attention grabbing headlines, but it's out of control. Especially in a country that is emotionally stunted like the US. Some reason and logic is in order in my opinion. He's right about how not too long ago the world had awful wars that killed millions. Many super powers of the day were run by dictators, oligarchs, and authoritarians. Having a democracy where citizens had a say in government was new and experimental. And it won those wars and much of the world has now followed suit. But, let's be honest, that is NOT what we are doing today and even though death by war had declined, it is still much too high considering all the democracies in the world.

My biggest criticism is that the author cherry picks statistics to fit his narrative or refuses to ask the next question, to go a little deeper. This is especially true in his environmental outlooks. While it is true that most air pollution is in long-term decline, it's the easy ones that are in decline like carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. He's pretty quiet on the ones increasing, like methane, benzene, and other cancer causing agents. While it is true that there are more trees now in the US than the turn of the 20th century, globally we lose 10 billion trees each year (we think there are 3 trillion in the world) and he never asks what type of trees we are losing and what we are replacing them with. We are losing old growth and Amazon forests much faster which leaves only saplings and young trees in its wake. Again, what is the standard. Will nature collapse tomorrow? No, it will not. But we're heading towards it and doing nothing to change the path. He has one paragraph on water. One! He knows this is a huge issue but didn't want to add fear into his book of optimism. I want to give him a little credit because he was a human caused global warming denier not too long ago and has since changed his mind. But he has a lot of learning still to do.

This book is a mixed bag, just like life. For every anecdote of doom, you can find one for optimism. Anecdotes are a dime a dozen these days. I like that the author uses research, numbers, and long term trends to bolster his arguments but he tends to stop much too early before coming to his conclusions. Maybe optimism is the wrong word. There are definitely reasons to be positive that the world will not end tomorrow, or next year. Endings of civilizations rarely happen overnight. Instead, it's a long, drawn-out process that takes decades with lots of suffering in between (how cheerful!).

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am so steeped in the culture of fear-mongering that even though this book espouses optimism at every turn I found myself more afraid on some of the issues presented after I read the book than I was before! This is why it took me some time to finish the book. Having finally finished it I am glad I read it and will try to be more hopeful about what might happen in the future. Perhaps I can learn to fact check those politicians and news media that spew out the pessimism.
Popsugar 2018 (advanced): A book about a problem facing society today

[D.L. Morrese · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the title, I expected this book to be much like those by Steven Pinker, showing how human life has steadily improved from generation to generation, about how we've reduced things like hunger, disease, poverty, crime, and war by implementing the ideas of the Enlightenment. There is some of that in these pages, but Easterbrook isn't really looking at the broad scope of history here. He is more focused on today, or at least on the last century. His main point is that things today (in general) are far better than politicians, social media, and most news reports might suggest.

Humans, he states, are predisposed by their evolution to suspect threats and be wary of the unknown. Even though most shadows are harmless, treating all as if they are bears hiding in the bushes has survival value because, every once in a while, there really is a bear. Politicians and the media exploit our inherent fears (sometimes intentionally) for their own benefit. His take on how current politicians have done so abound.

This isn't an objective or scholarly work. There is little statistical data, no graphs, no detailed analysis, and he freely shares his personal opinions and value judgments (such that Western ideals are moral and that a well regulated market economy is the economic ideal). Despite these differences, he comes to much the same conclusions as Pinker does in The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined and in Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Things aren't only not bad; they are better than they ever have been. That doesn't mean we don't have serious problems. Disease, crime, poverty, and hunger have been reduced, but they haven't been eliminated. Challenges such as climate change and wealth disparity certainly need to addressed. But history shows that humans are quite good at overcoming challenges.

[Nicole Roccas · Rating 5 out of 5]

I rarely make sweeping comments like this, but this is a must-read for any moderately sane human being about to undergo (as we all are) the existential morass that is the US presidential election season.

I almost did not read this book because, from the title, I expected it to be full of glib, head-in-the-sand ignorant bliss. What pulled me in was the word "optimism." It's not a word we see much these days, particularly alongside the phrase "New York Times Bestseller."

I was pleasantly surprised by the nuance, the breadth and depth of research, but especially by the insight Easterbrook is able to offer as someone with decades of experience as a journalist, writer, and human being in the hyperpolarized discourses that seem to make our society function.

The overall argument is NOT that everything is fine and there's absolutely nothing to worry about, but rather that the things we DO need to be concerned about are not necessarily as bleak or unyielding to human response as we often hear.

This is a historically nuanced critique of catastrophism in all its myriad forms and a defense of what Easterbrook refers to as (technological, economic, environmental) dynamism: the ability to adjust to the reality of change and adapt through a variety of means.

