I've always liked Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation: “The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country.” Basically, the more matters improve the more intolerable failings seem in comparison.
Just look at North Korea. None of its citizens complain about human rights violations. So its either a Communist Utopia, or people are too afraid to dare say anything against the state.
The Smoking Dog Or, they simply do not have a voice that can be heard. Every North Korean that has escaped, and that I have heard speak, has spoken of the atrocities of that regime. Perhaps, the premise relies on first-world thinking
Joel Wallace Well freedom of speech is a human right is it not? The more it is restricted the less people are able to criticize the government. This does go well with the mentioned hypothesis.
scarcesense I agree with what your saying here except for the last sentence. I think this inverse relation is more due to the fact that countries without human rights do not allow free speech then it is about the feelings of people in free countries.
He doesn't understand progressive intent. Progressives only grow progressively worse with time. Along with their pseudo intellectualism comes progressive decadence which is their ultimate aim, not knowledge and enlightenment.
It may have to do with the rapid changes in technology and more so the constant rearranging of the lines by our political/media class. I only speak as an individual American, and don't know if it's the same across the world, but the mantra from our media is that we are in complete chaos and at each other's throats. Simply not true if you manage to just go about your day and ingnore the 24/7 news industry. The "Right wing" here isn't much like the days of Reagan and the "Left" ( I consider myself to be a classical liberal) doesn't even resemble what it was 15 years ago. The modern "progressive" left, is the most hateful, narcissistic, racist, ( Yes, critical race theory is entirely racist) overly dramatic and flat out negative group of people I've come across in my lifetime. We have become almost tribal in our understanding, while yammering some nonsense about democracy. It's all about what group you belong to now, as opposed to accepting individuals for who they are. Sad really.
I must apologize. I didn't explain the initial point. It's my belief that we are trying to change things at such a rapid pace and without understanding that positive change takes time. Change for the sake of change is not only pointless, it's destructive as it ignores the slow evolutionary process of human interaction and our ability to cope with our attempts at advancement.
This guy is good, even though I disagree with him in many issues, he is one of those people that you must follow, so that you don't get lazy in your thinking, as he will always challenge it, and challenging thinking makes for a better understanding of the world and it's problems, and in turn, makes them easier to fix...
One reason people focus on problems is that they demand something be done about them. A lack of problems is relatively feeble in demand for attention as nothing need be done but to enjoy.
The ones pushing hard always seemed so frustrated that “their” utopia wouldn’t exist in their lifetime, so would have to force it. The result is Tyranny.
When I was young I was incredibly ignorant about politics mainly because I didn't care enough to even inform myself adequately much less going and voting. You should be careful what you wish for.
Thats the thing, when everyone is young they don't know a damn thing about politics. They see a few articles and then get all outraged. And when you're young, you're not going to have everything together, so might as well help yourself best you can first before setting off on a mission to rescue the world.
The young have no experiences to guide their judgement, they have only a utopian ideal of how they things should be, but we don't live in Utopia and we never will.
One example of "progress" from New Zealand. In the middle of 10s, the New Zealand govt adjusted the way they estimated unemployment. Now, say, if you spent an hour a week doing some charity work, you wouldn't be counted as unemployed and that's how we have such awesome employment figures while also so many people on the dole. I wonder if all those stats Pinker quotes, were produced similar way.
Yeah, progress fought for and brought about by actual progressives. Pinker should know this. "Why do progressives hate progress?" is a ridiculous title. As if there is a future end point to progress. That's absurd.
This is a bait and switch. You can acknowledge that the world is better AND recognize that both American parties are HIGHLY corporatist. Was Obama giving 14 trillioin to banks as a bail out progress? How about the extensive use of drones that kill civilians 90% of the time? What about the 4 billion in subsidies Exxon Mobil takes annually? And the killing of Qaddafi with US backed rebels? Expanding the wars from 2 countries to 7? All this happened under a democratic administration. Under Obama.
xenoblad you are really going to blame all that on one man? You are unbelievably disingenuous. "Was Obama giving 14 trillioin to banks as a bail out progress?" - where do you get that figure from? Much if not all that $750 billion bailout money was paid back with interest. US military actions were already underway when the Obama administration came in. Don't pretend like the previous regime was run by a bunch of hippies. The Bush administration killed around 100,000 in Iraq and engaged in torture, and managed to help foster the conditions for the creation of ISIS. creating a civil war that killed a million in Iraq before Obama was elected.
xenoblad - Democrat =/= Progressive, kiddo. Make an effort to appreciate the difference instead of this simple game of convenience conflation you're playing. "DERP! IFN IT AINT REPUBLIKKKANS IT THEN THAR MUST BEE THEM DIRTY DEMOCRITTERS, H'YUK". This is not a dichotomy of two political brands. There are other options.
