Ever wondered how grilled rats and giant larvas can lead to insights on the generalization instinct and global misconceptions? Are you curious about how a Swedish doctor's experiences in Congo, India, and Mozambique can provide us with a fresh perspective on stereotypes, cultural shifts, and economic progress? Want to know about the instincts that distort our worldview and how understanding them can foster a more hopeful outlook on global progress? Get ready to challenge common misconceptions about global trends using data.

Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think

In October 1995, a seemingly ordinary classroom exercise transformed into a lifelong mission for Hans Rosling to debunk global misconceptions. Rosling stood before his students, armed with UNICEF tables, and asked about child mortality rates. Their responses painted a diverse picture of global health: 35 deaths per 1,000 in Saudi Arabia, 14 in Malaysia, 55 in Brazil, and 171 in Tanzania. These numbers, Rosling explained, are more than statistics; they reflect the overall quality of life in each society.

As they delved deeper, the students' preconceived notions began to crumble. They couldn't believe that child mortality in Saudi Arabia had plummeted from 242 in 1960 to 35 in 1995. Similarly, Malaysia's rate had dropped from 93 to 14. The data was irrefutable, yet it starkly contrasted the outdated worldviews they held.

Rosling introduced the concept of the "Gap Instinct" — our tendency to divide the world into two distinct groups: rich and poor, developed and developing. This binary thinking perpetuates a distorted view, ignoring the nuances and progress made worldwide. That evening, a student's comment — "They can never live like us" — epitomized this flawed perspective. This sparked an engaging discussion, revealing how deeply ingrained and misleading these misconceptions were.

Fast forward to today, and the world has drastically changed. Most people live in middle-income countries, not in abject poverty. The outdated labels of "developed" and "developing" no longer apply. To illustrate this, Rosling often uses a color printer and bubble graphs, which vividly show the convergence of countries' living standards over time. 

The misconception persists, as evidenced by a Danish journalist's provocative questioning in a TV studio, to which Rosling responded, "I am right and you are wrong." This gap instinct is further exposed through surveys showing that people grossly underestimate the progress in low-income countries. For instance, 60% of girls now finish primary school in these countries, a fact that only 7% of respondents guessed correctly.

To combat this, Rosling proposes a more nuanced framework: dividing the world into four income levels. This approach better captures the diversity of living standards and highlights the significant improvements made globally. It challenges the dramatic instinct to see the world in binary terms and helps us understand the true state of our planet.

By recognizing and controlling the gap instinct, we can develop a more accurate, fact-based worldview. This means looking beyond averages and extremes and appreciating the majority who live in the middle, bridging the supposed gap.

Is the Gap Instinct Distorting Our Perception of Global Progress?

When Rosling was four, he nearly drowned in a sewage ditch outside his grandmother's house in Sweden. His parents were absent due to his mother’s tuberculosis and his father's long work hours. His grandma saved him and washed him in her kitchen sink. These early memories have shaped Rosling's understanding of survival and progress.

People often think the world is deteriorating, driven by their negativity instinct. While it’s true that challenges like war, terrorism, and climate change persist, there's another side to the story—a side that’s rarely highlighted. For instance, the number of people living in extreme poverty has halved in the last two decades. Yet, in Rosling's surveys, less than 10% knew this.

Take life expectancy: in 1800, it was around 30 years globally. Today, it's 72. Rosling's home country, Sweden, has moved from having open sewage ditches to one of the highest standards of living in the world within a few generations. 

Learning about these improvements can be comforting and uplifting. For instance, while 85% of the world lived in extreme poverty in 1800, today it’s only 9%. Yet, many people still believe the world is getting worse. This misconception is fueled by our tendency to focus on negative news and overlook gradual improvements.

Sweden's history mirrors global progress. Rosling's grandparents couldn’t read for pleasure, and his great-grandmother lived in a mud-floored home. Yet, within a few generations, Sweden transformed dramatically. Similarly, countries worldwide have seen improvements in health, literacy, and living standards.

To counteract our negativity bias, we must recognize that improvements often go unnoticed. Good news is rarely reported, and gradual progress is overshadowed by dramatic setbacks. For instance, the violent crime rate in the U.S. has been declining since 1990, but each headline-grabbing incident makes it seem otherwise.