Whether its the economy, the rules of warfare, the environment, or the political sphere, Easterbrook challenges the narrative of crisis on a variety of fronts. While some chapters drag, and while some have criticized this book as an opinion peace, most readers will find this book deeply, meaningfully, and optimistically provacative. Read it!

Book 34 of #220for2020 #RoccasReads2020

[Ben Zornes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Contrary to the media, the politicians, and many preachers of doom and gloom. Things are getting better. Easterbrook lays out in well documented detail how every metric shows that the standard of living is getting better for every human on planet earth. Yes, incrementally. Yes, not at the same pace in every place. But things are getting better.

Easterbrook is no conservative, and not sure if he'd call himself a liberal; but either way, he offers equal opportunity critique of the doom and gloom prophets of the left and right. He advances a position he calls dynamism.

I would call it postmillennial optimism without the Gospel. As such, where he is able to see the wonderful advances in technology, medicine, agriculture, manufacturing, rising incomes, less crime, etc., he isn't able to see that without Christ, it is all so much chaff and stubble.

The problem he lays out is that, all too often, we are told how bad things are. Politicians love to talk of some bygone golden age, which we have fallen away from and need to recover, or else everything will spiral into chaos. They love to talk of emergencies (cough COVID), cataclysms, and other nations stealing our jobs. Environmentalist loons warn that we have like 14 minutes until the planet combusts into a flaming ball. Conservatives bemoan rampant crime in the cities. Left and right, politicians try to tell the middle class that they've got it real bad.

The problem is that at every turn and by every measure, our projections are usually not only off, but very off. We use less land to grow more food. We have higher life expectancy than ever, thanks to the reduction of deadly diseases and effective treatments for such infirmities. Crime is trending downward almost everywhere in the world. Incomes are rising worldwide. Cars & factories run more efficiently than ever anticipated. Acid rain has become a non-issue.

The list could go on, but the long and short is that we tend to focus on bad things, and exaggerate them. Instead, we ought to recognize that there are still plenty of "issues" to solve, but also be able to do so optimistically. Easterbrook, rightly, points out that human ingenuity should be seen as a resource for solving our problems, not as a drag on our attempt to solve problems. An important point to be sure.

The first half of the book deserves 5/5 stars. There are some laugh out loud stats, which cut across the grain of the prevailing media narratives on various topics. However, the second half was 1.5/5 stars. Easterbrook floats some ideas that just need to be round filed (i.e. UBI, same-sex parenting as a good thing, and some other stinkers). That said, he does a great job of pointing out that a pessimistic outlook would make us think that everything is going to the dogs. I'll leave off with this insightful quote:

"Groups that sink into siege mentality usually wind up on the margins, while optimists slowly achieve their goals." Gregg Easterbrook.

[Roxanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a Goodreads win review. This book is very relevant to the times we are living in. Every I see the news on any channel it is full of American politics, and what bad shape our country is in. We also see almost daily acts of terrorism, rascism, wage inequality, sexual harrassement, climate change, natural disasters from weather. So the state of things looks pretty bad. But despite these problems democracy is still the best form of government for the better world we want to live in. He states and I agree that we should banish the electoral college and replace it with the popular vote. I live in a block of states that the Democrats think we do not matter because we do not have heavy electoral votes so we were not campained much in and they needed our states as it turned out because they lost. The second part of the book is how we can make a better world. We need to address climate change. inequality with other countries, improve our public schools and teach skills for the labor market as every student does not go to college. and move the country forward with optimism.

[Graeme Newell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. All of us are continually assaulted with a steady diet of fatalism and bad news. We are evolutionarily predisposed to scan the horizon for threats and it seems like everyone is pushing our buttons these days. New developments like social media and always-on news have provided us with an avalanche of pessimism.

But what I really loved about this book is that it isn't just empty cheerleading for positivism. Easterbrook did some impressive research. He uncovered hard data to prove his points. I learned so many things about the long history of the world's biggest problems. I had no idea so many of these problems have seen substantial improvement or have been solved. Made me damned proud of mankind!

Also I particularly enjoyed the way he managed to weave everything together into a solid narrative on so many issues that are in the headlines these days. I was intrigued by his take on thorny issues such as global conflict, welfare reform, climate change, immigration and numerous wedge issues. He brought wonderful pragmatism that cut through all the hyperbole and bluster of the theatrical world of political gamesmanship. He really made me think hard about my own biases.

[Rudyard L. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A couple ways to view this book
A)This book does do a great job of balancing out the overly pessimistic narratives that dominate the vast majority of the world’s discourse. It focuses on stuff we really should look at more and are often incremental improvements that are easy to ignore like the declines in consumption per person, growth in worldwide forest etc..

