Is Life Really Worse Than 10 Years Ago?

In the last twelve months, I've found myself engaging in a recurring discussion nearly every week. The globe seems to be spiraling into chaos. Artificial intelligence threatens to eliminate jobs across the board. Work ethic appears to be vanishing among people. Costs for essentials are skyrocketing.

In the last twelve months, I've found myself engaging in a recurring discussion nearly every week.

The globe seems to be spiraling into chaos. Artificial intelligence threatens to eliminate jobs across the board. Work ethic appears to be vanishing among people. Costs for essentials are skyrocketing. Leaders in government come across as corrupt and malevolent.

These topics often bundle together in a single dialogue. And the inevitable wrap-up is identical each time: conditions were superior a decade ago.

Perhaps that's accurate. Perhaps it's not.

However, one fact stands out unequivocally. Devoting your cognitive resources to pondering that query represents one of the costliest investments you can make.

This piece delves into precisely that issue.

Not to debate if existence has truly deteriorated.

Instead, it explores the reasons behind our perception that it has, and offers practical steps to address it.

Your Mind Misleads You on Reality

Prior to embracing the narrative that all aspects of life are deteriorating, pause to reflect on this key point. The human brain does not serve as a trustworthy chronicler of historical events.

Cognitive biases represent patterned flaws in our thought processes. These are mental heuristics that skew our perception of the world around us. Every individual possesses them. They do not indicate personal inadequacy or lack of intelligence. Rather, they constitute the fundamental mechanics of cerebral function. The challenge arises when certain biases excel at painting the current moment in overly pessimistic tones.

Three such biases merit particular attention.

The initial one is known as rosy retrospection. This phenomenon involves the inclination to recall historical periods more favorably than they truly were. Scientific investigations into this effect span multiple decades.

Studies reveal that we habitually evaluate bygone experiences with greater positivity in hindsight compared to our assessments during the events themselves. The mind selectively erases elements like tedium, worry, and ambiguity. The resulting mental construct becomes an idealized montage that never fully materialized in reality.

Next comes declinism. This refers to the conviction that civilization is on a downward trajectory, with conditions steadily worsening over time. Scholars in history and psychology have traced this mindset across centuries.

Each successive generation romanticizes the era of its predecessors as superior. Ancient Romans fretted over the impending downfall of their empire. Intellectuals from the Middle Ages lamented the erosion of classical knowledge. Despite these apprehensions, humanity persists. Declinism resonates deeply because supporting evidence lurks everywhere. With sufficient scrutiny, one can invariably pinpoint areas of regression.

The third bias is negativity bias. Adverse developments capture our focus far more intensely than positive ones. This pattern has persisted throughout human evolution. Our neural architecture developed to prioritize potential dangers. A lurking predator in the underbrush warranted immediate vigilance over a serene evening sky.

This primal instinct remains intact. Meanwhile, news outlets have long capitalized on it, amplifying negative stories relentlessly. The portrait of the world painted by your information streams does not mirror objective truth. It selectively highlights the most alarming elements, piping them straight into your stress response system.

When these three biases converge, they form a potent mechanism for amplifying the grimness of the now. This occurs not due to inherent societal decay, but because the brain operates true to its design.

As renowned psychologist Daniel Kahneman noted, humanity does not consist of rational thinkers who experience emotions.

We function as emotional entities that engage in reasoning.

Feelings tint our recollections. Those recollections, in turn, tint our interpretation of the present day.

Truthfully, I'm Uncertain If Life Has Improved

Allow me to level with you candidly here.

Not long ago, certain experts asserted with assurance that existence was advancing on measurable fronts annually. Violent crime rates were dropping. Automotive safety standards were rising. Disposable earnings were increasing. Worldwide poverty levels were receding. Metrics like these formed a compelling case.

Today, I struggle to advance that position with equivalent conviction.

Prior eras featured a straightforward progression narrative. Starting from the 1980s, successive decades delivered tangible advancements.