Rosling is not an optimist; he is a "possibilist." He believes in acknowledging both the bad and the improvements. This balanced view helps maintain hope and motivation to continue making progress. Educating girls, for example, has shown tremendous benefits. Nearly 90% of girls now attend primary school, compared to much lower rates in the past.

Expect bad news, but seek out the good. Understand that media and activists often highlight crises to capture attention. Remember, improved reporting doesn’t mean more suffering—it means better awareness.

From Sewage Ditch to Global Progress: A Swedish Saga of Hope and Factfulness

In September 2014, Rosling encountered a graph that profoundly terrified him. It was about the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Unlike typical disease outbreaks, this one wasn’t growing linearly—1, 2, 3, 4—but exponentially—1, 2, 4, 8. Each infected person was infecting two more, doubling the number of cases every three weeks. 

This reminded Rosling of an Indian legend where grains of rice doubled on each square of a chessboard, leading to an astronomical total. It's a stark lesson: doubling is dangerous and swift.

At Gapminder, an independent Swedish foundation, the focus was shifted to producing urgent information. By October, Rosling was on a plane to Liberia to help manage the crisis. He missed Christmas and New Year's with his family, but it was crucial. He had initially misunderstood the data, assuming a straight line when it was actually a doubling curve. Acting sooner could have made a difference.

This misunderstanding is rooted in what Rosling calls the "straight line instinct," a misconception especially prevalent regarding population growth. Many believe the population is just increasing without end. However, the UN predicts that the number of children will remain stable at 2 billion by 2100. The global population will grow not due to more children or elderly but because existing children will grow into adults.

Historically, the population grew slowly until 1800, then rapidly increased due to improvements in health and survival rates. For instance, in Bangladesh, the average number of children per woman dropped from seven in 1972 to two today due to better health and education. Similarly, Egypt's child mortality rate plummeted from 30% in 1960 to 2.3% today.

Understanding the shape of growth curves is vital. For example, Rosling's grandson Mino grew seven inches in his first six months, but this rate won’t continue indefinitely. Similarly, global population growth will eventually level off. Experts predict it will stabilize between 10 and 12 billion by the century's end.

To curb population growth, eradicating extreme poverty is key. Improved child survival rates lead parents to have fewer children. Melinda Gates has faced criticism for saving children's lives, with some arguing it leads to overpopulation. But the opposite is true. Once parents see their children survive and no longer need them for labor, they choose to have fewer, better-educated children.

Curves in data aren’t always straight. They can be S-bends, slides, or humps, reflecting different realities. For instance, primary education and vaccination rates rise quickly once countries can afford them, then level off. Understanding these shapes helps us make better predictions and decisions.

In short, recognizing and challenging the straight line instinct is crucial. Curves come in different shapes, and assuming a straight line can lead to misguided conclusions and solutions. Factfulness involves acknowledging these different patterns for a more accurate understanding of the world.

Are We Misunderstanding Population Growth Due to the 'Straight Line Instinct'?

In 1975, on Rosling's fifth day as a junior doctor in Hudiksvall, Sweden, a nurse burst in with news of a plane crash. As the only staff available, Rosling faced a man in military overalls, bleeding profusely. 

In his panic, Rosling assumed the man was a Russian pilot shot down, signaling the start of World War III. His fear was so intense that he misinterpreted everything: the "Russian" pilot was Swedish, the "war" was peace, and the "blood" was a dye from the man's life jacket. This episode revealed how fear distorts perception, making critical thinking almost impossible.

Brains can't process all information, so they filter it, often letting in only dramatic stories. This is why the media focuses on earthquakes, wars, and shark attacks, painting a skewed picture of the world. The fear instinct, in particular, heavily influences what news gets attention, exaggerating the perception of danger.

In 1999, Rosling visited a traditional midwife in Tanzania. Despite her struggles, she proudly shared that her daughters had escaped poverty, working in offices in Dar es Salaam. When asked what would make her job easier, she said, "A flashlight, to see the snakes." This highlighted how fears practical for survival on Level 1 (extreme poverty) become irrational on Level 4 (wealthy societies).

Media often amplifies rare but dramatic events, leading people to believe the world is more dangerous than it is. For instance, deaths from natural disasters have plummeted by 94% over the past century, thanks to better preparedness, yet media reports each disaster as catastrophic.