B)This book will almost certainly age poorly. Almost all books that only look at one side do. The future will be both good and bad like any other era of history. By painting the future in purely rosy terms, one’s making a savage gamble with fate.

C)From the sections I knew the most about, namely that about economics and war, the analysis was quite basic and onesided. Saying war is outdated is an argument that has been said so many times before and is always proved wrong. Similarly, how much or democracy’s success was due to being strong in of itself or that it had the megapower of America behind it. This book, sort of reminding me of Stephen Pinker, seemed to tow the line very closely to the modern Western status quo.

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gregg Easterbrook is on solid ground when detailing the outline of his title argument. The agricultural revolution has led to more food than we know what to do with. Life expectancy continues to rise for the most part. The environment is cleaner than it has been in decades. The worldwide economy continues to grow. Violence and war are in decline. Technology makes us safer (although he underestimates how social media and the smartphone are killing us morally). Democracy has made incredible gains since the start of the Great War, assuming we can keep them.

Easterbrook is on less solid ground when he looks to the future. I could hardly summarize the Whiggish view of history better than the last line of this book: "History has an arrow, and the arrow of history points forever upward." That is quite an optimistic eschatology from someone who hardly mentions faith in the entire book. To get to this glorious future, however, Easterbrook has some odd places to go: higher taxes (although, I could support his ideas for cap-and-trade to lower greenhouse gas emissions if those taxes really were equally rebated in the form of lower payroll and income taxes; fat chance); abolishment of the electoral college (he really shows his lack of historical and political understanding here); universal basic income; and more. The author should have stuck with his original premise instead of trying to pretend to be a policy expert!

Where Easterbrook really goes wrong is that he seems to have no guiding moral principle for ascertaining if things really are "better." But then again, can any secular mindset provide such principles? He speaks highly of religious belief in his TMQ columns, but doesn't seem to reflect any internalization of such a perspective. It's all statistics. He applauds gay "marriage" but doesn't have anything to say about the death of 60 million unborn children (to cite a highly charged but never irrelevant example). He points out that there is no "golden age" of history, which may or may not be right, but doesn't mourn the passing of the shared moral foundation that the West has held for merely two millennia. Even the dangers of wealth seem to pass by without comment.

I may be disappointed with Easterbrook, but the first half of the book, proving his title thesis, is spot on. And he is not afraid to be politically incorrect, critiquing hypocritical panderers on both sides of the aisle. His conclusion might be shunned in polite society (the "Davos set"), but boy is it important:

"If poverty in the developing world is to continue to decline, global resource consumption must go up. . . Consumption of energy, metals, water, concrete, agricultural chemicals must rise. . . . The earth can sustain a big increase in resource consumption--can society? . . . The conventional wisdom is that the whole world cannot live like Americans and western Europeans. To the contrary: for the whole world to live at the Western standard is the only moral course, and given rates of improvements in living standards, coupled to per-capita reductions in pollution and resource waste, is not an impossible dream."

[Sid · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you can ignore the politicians (they want your vote) and the news media (if it bleeds it leads), one can objectively see that never before has civilization looked this promising. Disease control, food production, peace and prosperity have been at record highs. This is the fundamental thesis that Gregg portends.

That said, the situation around the world (especially in the US) is far from perfect. Wealth disparity continues to widen. Our nation's debt levels and future social security is dubious at best. Our children's lack of drive and emphasis on learning marketable skills can be questioned. Even still, one cannot question the rise in the quality of life across the board, especially in developing countries.

The US struggles in some of the above areas. Regulations such as Universal Basic Income and investments in transportation can help ease some of the challenges we face currently. Regulations in fact served us well in the past, just look at ending slavery, regulating CO2, eliminating CFC's etc.

Ultimately we are better off today than life was 50 or 100 years ago (World Wars, working in mines, racism etc. all things of the past). Gregg urges us all to embrace Dynamism, for each day and each challenge we face is different and requires a problem solvers mindset. By embracing and relishing in the desire to improve a situation, we will continue to propel mankind forward.

[Roozbeh Daneshvar · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a must-read, especially with the current pessimist and nostalgic good old days mood all around us. It was one of the books that changed my view significantly towards many aspects, e.g. climate change, economy, violence and poverty. A large portion of the optimism is based on a myriad of facts and numbers, which are convincing. Yet, I have the impression that sometimes they are also based on some wishful thinking and not as concrete as the other sections. I felt that sometimes the arguments were not as solid and accurate as they could have been.

The book was very recent with references to a lot of recent developments in the world (and it felt good to read a book this much up to date). It was very well polished and well written. Yet, it seemed that The last chapters were written in haste. They did not have the clarity and flowing narration of the previous chapters. This book could have ended better.

