Just wanted to express the opposite of the other commenter, having read Pinker I actually disagree with him on a ton of stuff given he's an apologist (at best) for some of the worst aspects of...
Just wanted to express the opposite of the other commenter, having read Pinker I actually disagree with him on a ton of stuff given he's an apologist (at best) for some of the worst aspects of modernity/neo-liberalism/capitalism/neo-colonialism/US hegemony and I felt the need to express an alternative opinion about this matter but appreciated the posting of the piece.
This article is about twice as long as it probably needed to be, but I do think it's a really good illustration of how tone matters. I agree with about 90% of prof. pinker's philosophies, as...
This article is about twice as long as it probably needed to be, but I do think it's a really good illustration of how tone matters. I agree with about 90% of prof. pinker's philosophies, as expounded in the article, and yet I still think he comes off like a total asshole.
I think this is Pinker's core argument. The idea is that social markets, trade and technological/medical progress are making life better for everyone and it's these trends which drive humanity...
Pinker’s broad thesis is that, aside from a few unfortunate statistical blips like the Second World War and the rapid acceleration of climate change, for the most part life on Earth has been getting better all the time. Usually, he qualifies this by saying that Of Course There Are Still Terrible Problems and he’s Not Saying This Is The Best We Can Possibly Do
I think this is Pinker's core argument. The idea is that social markets, trade and technological/medical progress are making life better for everyone and it's these trends which drive humanity forward. Yes, you can have bad or good policies, but as long as these underlying trends continue we can expect life to get better. The risks are that good or bad policies could disrupt/improve this.
I feel the counter-argument people make is that he is saying everything is just peachy and if we just get out of the way everything will continue to get better. This clearly isn't the case. But if we apply rationality to the improvements we make hopefully we can positively augment these underlying trends.
Just wanted to express the opposite of the other commenter, having read Pinker I actually disagree with him on a ton of stuff given he's an apologist (at best) for some of the worst aspects of modernity/neo-liberalism/capitalism/neo-colonialism/US hegemony and I felt the need to express an alternative opinion about this matter but appreciated the posting of the piece.
Thanks!
This article is about twice as long as it probably needed to be, but I do think it's a really good illustration of how tone matters. I agree with about 90% of prof. pinker's philosophies, as expounded in the article, and yet I still think he comes off like a total asshole.
Thanks for sharing it.
I think this is Pinker's core argument. The idea is that social markets, trade and technological/medical progress are making life better for everyone and it's these trends which drive humanity forward. Yes, you can have bad or good policies, but as long as these underlying trends continue we can expect life to get better. The risks are that good or bad policies could disrupt/improve this.
I feel the counter-argument people make is that he is saying everything is just peachy and if we just get out of the way everything will continue to get better. This clearly isn't the case. But if we apply rationality to the improvements we make hopefully we can positively augment these underlying trends.