Technological innovations accelerated. Professional and personal prospects broadened. Daily existence grew more convenient and interconnected. Roughly every ten years, transformative shifts occurred.

Reflect on the tangible shifts in your routine over the past decade. Smartphones are ubiquitous. Large-screen televisions dominate living rooms. Vehicles boast superior fuel efficiency. Streaming services like Netflix provide endless entertainment. E-commerce delivers goods to your door. Each of these was firmly established by 2015.

Core elements of everyday living have remained remarkably stable, yet living expenses have surged, paralleled by escalating unease about tomorrow.

Thus, my purpose here isn't to claim all is well. Rather, I suggest that framing the debate as 'better or worse' misses the mark entirely.

Key Factors Influencing Your Worldview

From my observations, a primary determinant of one's global perspective is the economic climate encountered upon entering professional life.

I completed my graduate studies in late 2010. The planet grappled with a severe financial downturn. Pessimism permeated the atmosphere. Employment prospects were dismal.

I vividly recall the disillusionment of concluding extensive schooling only to confront a barren job market. That formative experience continues to influence my assessment of financial uncertainties.

Individuals who launched their careers circa 2015 or 2016 encountered an entirely divergent landscape. The economy hummed at peak expansion. Prospects abounded. Positive outlooks flowed naturally.

Neither perspective qualifies as impartial. Yet both ring true based on lived reality.

Currently, many recent graduates confront echoes of my cohort's struggles, augmented by contemporary disruptions.

The specialized field they invested years mastering faces obsolescence from AI advancements before their debut. Aspirations crumble midway through their education. Such setbacks prove profoundly challenging.

This unpredictability defines existence. Plans seldom unfold seamlessly. The environment refuses to pause during your preparations.

Stoic philosophy has proven my most valuable guide amid these realities, surpassing all other disciplines I've explored.

The Stoics endured far from idyllic circumstances. Emperor Marcus Aurelius governed through devastating epidemics, relentless conflicts, and perpetual governmental turmoil. Seneca contended with systemic graft, banishment, and an coerced suicide. Epictetus entered the world in bondage.

Nevertheless, their core teachings remained unwavering: concentrate on elements within your influence. Not external conditions, but your reactions to them.

In his personal meditations, penned solely for self-reflection, Marcus Aurelius declared:

“You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.”

Epictetus expressed it with stark directness:

“Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens.”

These maxims transcended mere inspiration. They served as essential survival strategies amid authentic hardships. Their enduring efficacy stems from that origin.

Dwelling on Bygone Eras Drains Vital Energy

Suppose, hypothetically, that 2015 truly marked a pinnacle, and subsequent years have ushered in heightened difficulty and volatility.

In what manner does entertaining that notion enhance your current circumstances?

It offers no benefit. It cannot. History stands immutable. We can analyze it, extract lessons, contextualize it. But residency there proves impossible.

Allocating mental bandwidth to grieving an obsolete reality depletes the precise asset required to maneuver through the extant one.

I've participated in such exchanges myself. Dialogues where participants dissect global flaws for an hour, emerging more dejected than before. The urge to vent is relatable.

Yet eventually, introspection demands: What value does this yield for me?

The Stoics termed this the discipline of desire.

Craving alterations to unchangeable realities fuels the bulk of avoidable distress. Not the situations per se, but opposition to them.

Seneca articulated this two millennia past:

“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare. It is because we do not dare that things are difficult.”

This guidance rejects passivity. The Stoics embodied action. It urges channeling efforts toward impactful domains.

Cease battling the inevitable; collaborate with it instead. I pose this query to myself during such discussions:

Does fretting over global conditions merit my attention?

Typically, the response is negative.

Not due to the world's insignificance. Because your personal vitality holds precedence. Optimal deployment involves creation, assistance to others, or self-elevation.

These fall squarely within your domain. All else constitutes mere distraction.