[Chase Metcalf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written book highlighting the many ways that life today is better than the media and general perceptions would have you believe. This misperception is generally attributed to the reality that bad news sells, the rise of social media echo chambers, and the inherent conservatism/nostalgia of growing elder population for non-existent golden age of their past.

The author reminds the reader that the majority of humanity is living longer, healthier, less violent lives than at any point in history. Acknowledging some challenges (debt, automation, inequality . . . ) the author is generally optimistic about the future of mankind.

Highly recommend this book for anyone who is worried about the future as it puts the reality of today into a positive yet realistic perspective.

[Jon Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This may be one of the most impactful books I have read. I finished it and started again. I am taking notes to look back over to remind myself that there are actually a few good things out there.
There are a few things in this book that are outdated already, but it's core message is so crucial. Society (mostly news media) only tell us horrible things and that has destroyed our progress, culture, and mental health. This book is a much needed countering to that negativity bias that has taken over the US political wasteland.

[Anthony · Rating 2 out of 5]

The world is consistently getting better, but you don't see it because of media's imbalance of reporting between negative and positive news, and because optimism is just boring. But things are getting better, and let's go sector by sector to explain. That's the jist of It's Better Than It Looks, which is a theme familiar to folks reading Pinker or other TED-esque writers who consume Max Roser visualizations.

Life is objectively getting better, but Easterbrook is just plain wrong on many claims in this book. The lack of editorial oversight is appalling. Easterbrook says, "THE SUMMATION OF WHY WE don’t starve might be this: agricultural output gets higher because farms get smaller." Wrong. Farms are not getting smaller as anyone would observe with a shift towards corporatized, mega-farming in the West. Easterbrook is confusing the inverse plot-productivity "puzzle" that bedevils development economists but is easy to explain: measurement error and shadow labor.

Easterbrook says, "Nations have dealt with acid rain without being compelled to do so, because addressing the problem is both affordable and in the national self-interest. This example is an underlying reason to be sanguine that greenhouse gases can be controlled." Flat out wrong. Acid rain was an exclusively local concern with local damages. GHGs are gases with global damages, but the mitigation of which imposes local costs. To believe that SO2 reduction in the US via the Acid Rain Program introduced in 1990 shows that we can be "sanguine" about the threat of climate change is reckless and wrong.

Easterbrook on the Endangered Species Act, and the recover of listed species. "Instead, by three decades after the book was published, of the forty bird species Carson named as about to cease existing, thirty-three had stable or increasing populations in the United States; seven were in decline but far from lost." Wow, I wonder if public policy contributed to it and the reason why we should be so optimistic about the continued thriving of those species is because action was undertaken to avert crises. Not that species levels worked themselves out on their own.

Easterbrook also has a serious case of amnesia. "By the year of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy, Republicans had begun to shun conservation and the scientific method, while in the hyperpartisan politics of the moment, for advocates of every variety, “sound science” came to mean “whatever supports our donors’ agenda.”" To claim that Republicans began turning their back on the scientific method in 2016 is just incredibly naive. Eight GOP Congresspersons voted for the Waxman-Markey bill. It never made it to the Senate. It's almost as if Easterbrook thought TR better represented recent Republicanism moreso than Reagan, Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr., etc. While some solid environmental legislation was ushered in under various GOP Presidents, the track record on natural resource conservation has been thin and undermining.

Easterbrook also took too many potshots at Democrats, especially Hillary, for no gain. Consider this, "THE POWERFUL—PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, central bankers—can influence a market economy of course, in leading well or poorly, but they don’t have control. Many are the preposterous claims made regarding this on the presidential campaign trail: Hillary Clinton’s declaration that she would be “commander-in-chief of our economy” ranks among them." Except that every single presidential candidate boasts about how they will singlehandedly guide the American economy to universal prosperity.

There were several instances where his sense of attributing causation were just plain wrong. He compares research from a Ball State professor arguing that the US manufacturing sector is robust, while work by David Autor from MIT highlights how greater US-China trade has led to significant US job losses, aside from all the losses caused by automation and greater use of technology. He explains that the reason why Autor's work received more media attention is because "he focused on gloom." What? Maybe it received more attention because his empirical methods produced undeniable results, whereas the Ball State findings didn't tell us anything about a huge concern that many have about unfair trade with China.

I was aggravated by the first 70% of this book, which took a cheap approach of co-opting other people's research and slapping some positivity to it. None of this work is research done by Easterbrook. The reason I'm not giving a 1-star rating is because there were some genuinely provocative statements made at the end that I think deserve greater hearing. For example, he exhorts us to be lifelong learners and cites too many people who read their last book ever while in school. What if working people and senior citizens went to university also, with professors looking out onto a classroom full of the diversity of adults? He also recommends states paying their way, given that there is a "false narrative" of states being fiscally responsible while the federal government is extravagant. This is largely a shell game, with states borrowing from DC and maintaining a false veneer of probity. While he offers a sloppy defense of Universal Basic Income as a possible paliative, we need to talk about UBI more and it could figure as an important policy as job security in the future grows increasingly tenuous.