14 trillion is the total of goverment commitments to keep the financial sector afloat according to Nomi Prins a respected author on financial matters and former wall street executive. And We the taxpayer did not get paid back nor are we ever likely to be paid back. The very nature of having bailed the banks out increases our costs as consumers because we end up paying the premiums for what is essentially government insurance for whatever destructive behaviour the banks choose to indulge in. Of course Obama wasnt single handedly responsible for every evil thing done in the name of our empire, but there is a truism about the way our government functions. That is that when an administration takes actions that are deemed to be antidemocratic if after that administration leaves and the other party takes the white house any policy no matter how egregious the new administration continues becomes the new normal and the anti democratic policies will likely never be overturned. Obama continued Bushs destruction of the bill of rights and took it to new levels prosecuting more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. His refusal to prosecute any executive for their criminal behavior was shameful. And his increasing use of drones killed more people than Bushs drone program and Trump is well on his way to beating Obamas record. Obama has a record of lying extremely well in many different areas unlike Bush and Trump who dont really seem to care if we know they are lying. I cant figure out which is worse. My only praise for Obama is that he didnt make me cringe when he met leaders from other countries. I keep expecting Trump to grab Angela Merkles pussy!
Steven Pinker doesn't talk about happiness in general, state of mind even during peace times. There's this concept that more options we have, more we will feel paralyzed by them. And for everything we do, there's always a better thing we didn't do. For example: getting any job was a success back in the days, but now, any job that we have, we think there's a better job out there that we could do but are not doing. And then there's boredom, impulsivity, lack of meaning, lack of responsibility, and so on that can make the modern peaceful world stressful. He should shed a light on human pscyhology when everything is fine.
It depends what you mean by progress, doesn't it? I've been trying to find airline tickets. Back before progress, I went to the ticket counter and bought a ticket and got on the plane and it was cheap. Now I have to spend all day trying to find something affordable online and hope the airline is still in business when I get there and hope that the door doesn't fall off in the air and the pilot wasn't a DEI hire. That kind of progress we didn't need but it's mostly what we got.
Except most of what you wrote is nonsense. Adjusted for inflation, airfare is much cheaper than the 1990s or earlier. If you are willing to pay the prices you used to pay, you could buy a ticket online in minutes and be happy with your purchase. Also, air travel is statistically much safer than in past decades, despite increased news coverage which makes you think it isn't.
OK, I find myself somewhat puzzled by this vid. I wasn't aware that progressives did hate progress. I was under the impression that progressives just wanted progress to continue and not regress. Indeed from this vid Mr Pinker makes no case for progressives hating progress, as I would expect. He does make a very good case for news media wanting to sell more news media, but that's a very different thing.
St Gray Also, he’s picked certain statistics that are improving- which no-one would want to reverse. But those measurements are choices. Why set the bar at eliminating poverty, instead of ensuring prosperity? Or perhaps focus on happiness and fulfilment rather than productivity? What we regard as progress is somewhat subjective. We can make different choices about what to optimise.
Some (not all as Pinker suggests) progressives want a return to a supposed golden age when humanity was kinder to each other and to the environment. Some (not all) even declare that the best thing would be for humanity to become extinct. Possibly the context was set by an earlier part of the talk, not shown.
Mike, Golden Age type thinking can be applied to some members of most philosophies in my experience. As for the context of the vid, Pinker pretty much sets it up with his first sentence in this vid.
You're working with different shades of the same word. One needs to distinguish between the traditional meaning (in line with Pinker's views) and the newer meaning, which is a somewhat derogatory term for the more radical left.
He didn't mention suicides or drug overdoses or homelessness. Suicides started raising in 2008 and every year has climed. Except in 2017-19, when it dropped. 2020 started climbing again.
You didnt mention 300K years of mortality from late teens to 30, daily near-starvation, individual rights were unknown, and the radical decrease in war. Etc. You need a rational context for comparing things. Arbitrary,out-of-context comparisons are rationally worthless.