In 2016, 40 million commercial flights landed safely, but only the 10 that crashed made headlines. Flying has become 2,100 times safer since the 1930s, thanks to international collaboration. Yet, fear of flying persists because safe flights aren’t newsworthy.

Despite media portrayal, we live in the most peaceful era in history. Battle deaths have declined significantly, allowing global progress. However, current conflicts like Syria remind us that peace remains fragile.

Fear of contamination has led to irrational behaviors. For example, after the Fukushima nuclear accident, fear, not radiation, caused 1,600 deaths from evacuation stress. Similarly, the fear of DDT, despite it being mildly harmful, has hindered its use in saving lives from malaria.

While terrorism has increased globally, it remains a minuscule cause of death, especially in wealthy countries. For example, in the US, one is 50 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Yet, terrorism receives disproportionate media coverage, fueling unnecessary fear.

Fear often misguides us, making us focus on unlikely dangers. To protect themselves and their loved ones, people should base their concerns on actual risks rather than perceived ones. Recognizing this can help them channel their energy into addressing the real dangers of today.

From Plane Crashes to Terrorism: How Fear Distorts Our Perception of Danger

When Rosling was a young doctor in Mozambique during the early 1980s, he faced the harsh reality of extreme poverty. With limited resources, their small hospital admitted around 1,000 very sick children annually, battling diseases like diarrhea, pneumonia, and malaria. Despite their efforts, they lost one child every week. One weekend, a Swedish pediatrician friend visiting Rosling was upset by the substandard treatment they provided—a stark reminder of the cruel calculus of extreme poverty.

Mozambique's child mortality rate was 26 percent, signifying that thousands of children died annually in their district. Their hospital only saw 1.3 percent of these cases. It became clear to Rosling that investing in community-based healthcare could save more lives than focusing solely on hospital treatments. Training village health workers and improving basic healthcare became their priority. This approach, although difficult, was necessary to address the larger issue of child deaths.

This story illustrates the "size instinct," our tendency to misjudge the importance of numbers when they lack context. Media often exacerbates this by highlighting rare but dramatic events, skewing our perception. For example, while a bear attack in Sweden made national headlines, domestic violence, which claims far more lives, received little attention.

To combat this, Rosling suggests that we should compare and contextualize numbers. When UNICEF reported 4.2 million infant deaths in 2016, it seemed horrifying until compared to 1950's 14.4 million. This context reveals significant progress in reducing child mortality. Similarly, understanding global energy sources or population distributions requires comparing and dividing numbers to grasp their true significance.

The 80/20 rule, focusing on the largest numbers or most impactful items, helps prioritize effectively. For instance, oil, coal, and gas account for 87 percent of global energy, highlighting where efforts should be concentrated.

In short, Rosling asserts that understanding the world requires both individual stories and statistical context. By comparing and dividing numbers, we can gain a clearer, more accurate perspective and make better-informed decisions.

Can Understanding the 'Size Instinct' and the 80/20 Rule Help Us Save More Lives?

Imagine an orange sun setting behind acacia trees in the Bandundu region of the Congo, half a day's walk from the nearest paved road. Rosling and his colleague,  Thorkild, were there interviewing villagers about their nutrition, and to show their gratitude, they served them a special meal: grilled rats. While initially repulsed, hunger and politeness pushed them to eat.

The villagers then presented them with dessert—giant, squirming larvas. Despite being a sword swallower and having eaten porridge made from mosquitoes, Rosling couldn't stomach these. So, he concocted a lie: "In Sweden, we don't eat larvas. But in Denmark, they do." Thorkild played along, and the villagers, understanding cultural differences, happily shared Rosling's dessert among themselves.

Their story illustrates the "generalization instinct," our unconscious habit of categorizing and stereotyping. This instinct helps structure our thoughts but can also distort our worldview, causing us to group together things or people that are actually very different. This is evident in media shorthand like "rural life" or "super mom," which oversimplifies diverse experiences.

Consider a quiz Rosling often uses in his lectures: "How many of the world’s 1-year-old children today have been vaccinated against some disease?" The majority of global finance managers at a top bank guessed only 20 percent. The correct answer is 88 percent. This misconception shows how misleading generalizations can skew perceptions and lead to missed opportunities, like investments in growing markets with solid infrastructure.