In brief, I'd recommend looking elsewhere.

[Nile · Rating 5 out of 5]

Feels like this book is pretty much essential reading for anyone who feels existential angst when they think about the world and how things are generally speaking. Easterbrook uses facts (god remember facts, guys? Weren't they great?) to back up his points and does a great job of breaking down how and why we aren't doomed and why we tend to think we are doomed. There was one weird tangent where he went off on the benefits of marriage for no reason I could quite piece together but no one pitches a perfect game. I've been recommending this book to everyone I know and have already bought it for two friends as gifts. Great read and great, real relief for anyone concerned about the state of the world.

[Tatiana]

Oh boy, I did not finish this one.

The first part is mainly cataloging global trends that go contrary to what the impression the news gives us is. If you have read other optimism books, this will be familiar to you. It is a utilitarian perspective for sure, but it's true - for some people, life is getting worse, but on average across the world/the country, things are getting better in every conceivable way. I can see why this view REALLY bothers some people, and that's reflected in other reviews. It does seem callous at times, for instance, when he points out that automation will result in many people losing their jobs, but will be an overall good for humanity by making things more efficient, cheaper, and safer. The author does go to pains to point out that bad things happening to individuals are bad, but the book isn't concerned with things happening to individuals, so that didn't bother me.

There is a chapter in the first half (maybe even chapter 2?) where he makes a very flimsy argument that we are not going to have an out of control disease pandemic because.....the human immune system is evolved the beat disease and because every other pandemic prediction (ebola, swine flu, bird flu etc) was wrong. This book was published in 2018 and that seems hilariously tone deaf now. It really did make me question basically everything else he said in this book. I imagine that if asked about it, he would say, well, a lot of people died but it was less than before in proportion to the population!

That is what turns people off this book. The way he says, yes, 100,000 people died of X, but fifty years ago 200,000 people died of X and there were Y less people back then, so the proportion is much lower.

What turned ME off this book was the way the author was so committed to "both sides". You all know what this is. I thought sometimes it was appropriate. He was right that presidents in both parties use emergency powers to bypass Congress, for instance. He was right that both sides have perpetuated the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, what I thought was absolutely ridiculous was a statement in the book that Republicans use voter fraud and Democrats use voter suppression as excuses for when people don't like their policies.

Come on, man! You have a section in this book about gerrymandering and why it's bad! Even if he was someone who had a blindfold on and did not believe in voter suppression....he's writing about voter suppression in the very same book. Almost comical. I stopped reading when he deflected democratic criticism of North Carolina Republicans shortening the early voting period. The early voting period is disproportionately used by black people and is 17 days before the election. Republicans shortened it to 11 and Democrats said, that's voter suppression. His very nuanced view of this topic is that a generation ago no one could vote early at all so this isn't a big deal.

It's in the second half of the book with examples like that that things begin to fall apart. It is one thing to examine societal trends of the centuries and say, hey, things are better than in 1850. They're better than in 1900. They're better than in 1980 and here is the proof. But when we start using this approach to examine things that are bad that are happening RIGHT NOW, the only advice this book has is "Nbd, it used to be worse." I think this is a good view for taking a long and realistic look at societal progress and to decompress from the stress of doomscrolling and watching then news. I do NOT think it is the best approach to examining inequalities and injustices today, therefore I could not finish this book.

[Kyle · Rating 2 out of 5]

I broadly agree with Easterbrook's take on world affairs, but his writing just put me to sleep. (Also, his chapter on virulent pathogens has not aged well at all!)

[Joseph A Oppenheim · Rating 4 out of 5]

What first attracted me to this book by Gregg Easterbrook, is the testimonial by Walter Isaacson, since I respect his journalism.

The book is a persuasive look at how, despite the dystopian look at America as presented by the 2016 campaign of the new president, things are actually not just pretty good, but are quite an advancement from the past for most, as the author states the arrow of history always points up. And as with all societal advancements, come disruptions to many who either can’t or won’t adapt to the changes, and government is slow to provide help to those disadvantaged by the progress.

Though the progress might be hard to see by many in the US or Europe, the middle class is shrinking because most leaving are moving up, and since 1990, extreme world poverty has declined from 37% to 10%.. Sure, reform is needed along with the changes, and the author addresses the possible reforms needed while also pointing out how the disadvantaged can currently adapt. The author goes into tackling the following.

