The planet or civilization? That must be the first distinction, since individual can choose to view the "world" both through the perspective of humanity living on it or from a more humanity-is-an-insignificant-speck-in-the-grand-scheme point of view. That being said, from the second perspective, the world is going on as it always has - slowly changing, seemingly without cause or reason.

On the other hand, the "world" where people live is going at a very different pace than it ever has. Lives are changing more abruptly. Individuals in free and wealth countries have more choices than ever before. But does that matter? Does the number of choices one has really have any effect on the net freedom of the individual. One might suppose that total freedom is the total number of life decisions left up to the individual minus the contraints put upon that individual by uncontrollable outside forces. But to outside forces negate freedoms one for one? A freedom is of greater value than an abridgement of another freedom.

This has seemed to spin into a new question. Are the abridgments of certain freedoms enough to negate the value of others?

The requirement of dentists to have licenses is an abridgment of individuals to practice dentistry. This is a lack of freedom. However, the abridgment only effects those who would want to practice. Also, this abridgment of one population's freedom frees the remaining population from the uncertainty of dental visits. Many people are already afraid of visiting the dentist. This fear would only be compounded if there were no limits to the legality of practicing dentistry.

There are abridgments of freedoms imposed on one subset of people for the benefit of the majority that harm both the dignity of the individuals whose freedoms are limited and the population at large.