5 minutes into the video and I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate the implied premise: that progressives hate progress. I haven't seen an example so far. Did I miss something? Okay, I finished the video, the title and premise were clickbait; he doesn't demonstrate the premise. He makes an entirely separate set of points, most of which I agree.
Great post! :) I just ordered a personalized bumper sticker that says "(1) Problems are inevitable (2) Problems are solvable (3) Solutions create new problems that can be solved in their turn."
Annoying clickbait title. He didn't really say anything about this in the video. Copying my elaboration from below for clarity: His arguments seem to be: 1. The world is objectively making progress 2. The media / psychological biases etc make us hold a more pessimistic view My problem is that he and the title seems to suggest that 'progressives' hold this view more often than people outside of that group. Also I find the phrasing 'progressives hate progress' strange, unfounded and divisive.
Actually I thought the same thing - but surprise surprise it’s the question verbatim that comes right out of Pinker’s mouth between 0:00 and 0:03. (easy to miss)
yaiirable At approx the 4 min mark, he talks about how despite the positive trends, the media (in this particular example, the Liberal NY Times) has actually become more negative. "If it bleeds, it leads," etc
His arguments seem to be: 1. The world is objectively making progress 2. The media / psychological biases etc make us hold a more pessimistic view My problem is that he and the title seems to suggest that 'progessives' hold this view more often than people outside of that group. Also I find the phrasing 'progressives *hate* progress' strange, unfounded and divisive.
I'd say that one big problem is that people are expecting an unrealistically high pace for change. We've been sold an oversimplified idea of how things change i.e. that if you just give people the facts and as a result they will correct their thoughts and behavior. It just doesn't work like that. Even in science the community doesn't just jump over to a new theory until it gains enough backing evidence and momentum despite the myths about the history of science that are so common in the stories of those who popularize science.
I need to listen to this man more often so as to combat my own acknowledged negative bias. It is so easy to obsess on what is not to our personal liking and so easily forget our blessings.
4:00 Which begins to reflect why everyone I know has eliminated most media from their daily lives. The realization that current news is based on emotive hysteria and 'clicks' rather than accumulation and distribution of facts. Most outlets prefer 'non-thinking' content heavy on opinion and little else. They don't trust the viewership to form their own opinions based on facts anymore.
Keith Sogge Yep, his data set is cherry-picked to only include anti-immigration populist movements, so it really says very little about populism in general.
Orange Boy - You're intelligent like Trump is intelligent. Your IQs combined wouldn't tax the cognitive fortitude of a gibbon. Bernie Sanders is a self admitted socialist and Social Democrat. Between you and Trump, Trump would be (for lack of a better term) the "smart" one. Let that sink in.
Orange Boy Donald Trump is in no way a socialist, and far removed from any definition you would give Bernie Sanders. Trump isn't campaigning to eradicate or even heavily cut any of the vast social policies that currently exist in the US, but Bernie is a full blown Communist. He would nationalise nearly every means of production if he had his way. He is literally on video saying that "I don't think taxing at 90% is too high".
Steven Pinker himself is mislead and misleading the viewer. So dissappointing to see him fail in the simplest and clearest of matters: CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. It is the basis for life. Get out of the doomsday cult for idiots!
Did I miss something? Did he give any example of any progressive hating any progress? If you like you can just reply with a time stamp and I'll have another listen.
He said the world, by some measures, is improving, and by some measures the NYT is getting more glum, therefore progressives hate progress (?). not a valid conclusion if you ask me
@Paul Judkins how can you possibly know where we need to make strides without talking about it? Once the advances are in place, why not move on to another crap?
@Paul Judkins The opposite of progressive is digressive and the absence of progress is keeping stagnate policy from the distant past. Maybe you can tell us first which of these you prefer over progress. Here we are, just one election away from a stark choice between totalitarianism and the first real change in the color and gender of the executive office in our long history and you and Steven think this would be a good time for progressive thinking to just fade away before it is too late. Please try to defend your notion that there is now none of the systemic things you said we complain about: patriarchy, domination by whites, oppression. First patriarchy. You do understand that even blacks had the right to vote before women did, right? Problem fixed by progressive change. You also understand that women still don’t get the same pay for the same work, still have a tougher time running for office and being taken seriously in many business and religious cultures, right? These show a need for MORE progressive change. You have noticed blacks were lynched for trying to exercise the rights they gained until progressives demanded they get those rights and an equal education, and still do not have equal rights under the law, right? Do you think either digressive or stagnant thinking changes these things? They are examples of oppression you also say does not exist so we should just stop trying. Only a sexist, racist oppressor thinks like that but rather than be rude and assume you are any those things, I will chalk it up to your personal confusion. I hope this will help clear it up for you.