Are we starving? No, high yield farming has not only solved that, but the world’s population growth rate peaked around 1960, dropping from about 2.3% to 1.4% per year now. Yet popular films like The Hunger Games portray a future of starvation.

Why, despite all our bad habits, are we living longer? Better healthcare, better disability handling like telecommuting, plus there is a strong correlation between better education and longer life expectancy.

Will nature collapse? Mt. St. Helens’ 1980 eruption was equal to about the power of 1,500 Hiroshima nuclear bomb explosions. Some predicted that needed farmland would destroy our forests, yet since 1980 our forest cover has increased about 15%. Plus, replacements for CFC refrigerants have improved the atmosphere, as have smog controls. 3D seismology, fracking and better car efficiency standards have erased dire warnings of peak oil,

Will the economy collapse? No, basically market economics, with its distributed decision making, eliminated the situation of one leader causing a collapse. There never was a time when all jobs were secure, but there never were more US manufacturing jobs than in 2017. Despite claims that our workforce participation is down, it is about 63% compared to the low of 60% in 1966. Plus, those who complain that GDP growth is slowing, ignore that measurements of GDP are less accurate, like surgeries produce better results. The author does suggest GDP growth could improve with less regulation and public financing of political campaigns. Government efficiency and less debt can be achieved by replacing many social programs with a universal basic income or expanded earned income tax credits. And since a person’s intelligence is pretty much developed by age 6, extending paid work leave to parents of young children would improve population achievements.

Why is violence in decline? Murder and war deaths per capita don’t even appear in the top ten causes of death. The greatest deterrent to crime is the more likely chance of being caught, thus just the cellphone has reduced crime. Less colonialism, more treaties and trade have reduced war. And as devices improve, so does morality.

Why does technology become safer instead of more dangerous? Cars, ships, locomotives, etc become not only safer, but cleaner. Smaller and more accurate weapons reduce war deaths.

Why don’t dictators win? Liberated people are more ingenious, democracies spread.

How declinism has become chic. Research centers, government agencies and political interest groups seek funding. The media looks to grab attention with negative events, often overusing the term, crisis. As demographics age, there is the human tendency to glamorize youthful times. Human bodies are good at producing adrenaline and cortisol, thus a human tendency towards anxiety over future uncertainty, recently in the US and Europe when the white majority feels threatened by immigration. New, social media leads to more opinionization, clustering of ideas called the Big Sort, people only having relationships with people who think similarly, thus more susceptible to the Big Lie.

The “impossible” challenge of climate change. Basically, see the above for clues to the future.......the Big Lie works, but there is reason for hope since not everyone believes the Big Lie.

The “impossible” challenge of inequality. Progress does breed income inequality. Moving helps, like rust belt Midwest victims moving south and to the coasts. Again, a universal basic income might help.

We’ll never run out of challenges. The author mentions future challenges like more robots, artificial intelligence and quantum computing

I do recommend the book.

#Amazon

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish every person would read this book, now.

I work as a research scientist. Every day, I see misinterpretation and abuse of research findings for gain in political battle. Published studies are too often judged not on content or quality, but whether or not they can be weaponized to align with a belief system. A paper that says what you want to hear is labelled as fact; a paper that challenges your belief is junk propaganda. Both right and left are guilty, for any of you smugly reading this and pointing at your interlocutor across the aisle. It is my opinion that the right tends to put too much emphasis on belief for matters that can be settled with facts, and the left tends to over-assign factual status to matters of belief.

Easterbrook's contention is this, and I agree so much it hurts: The current mindset, both of people in general and fed by the full spectrum of media (both reputable and not), is to believe whatever you want to believe . Overwhelmingly, this tilts us pessimistic. It is just so much easier to believe that the other guy has it better, and you are struggling because he is screwing you over. It is in the best interest of the media and Washington, in turn, to make sure you continue believing this. Acquisition of wealth and power is greatly aided by an urgent crisis; a need to defeat that evil other guy. Newspapers won't be sold or clicked on when headlines read "Things going pretty well. Keep doing what you're doing."

This mindset breeds polarization, and polarization removes nuance from our discussions. Of course the world still has problems, but they are probably not as bad, and more easily solvable than you've been led to think. As Easterbrook often says in his football columns, did you know it's possible to both love something, and want to see it reformed?

I gently urge everyone to read this book. And if you feel afterward that this is just one guy's opinion, and you don't want to believe him, that's fine. You've just proven his (and my) point.