This misunderstanding extends to business. For example, menstrual pad manufacturers often focus on niche markets for wealthy women, overlooking the billions of women on Levels 2 and 3 who need reliable, low-cost products. These companies miss out on massive, untapped markets by generalizing that the majority of the world is too poor to be consumers.

Generalizations can be misleading and even dangerous. Rosling's students, during study visits to countries on Levels 1, 2, and 3, often express surprise at well-organized cities and hospitals. These trips highlight the vast differences within countries and the similarities across income levels globally. For example, a half-built house might seem a sign of disorganization in Sweden but is a smart savings strategy in Tunisia.

Rosling once fell into this trap himself. In 1972, studying in India, he assumed his Western education made him superior. That misconception shattered when he realized his Indian peers knew far more than he did. This was a pivotal moment, revealing that Western dominance wouldn't last forever.

You don’t have to travel to avoid wrong generalizations. Consider Anna's Dollar Street project, which aligns homes worldwide by income, revealing that lifestyle similarities depend more on income than nationality or culture. Always question your categories: look for differences within groups and similarities across them, beware of "the majority" and exceptional examples, and assume your experience isn't "normal."

Decoding the Generalization Instinct: The Impact on Perception and Business Opportunities

A while ago, Rosling found himself in the grand ballroom of the Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh, ready to present to a group of capital managers. As he set up, he couldn’t help but feel small and questioned why he was there. The organizer explained: he needed Rosling to shift his clients’ outdated perceptions of Africa, showing them that the best investments were now in emerging markets in Asia and Africa.

Rosling's lecture went well. He highlighted the economic progress in Asian countries like South Korea and China, which had followed decades of social improvements. He argued the same was now happening in parts of Africa, mentioning Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Ghana. The audience asked insightful questions, but after the talk, an elderly man in a checked suit approached Rosling. "There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell Africa will make it," he said, dismissing the possibility of change due to what he believed were unchangeable cultural traits.

This interaction exemplified the "destiny instinct," the belief that certain characteristics determine the unchangeable fate of people or countries. Historically, this instinct served an evolutionary purpose, but today, it blinds us to societal transformations. Societies and cultures are not static; they evolve, even if the changes are slow and unnoticeable.

Consider the misconception that Africa will always lag. Yes, Africa's average lifespan is behind Europe, but countries like Tunisia and Egypt now have life expectancies above the world average. Even south of the Sahara, many countries have made significant progress in education and child survival rates.

Rosling's memorable encounter with a student from Iran illustrated this point. She was moved because it was the first time she heard someone from Sweden acknowledge the rapid improvements in health and education in her home country. Despite Iran's advancements, the Western media had not reported these changes, illustrating how slow, positive change often goes unnoticed.

Religious and cultural values, too, are not as unyielding as we might think. Take Sweden: once conservative about sex and contraception, it has transformed into a society known for its liberal values. Similarly, many Asian and African countries are experiencing cultural shifts, especially regarding gender roles and family planning.

At a conference in Hong Kong, a successful young banker confided to Rosling that while she wanted children, she couldn't stand the idea of a husband due to traditional expectations. He assured her that cultures can and do change, and shared similar sentiments from students in Bangladesh who dream of a future with modern values.

During a lecture at the African Union, Rosling passionately spoke about ending extreme poverty in Africa within 20 years. Afterward, the chairwoman, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, gently chided him for lacking vision. She envisioned a future where Africans would be tourists in Europe, not refugees. This reminded Rosling of a conversation 33 years earlier with a Mozambican friend who dreamed of a future where all children in his city could enjoy the beach, a stark contrast to his limited view.

The destiny instinct makes us see progress as improbable or temporary. To counter it, we must recognize that slow change is still change. Keep track of gradual improvements, update your knowledge, and remember that societies and cultures are constantly evolving. Collect examples of cultural change and challenge the idea that today’s norms are eternal. In essence, embrace the fact that rocks do move.

Is Africa's Economic Transformation a Myth or a Rising Reality?

Imagine forming your worldview by looking at just a picture of Rosling's foot. It’s a part of him, sure, but focusing only on his foot would provide a highly skewed perspective of who he is. The same goes for relying solely on the media or a single expert's view to understand the world. People love simple solutions, but the truth is, the world is complex and multifaceted.

