36 responses

  1. Zap! Squeak! Design!
    December 9, 2010

    I agree that it’s an amazingly clear visualization of data and it’s great to watch. However there are two things that come to mind, especially in reference to the very optimistic wrap up. First I wonder how they are accounting for inflation and global monetization in the $ figures? Second and more importantly, I feel that in the global economy that we currently are all a part of, a significant group of people need to be at the bottom supporting those at the top – the massive and growing disparity between the top and bottom earning groups are in fact what allows the top figures to go so high (ie: someone needs to be manufacturing something for $.01 on the dollar on the left of the chart in order for the other $.99 profit to lift the groups on the right). To think that all populations would just migrate to the top of the chart is not taking into account the global economy. Or maybe I am just being a pessimist.

    • Anonymous
      December 10, 2010

      That’s where robots COULD become important. Replacing the minimum wage employees. When that happens it could either be the greatest thing ever and nobody has to work anymore or it could make hundreds of millions of people unemployed and increase the gap between rich and poor even further.

      • Hawkeye
        December 14, 2010

        How many Luddites would pop up then?

    • mpeg2tom
      December 14, 2010

      The rich west gets very little from the poor people of poor countries. There is now some oil and minerals flowing from poor countries, but most still comes from middle-income countries. On the other hand, the middle-income countries are producing a lot of cheaper manufactured goods for rich countries, but the middle-income countries are rapidly growing and getting richer because of it.

  2. Jemoeder10
    December 10, 2010

    lol @ not mentioning Africa not catching up

  3. Jay
    December 11, 2010

    Great video, same content was in a TED conference from a few years ago. I just don’t the optimistic comments at the end. Of course tech and science advance are making human kind healther and richer, nothing new there, been known for ages. What is really striking (and scary) for me is the confirmation that the benefits of this advance take over a hundred years to reach a good part of the population. He even points out that “most ppl today live in the middle” but honestly, after so many years, I wonder how many hundred millions still live below the average. Bottomline: kinda makes me think how much of this singularity talk is sometimes used to dismiss the big problems humanity faces in the present.

    • Whatever
      December 14, 2010

      Half the population is below the average, in each and every metric. Pretty sure that’s what average means. So it’s not hundreds of millions, it’s billions.

      • Nick G
        December 14, 2010

        Pretty sure that’s what “median” means.

      • Nick G
        December 14, 2010

        let’s look at these these example salaries:

        1. $0/yr
        2. $120/yr
        3. $120/yr
        4. $120/yr
        5. $120/yr

        The average is $96. That’s a world I’d like to live in. 80% of the people make more than average ;)

  4. Anonymous
    December 14, 2010

    not to ruin it for you guys but the graphs are from http://www.gapminder.org/world/, go play with them for yourself, some interesting correlations can be made.
    i agree though, combined with a little aftereffects and a good commentary these graphs become more interesting to watch.

  5. James Massa
    December 14, 2010

    Had to ruin it with mention of green technology =(
    Technology is technology. Are we going to deny someone a better living because it isn’t labeled green? Sure, there are certain things that are very dangerous and destructive … but jumping to those extremes to try and win an arguement is falacy. And aid hasn’t helped as much as most people think. How does the old saying go; give a man a fish… ?

    • geekoid
      December 14, 2010

      Some technologies are greener then others. Coal is not a green technology. In fact it’s a rather nasty one. No extreme needed.

      Aid has demonstrably helped. If a man starves to death while you teach him to fish, what’s the point?

    • Hawkeye
      December 14, 2010

      But, by using more ‘green’ technology would that not improve the health of countries? People used to hand paint radioactive materials onto wrist watches so the watch faces would glow in the dark… It was a use of technology and it certainly aided people who just had to know what time it was in the middle of the night without turning their lights on, but did it promote a better living?

  6. Geekoid
    December 14, 2010

    40,000 is rich?

    • Antti
      December 14, 2010

      Compared to 400, yes.

  7. Anonymous
    December 14, 2010

    Pretty neat, uh?

  8. Rebecca85
    December 14, 2010

    Interesting that he chose 1810 as the starting point. I see bias towards the UK :| because they had essentially gained the vast majority of their wealth from colonization, especially that from India (and China). Much of this wealth was stolen and populations left impoverished. It would be great to see where things started from, prior to colonization… however, still a good pictorial depiction.

    • Mrossi
      December 15, 2010

      2010 minus 200 equals 1810 what is so interesting as a starting point for a 200 year review? What am I missing?

    • Hajamieli
      December 15, 2010

      1810 is the starting point because they didn’t have any meaningful data for the statistics anywhere before that.

  9. Asd
    December 15, 2010

    haha swenglish

  10. Tom
    December 15, 2010

    Nice. He just needs to put energy consumption per capita on another axis and factor the fact that we will soon be running low into his silly conclusions.

  11. saadockenfels
    December 17, 2010

    D00De, You tiotally ROCK – We are so fortunate to have people like yourself in this world!

  12. Saigawa
    December 17, 2010

    I’m a fan of Rosling, but it looks like he made a mistake saying Shanghai’s GDPper cap is wqual to Italy’s. He is correctly using purchasing power parity (PPP) for these, but I looked up Italy at around $31,000 and Shanghai at around $21,000. At 9% growth, Shanghai and the entire East Coast of China should catch Italy and Japan in a few years, but not there yet.

  13. harold forbes
    December 20, 2010

    Bit scary that all that progress has been dependent on fossil fuels to provide the energy and natural capital to provide the “wealth”. If we want to continue with progress (and my vote does go to being wealthy and healthy), we need to replace that energy source pdq and start considering restocking oceans, protecting forests and bio-diversity and taking carbon out of the atmosphere as economic activities.

  14. norobot
    January 4, 2013

    i LIKE doing my laundry and taking out the garbage. What’s next, a robot to read a book for me? DUH…… to listen to music for me so i can watch its reactions, have sex for me, dance for me. might as well just catch the next glory train and boogie on out of here, or go watch all those hundreds of rhino robots in the Serengeti.

Leave a Reply

You must be to post a comment.

Back to top
mobile desktop