[Alvin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Actually, a very strong 3 stars almost 4. I like Easterbrook's premise that the fear mongering on the extremes of our political establishment keep us from affirming that things are better than they were. Optimism is not a pollyanna view that the world is perfect, but that we can overcome obstacles with hard work. And then that work may lead to more problems, but it is better than before. One example, that resonated with me is the shift in transportation. NYC used to have lots of horse drawn transportation which left a lot of manure. We changed over to engines and electricity for cars, bus, and trains, but created another kind of pollution (and noise). But still better than mountains of...well, you know. T

The book has two parts. Part one addresses why the world refuses to end. It has chapters on food, longevity, nature, economy, declining violence, technology, and why dictators don't win. The second part is the arrow of history which addresses that we will always have challenges and it is never too late to address them.

One especially redeeming feature is Easterbrook's skewering of both political parties and their hacks who refuse to come together to solve problems.

While I did enjoy the book, I do think it speaks to my own optimism and if I were a less optimistic person I might disagree. Also, the book is poorly made with the binding cracking almost immediately, so there's that. I also think Peter Diamandis's Abundance and Stephen Pinker's Enlightenment Now do a better job with this subject.

[Barb Ruess · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first half of this book is a lot of stats proving that while we might live in an age of “coveted victim hood,” general life has, in fact, steadily improved over the decades. I tend to think anyone can spin numbers so while I found that half somewhat reassuring, I was also skeptical that I could find someone who could find numbers showing something differed. The second half of the book is what made this such a worthwhile read.

The author raises the point that every era has people crying out about doom and bad news. So why do so many people seem to be focusing on these doomsayers now? Rise of social media means negative news is more easily accessible - because that’s what gets people attention. In turn we all feel like more negative things are happening. Opinions are more freely shared now than before as social norms have changed (and yes social media has had its influences there as well). Finally, social media serves up a hyperzoned world - we are served up media that is in tune with what we “like” so we aren’t seeing a full picture. All of this reinforces the feeling of decline whether it’s true or not.

Add in little fact checking or sourcing on social media and a propensity to take single anecdotes as representatives of larger issues and you have a population that is constantly focused on what’s wrong with the world.

Makes me want to continue to find the good and share it when I can. And certainly put social media in its place.

[Kerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m trying to reach across the aisle and read books that aren’t just my typical liberal self-help/non-fiction, however I found this book to be challenging in a way I can’t quite place my finger on. It chose facts to share that the world is getting better—but on a scale of hundreds of years instead of lifetimes. And most of us don’t care about the fact that we aren’t dying from dysentery in first world countries anymore because we’ve already set our norm to expect it. The author picks and chooses facts that corroborate what he is proving rather than holistically looking at the systems behind the pain/suffering. For example, stating that wealth overall is better because people aren’t dying in the streets fails to acknowledge that people are still dying in the richest country in the world because of income inequality and a lack of affordable healthcare to prevent the poor’s deaths. He seems to indicate the world is nearly as awful as it once was by also stating that, basically, trust that technology will fix the problems the elders have created, specifically with regard to climate change. While I appreciated that he fired shots at both the left and right, it also seemed to spread the misery about more and directly in opposition to the defined optimism/purpose of the book.

An interesting “read” with lots of research and data, but I’m still not sure how inland on it. Well researched so I gave it a 3.

[Nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is one of those books that goes through hundreds if not thousands of statistics to show that the world is better than it ever has been. And that's true, but if the author's not careful it can come off as just a long relative privation fallacy, and this author is not particularly careful. "Look, the only pollution growing in the developed world is greenhouse gases, things are so much better than at mid-century!" Which, again, is true, but feels like it's brushing off the pollution and health concerns that still do exist (e.g., PFOAs) simply because the Cuyahoga river can't catch on fire anymore; not exactly a high bar. I really lost interest when he opened the chapter on global health with a "wink wink, nudge nudge" retrospective about how silly everyone was in predicting pandemics with SARS, H1N1, Ebola, and the other early 21st century disease scares. Living through an actual pandemic now, one that has killed millions, makes this "silly people overreacting about disease" schtick pretty much unbearable. It's easy to say that *after* the fact, but you don't really know in the moment what you're dealing with and being wrong and overreacting strikes me as a *much* safer bet than being wrong and then being caught unprepared, as the US experienced in early 2020. Anyway, read Factfulness by Hans Rosling for a shorter, more readable, and less frustrating treatment of this subject.

[Wendy (bardsblond) · Rating 4 out of 5]

In an era when most authors publish books predicting doom for the future, Gregg Easterbrook urges readers of It’s Better Than it Looks to see the future in a more optimistic bent. Having read Stephen Pinker’s Enlightenment Now, which reminds me of this book, some of the lessons Easterbrook imparts are familiar: far from us living in a violent age, we live in the most peaceful era in human history. Due to the Green Revolution, food has never been produced on such a mass scale, and had an awe-inspiring impact at reducing global hunger. Inequality from a global perspective has improved dramatically since WWII. Americans are more prosperous than ever, with a higher standard of living than ever. I largely agree that doomlords are more often wrong than right, but pushing doom sells books and clicks, so it’s hardly a wonder that predicting the apocalypse get the most attention.

