An amazing new study shows the U.S. is doing much worse than other developed countries at performing the most basic function of civilization: keeping people alive.
In the last 30 years, two important things have happened with US lifespans.
1. US longevity fell way behind much of Europe
2. This happened even though the Black-white mortality gap shrunk by half, thanks to strong improvements in Black mortality in high-poverty areas.
1. In the last 30 years, Black infant mortality in the U.S. has improved by a lot
2. But the slope of the red line is still steep, which means Black infants in high-poverty areas have much worse outcomes
3. In Europe, no slope = very little effect of poverty on infant death
It's the same story for all ages
1. Black Americans have higher mortality than whites 2. The Black-white mortality gap is declining 3. In the US, where you live still strongly determines when you'll die 4. In Europe, ppl live more similar lifespans in rich and poor areas
Why is the Black-white mortality gap shrinking?
- Fewer homicides, which disproportionately affect Black Americans
- More deaths of despair, which dis. affects whites
- Declining infant mortality
- Cancer treatments seem to be reaching more Black Americans since the '90s
It's tempting to reach for 1 Big Explanation, but many things suppress US lifespan growth
- We kill one another with guns more, bc there are more guns
- We die in cars more, bc we drive a lot
- We have higher infant mortality, too, but I don't think that's bc of guns or cars
If one thing connects the decline in Black-white mortality differences *and* the superior performance of Europe, it's this:
Life and death are more interconnected than many ppl think. And policies to reduce differences in mortality outcomes seem to help EVERYBODY live longer.
Important coda: The paper above only looked at white and Black mortality, by county.
The fact that US immigrants seem to be exceptions to the overall US mortality penalty is a very interesting thing that I wish I had a handy explanation for!
It has some beneficial qualities, but it's not naturally wholesome. Many ppl use it often and love it and are basically okay. But a lot of people abuse it and develop unhealthy compulsions with it. Also, it's functionally a depressant.
I want to defend "attention alcohol" against most other food/drink metaphors.
Twitter really isn't just Doritos, something tasty with no nutritional value.
Instagram isn't just heroine, a short-term rush of good feels that's destroying your body.
Social media is wine, or whiskey, or beer.
I love Twitter like I love wine or whiskey. These things makes my life better and more interesting. But knowing what alcohol *is* makes me aware of the way my drinking habits fits within a broader knowledge of addiction.
Democrats claiming that it's "hysteria" to worry about sharply rising homicide rates across the country because of a long-term decline in burglaries seems like a moral and political dead end to me.
Liberals claim they dislike the Pinker approach to progress—"if things seem bad now, look at the long-term trend"—but a lot of them revert to a bad caricature of Pinkerism on crime.
"Homicides are spiking"
"No, look at this basket of crime variables over a 40 yr period!"
Here is a move that is totally available to us:
The 1990s were really violent. Then most crime measures declined for 20 years. In 2020, homicides spiked in some places but not others. We should care about that, and want to know more it, so we can stop it.
What I think we only barely understand—because it's really really hard to study—is how much does in-person "Sorta Work" matter for creativity and productivity? Is idle chatter a critical carrier wave for psychological safety? Or is easily replaceable by Slack, Twitter, etc?
My bet for now is that
1. The Harvard Business Review Mafia has almost certainly overplayed the benefits of serendipity
2. The pro-WFH group probably underrates how psychologically discombobulating it can be for extroverts to interface w/ peers via only screens for too long
1. Binge drinking and marijuana use have basically switched places among college students between the 1990s and today
2. You've seen versions of these graphs before, but my god.
Americans are addicted to politicizing *every single thing* and thousands of people have died or suffered unnecessary illness at the hands of COVID because of it
3. "Software eating the world" update: still very much doing the old eating-the-world thing
2) There really is an epidemic of "team-picking" in institutional (and independent!) media. Subscription competition will make it worse—or better, if you like teams.
It's the 19th century, again, in news media, but this time, with an internet connection.
3) The most important public health story by far, isn't MSNBC's (etc) big ivermectin fail but the vax denial led by a mix of institutional (Fox) and independent voices. It's kinda galling to see so many smart ppl miss the forest of vaccine denial for the tree of ivermectin b.s.
There are so many implications of this, but to pick 1:
College polarization and gender polarization are two of the most important electorate trends of the last few cycles, so the fact that men and women are so sharply polarizing by college attainment seems pretty significant