@Paul Judkins more nonsense. Now you're saying being boastful is a good thing instead of keeping up good work towards good ends. How can there be too much progress? Too much change for the better? It is race, gender and sexual diversity we have separating people now. Progressives are trying to erase that heritage. Speaking of heritage, your idea of American values includes supporting an obvious con man destroying the institutions set up for the well being of citizens but since the wealthy don't need them they consider it a burden. That's not the American values most of us espouse and not something we should conserve.
@Paul Judkins okay, it's all coming clear now, you think conservatives are the ones who make positive change, got women the vote, got blacks better education, worked for living wages, advocate for treating people equally regardless of their differences. I see no point on arguing with anyone that delusional. If you are real, please get help. If not please ask Putin for some new talking points.
Pinker does caricature the left and progressives too often (I’m a left progressive), but I admire his work. In an earlier book, the Blank Slate, he actually showed how the left could use his ideas about human nature and progress to support their cause.
"solutions create problems" which is why I agree with draining the swamp. Politicians have gotten us $20 trillion in debt with the Fed no the largest employer in the USA. What does the Fed make?
What does the fed make? As in the Federal Government? Well for starters, roads, bridges, dams, airports, and universities. Educated scientists, mathmaticians, engineers, and scholars from said universities. The fed built the largest and most powerful military in human history, built space ships that traveled to the moon, and rovers that explored mars. Government Scientists and Doctors at places like the CDC, NIH, and hundreds of public universities and institutions have studied and found cures for an unknown number of diseases, and health problems. Government institutions helped invent the internet, computers, I mean I could literally go on forever, the point is that the "Fed" creates/makes ALOT!
Reasoning by induction (= extrapolating from past trends) is a fallacy if you don't understand the underlying causes. Steven Pinker is right, provided there will be: - enough energy (not sure if we exclude coal from energy mix) - enough agriculture productivity (not sure if global weather is more and more changing, and if we keep killing biodiversity) - enough R&D in things that matter (not sure if economic doesn't factor in the physical side of things), - enough society stability (not sure when looking at you, AI). He's betting we can do it, but I'm not confident to bet against nature (= physics). PS: don't get me wrong, I'd be glad to agree with him
+Dan Snyder Hopefully when you're older you'll realize how you don't know shit right now. We should only allow people on the brink of death to vote tbh
+PedroTricking Nah. Brink of death is too far. It's really a matter of _experience_ succeeding in life. So maybe people who have at least 2 kids, don't receive government welfare, and have been paying taxes for 5 or more years? ;)
Also they hate it because if they had to admit that things are not as bad as they proclaim they would have less resources coming in. And they would have to maybe get off their ass and do something else to feel good about themselves.
One of the progressives core tenets is equality, which includes economic equality ... if progress only benefits the few but leaves the rest in poverty, that's a problem.
+AvangionQ Yes, that would be a problem, but that's not what's happening. Everyone is becoming more well off. The idea that only a rich few are receiving any benefits is a complete lie, and this video is debunking it.
They hate it because it isn't the impossible utopia they're dreaming of. They want to destroy the current system to impose their utopian ideals, and every time the current system improves things it makes it harder to reach their goals.
Which type of progress are we talking about? Humanity can progress in many directions! For example you could messure progress in terms of hapiness like in Bhuttan! Is people happier or less happy than before? What type of reason are you talking about: instrumental reason, positive reason, emotional reason or traditional reason? Man can reason in many ways!!
Deutsch is something special . My favorite theory of his is that problems are soluble with knowledge. The idea that this is literal not abstract. The concept of information processing in all its forms being a physical process like salt dissolving in water.
Important insights. I'm guilty of cynicism and these biases. The fact that we don't live long enough relative to those graphs to realize all this progress probably factors into failing to see this bigger picture/trend. Perhaps we will live long enough though. Also, focusing on a problem is the first step of the solution process, but most of us don't get past this first step for big complex problems or are powerless to solve them. Perhaps tech and AI will help us all help solve problems better or improve power structures (like MIT's TradeCoin). Still, as Pinker said, solutions lead to new problems...might as well relax and smell the roses.