I will say that I think he does not address the threats to democracy and he sortof glosses over some of the more negative predictions on climate change. It’s not a good thing that people like Victor Orban or Recep Erdogan lead major countries in Europe, nor that we face a revanchist fascist wing of the Republican party in the United States. And it’s true that new technologies will probably ameliorate the effects of climate change and that humanity has faced similarly dire problems in the past, but it’s still up in the air if we will rise to the occasion on climate issues.

[Bhanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not sure this book was better than it looked. I'd lean towards 3.5 if part marks were available, but there was enough interesting material to round up.

Easterbrook has an interesting blend of optimism and realism, and focuses on some of the positive changes and progress that we are seeing and can expect to see in the future. Published in 2018, Easterbrook makes some claims and statements that seem to have already been disproven and countered, the concerns around a global pandemic not coming to pass were especially fun to read about. When it comes to income equality, Easterbrook's version of optimism is "if we distributed the wealth of the ultra rich it would hardly make a difference, so why bother?"

The book is very USA centric, and while there are moments that address change and challenge around the globe, for the most part it came across as "America is great". There were lots of figures and statistics that Easterbrook used to make his point (ie. Americans spend more on dining out than on defense) and I'm not sure they all have the impact he aims for.

There is plenty to be optimistic about moving forward, the big message and take away from this book should probably be that median and politics survive by pushing fear. That being said a number of times it felt like optimism was at the expense of one minority or the other.

[Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked the premise of this book, and I like a lot of the information posted in it. I have suspected for a little bit that my own perceptions are skewing unhealthily (for my mental health) toward pessimism and cynicism and I wanted some evidence to challenge that bias.

This book did a pretty good job of that for the most part.

My only complaint about it is that the author is honestly really salty in places they don't need to be. They are pretty even about being salty towards "both sides" of the political spectrum, but honestly I could have done without it to either side. Pointing towards a more accurate (and positive) view of reality doesn't sit side by side well with jabs and infantilization of other human beings.

I also do think that some of the conclusions the author draws about what should be done (as opposed to what is happening - maybe a bit broad of a scope for this book) are kind of simplistic.

I do recommend this book, but with the proverbial grain of salt. I do think the majority of the content is extra valuable, and I am not going to discount that because some of the author's tone didn't sit well with me, but hopefully others find valuable things in this book as well.

[Ryan Fohl · Rating 3 out of 5]

The most cynical book about optimism you will ever read. This is not a book about history or science or anthropology, it is one long magazine piece. It is full of unnecessary (and unfunny) opinions, and a cynical view of all modern leaders. The thesis requires knowledge and skill in more subjects than the author can handle. The author uses logical fallacies to support his view and then calls out those same logical fallacies in opposing views. It’s frustrating. The author sometimes feels deliberately obtuse. But there are some good quotes and ideas from other books and thinkers.

What I learned: Today there are twice as many people who are overweight as the total number of people alive in Malthus’s day. You don’t want to breath ozone but it can protect from sunburn.

“You can’t be sure if the future will be good, therefore the present is awful.” Trump’s message.

The country isn’t in decline, but a bunch of old
voters body’s are. So they project.

American husbands are 130 times more deadly than terrorists.

America could have more cheaply bought all of Iraq’s oil than fight that war.

“Smart people should make the most of their gifts, but they should not be permitted to reshape society so as to instate giftedness as a universal yard stick of human worth.” -David Friedman

NATO used “soft bombs” on Serbia in 1999, these bombs temporarily destroy power plants.

[Irene 艾琳 Tz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Before I write a review, I should say that my interest is purely educational, I am not American and can’t care less who wins or looses there. The reason I wrote it is because I must mention that the pure hate for D.Trump in this book is so much disturbing the reading, I get the impression that the author’s goal was to settle some personal issues with the man. The figures he mentions during Obama’s presidency are so gruesome, they borderline with the criminal intentions , but he keeps coming at the one and only Trump as the biggest evil in the world not even bothering to give some consistent comparison with numbers.
I gave the book 3 stars because he did invest his time and effort in a good amount of research, just couldn’t be objective and distant from personal issues. I do understand the frustrations many Americans feel toward Trump, but this kind of literature is not a private letter exchange. My reaction for most of the book was: “come on! Get a room!”
Also, the mention of 1984 by Orwell is incorrect: Oceania didn’t use technology to prevent people from knowing, they used it for disinformation. Moreover, the whole idea was to give such amount of information, that people were ever unsure about anything, and had trained themselves in this double system he outlines the whole book. Doublethink :)