Take the "single perspective instinct," for example. This is the tendency to latch onto simple ideas that are believed to explain everything. Whether it’s the free market or equality, individuals often believe that one thing causes all problems and that one solution can fix them all. This mindset blinds them to other important information.

Experts, for instance, are invaluable within their fields, but their expertise has limits. When experts step outside their domains, their insights can be as flawed as anyone else's. Even Nobel laureates and highly educated individuals often get facts wrong about areas outside their specialization.

Activists can also fall into this trap. At a women’s rights conference, only 8% of the attendees knew that 30-year-old women had spent on average only one year less in school than men. This kind of tunnel vision leads to exaggeration and can overlook significant progress.

Consider Pascoal Mocumbi, the former Prime Minister of Mozambique. He gauged economic progress not just by GDP, but by observing people’s shoes and construction projects. It was a holistic approach that went beyond numbers, showing that sometimes, bricks and shoes tell a more accurate story than statistics.

Similarly, medicine isn't always the panacea. In the 1950s, a well-intended TB eradication program in India failed because it ignored other urgent health needs. The lesson? Comprehensive primary health care often works better than targeting a single disease.

Even ideologies like democracy and free markets aren’t universal solutions. Cuba, for example, is lauded for its health care but criticized for its lack of freedom and poverty. On the flip side, the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country but has a lower life expectancy than many other wealthy nations. These examples illustrate that a balanced approach, rather than a single ideology, is often more effective.

In essence, understanding improves when ideas are tested, humility about expertise is maintained, and complexity is welcomed. Factfulness requires viewing problems from multiple angles and being open to combining different ideas and solutions. The world is far too intricate for any single perspective to capture its full reality.

Beyond the Single Perspective: Embracing Complexity for a Holistic Worldview

Rosling was giving a lecture at Karolinska Institute in Sweden about how big pharmaceutical companies don’t prioritize research for diseases that affect the poorest. A student suggested, “Let’s punch them in the face.” Rosling played along, asking who exactly to punch—employees, the boss, or the board members? The students debated, eventually realizing it was the shareholders who prioritize profits over research for poor people’s health. 

Rosling then pointed out that shareholders often include retirement funds, suggesting they should visit their grandmas, the real shareholders, and punch them instead.

This story highlights our instinct to find someone to blame when things go wrong. It’s natural to think individuals have power and bad intentions, but this often oversimplifies complex problems. For example, blaming a sleepy pilot for a crash doesn’t prevent future crashes; understanding why he was sleepy does.

Blaming can also mislead us when things go well. We might credit a single person when systemic factors are at play. For instance, Mao’s one-child policy didn’t solely reduce birth rates in China; broader societal changes did. Similarly, despite the Pope condemning contraception, its usage in Catholic-majority countries is similar to global rates, showing systemic factors at work.

Rosling faced his own biases, like assuming a small pharma company bidding low for a UNICEF contract was a scam. It turned out they used cutting-edge robotics to cut costs. This taught him to appreciate the innovative power of small businesses.

Journalists often get blamed for distorting the truth, but they too have misconceptions. When tested, many journalists scored no better than the general public on factual knowledge about the world. Blaming them doesn’t help; understanding the systemic pressures they face does.

In the refugee crisis, we blamed smugglers for the tragedy of refugees drowning in the Mediterranean. But the real issue was EU policies making it nearly impossible for refugees to travel legally. Blaming the smugglers distracted us from the systemic causes rooted in our own policies.

We also blame foreign countries for climate change, ignoring that the richest billion people are responsible for over half of fossil fuel consumption. It’s easier to blame others than to look in the mirror and change our own consumption habits.

Blame and credit often mislead us. We need to look beyond individuals to understand systems. For example, technological advancements like washing machines have dramatically improved lives, thanks to the work of many unsung heroes in society.

To truly change the world, we must focus on understanding systems rather than finding scapegoats or heroes. By doing so, we can develop more effective solutions to complex problems.

Are We Misdirecting Blame in Society's Complex Problems?

When Rosling was the sole doctor in a poor district of Nacala, he faced a mysterious disease that paralyzed and blinded patients within minutes. Unsure if it was contagious, Rosling evacuated his family. The mayor, gripped by fear, set up a roadblock to prevent its spread. 

Tragically, women and children attempting to circumvent the blockade drowned when their boats capsized. This decision haunted Rosling, especially when he discovered the disease was caused by unprocessed cassava, not an infection. 

Years later, similar urgency-driven actions during Ebola outbreaks in DR Congo and Liberia led to unintended consequences. In Liberia, experienced politicians avoided roadblocks to maintain public trust, crucial for tracing infection paths.

The urgency instinct, while beneficial in immediate threats, often leads to hasty, poor decisions in complex situations. For instance, Al Gore asked Rosling to use fear to highlight climate change's worst-case scenarios. Rosling refused, knowing exaggeration undermines credibility. Instead, systematic and data-driven actions are essential for real, lasting impact.

In crises, organizing data is crucial. During the 2014 Ebola outbreak, accurate data showed the epidemic’s peak had passed, contrary to rising suspected cases. This clarity allowed for effective resource allocation and maintained credibility.

Urgency distorts our worldview, creating stress and poor decisions. Understanding global risks—pandemics, financial collapse, war, climate change, and extreme poverty—requires collaborative, measured actions, not drastic measures driven by fear.

Recognizing when urgency is misplaced helps us make better decisions. Taking small steps, insisting on accurate data, and avoiding drastic actions are key. Learning to control urgency and other dramatic instincts leads to a more fact-based, less stressful view of the world.

This approach saved Rosling in Bandundu, DR Congo, where a misunderstanding almost turned deadly. A local woman’s rational intervention turned an angry mob into willing participants in his research, illustrating the power of clear, fact-based communication.

In education, businesses, journalism, and individual actions, promoting a fact-based worldview is crucial. Children should learn about global realities and critical thinking. Businesses must understand global markets. Journalists need to contextualize events. Organizations should identify and address their own knowledge gaps.

Ultimately, a fact-based worldview is not only more accurate but also more comfortable, reducing stress and hopelessness. It helps us see the world’s true state and the steps needed to improve it.

Factfulness Over Fear: How Misplaced Urgency Distorts Our Worldview and Decision Making

There are several key insights in understanding global misconceptions and the instincts that distort our worldview. First, the "Gap Instinct" makes us erroneously divide the world into rich and poor, ignoring the significant progress and the nuanced realities of middle-income countries. Most people now live in conditions that are neither extreme poverty nor wealth, challenging outdated labels like "developed" and "developing."

The "Negativity Instinct" leads us to believe the world is getting worse, despite substantial improvements such as reduced extreme poverty and increased life expectancy. Our tendency to focus on negative news overlooks the gradual, positive changes happening globally.

The "Straight Line Instinct" misguides us into thinking trends will continue indefinitely in a linear fashion. However, many phenomena, like population growth, follow different patterns, necessitating a deeper understanding of data curves.

The "Fear Instinct" distorts our perception by making dramatic, rare events seem more common and dangerous than they are. This skews our focus towards unlikely threats and away from real, manageable risks.

The "Size Instinct" causes us to misjudge the importance of numbers without context, often leading to misguided priorities. Comparing and contextualizing data helps provide a clearer and more accurate understanding.

The "Generalization Instinct" simplifies diverse realities into stereotypes, leading to misconceptions and missed opportunities. Recognizing the complexity within and across groups can prevent these oversights.

The "Destiny Instinct" falsely convinces us that certain conditions or cultural traits are unchangeable. Societies and cultures continuously evolve, and recognizing this can open our eyes to ongoing positive transformations.

The "Single Perspective Instinct" limits our understanding by relying on one-dimensional explanations. Embracing multiple perspectives yields a more comprehensive view of complex issues.

The "Blame Instinct" focuses on assigning individual blame rather than understanding systemic causes. Addressing underlying systems can lead to more effective solutions.

Finally, the "Urgency Instinct" drives hasty decisions based on a sense of immediate crisis. While urgency can be helpful in true emergencies, it often leads to poor decisions in complex situations. Taking measured, data-driven actions and controlling the urgency instinct can significantly improve outcomes.

Overall, adopting a fact-based worldview by recognizing and managing these instincts not only offers a clearer picture of the world but also reduces unnecessary stress and fosters a more hopeful outlook on global progress.

Home

Trending

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History