I agree with most of what he said except when it came to his denial of the corruption in washington. I find older liberals are often so stuck in their ways like this, that they cant conceive of the rampant crime these politicians are committing.
The word "conservative" derives from "conserve." Meaning, keep things as they are. However, most conservatives today do not like things as they are and want to go back to how they once were. It is not "Make America greater" nor is it "Keep America great" it is "Make America great again." The term for that is not conservative, but "reactionary." They are reacting to things.
I think regressive might be the term, but that would imply they want things to go back to the way they were rather than an imagined past tinted by nostalgia.
"As if that’s a bad thing." Well, any mass histeria in which you don't join tend to look for outsiders as bad thing. "He’s not helping our cause." Frankly neither are those activists.
Classic Strawman Fallacy. Make a proposition (the Strawman) that you claim represents your opponents views. Then proceed to refute the Strawman. This is easier & safer than actually discussing your opponents opinions. Which requires intellect
Pinker often uses strawman attacks. One of his favorites is how there is supposedly a widely propagated myth, especially in academia, that tribal societies existed in peaceful utopias, which he pulls out at the beginning of presentations in order to dramatically tear down for the audience. Few people actually believe that was a thing. I never encountered it in my anthropological studies courses. And just think of most pop culture depictions of tribal societies - Dances with Wolves, Little Big Man, Last of the Mohicans, Black Robe... Wars, murders, ritual mutilation, torture, lots of blood. A recent bestseller here in Canada is The Orenda, by native writer Joseph Boyden, set in the 17th Century during the wars between the Huron and Iroquois. It is a very violent book. About 15 years ago, a film called The Fast Runner, based on an Inuit legend from a thousand years ago, was also a big hit. Not long into the movie, a man is murdered sleeping in his tent and three guys armed with spears chase his naked brother out onto the ice. Pinker is Canadian and he would have been familiar with all of this, but he still pulls the same "People think tribal cultures were peaceful, especially flaky New Age academics, but I'll tell you the real story!"
TheJalipa who is most likely correct. A person who relies on facts, studies, science, etc. to reach a belief or a person who relies on his ideology and the consensus of other people with the same ideology and narrative? This is the difference between him and most on the left who define the world based on identity politics, post modernosm, etc. If one's belief is based on facts that are not taken out of context then your position is not a strawman fallacy.
Except I don't think most people on the left are actually like this! Like I said, one of his most common attacks on leftists is their supposed naive ideas about tribal societies, but I've never encountered anyone who holds this belief and I don't think he's right in this case.
valar I've never really watched this guy. The left believes in collectivism - state control to bring about progressive policies for the people to advance their goals. There are two types of collectivism; 1. Global collectivism which is communism in its extreme. 2. Tribal collectivism which is focused on your country alone. That manifests itself in fascism.
CO2 levels as high as they were five million years ago in the Pliocene, when sea levels were 25 feet higher than today and temperatures at northern latitudes up to 16 C warmer. I like Pinker, but he has been dodging the unfolding catastrophe of climate change in these talks for six or seven years now. Suicide too. Suicide rates in the United States, for instance, have not budged in 70 years while homicide rates have dropped and GDP has soared. I've only seen one of his lectures where someone brought up the issue of suicide and he incorrectly replied that rates have fallen, and did not discuss reasons why it is still so stubbornly high but moved on quickly to another question. Every year, 800,000 people kill themselves worldwide, so basically an annual Rwandan genocide of self-inflicted death during the most prosperous era of history by far - as we can see by his graphs - and our reaction to it is kind of 'meh'.
Climate change is a certainty - there is no debate now. There has not been for a long time, except in political circles and in the vagaries of the unreliable human brain, which evolved in an epoch where it did not need to confront very long-term problems. The only question is the scale of it, and the worst estimates by the IPCC are appearing to be the correct ones. We look likely to experience a shift in climate of 5 C by 2100, which is as great as the difference between the Ice Age and today.
And life expectancy has decreased in the US: ' The increase in the U.S. death rate is "a big deal," Philip Morgan, a demographer at the University of North Carolina, told NPR. "There's not a better indicator of well-being than life expectancy ... The fact that it's leveling off in the U.S. is a striking finding." ' www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/us-death-rate-increases-for-first-time-in-two-decades.html
You don't have very high standards for heroics when your hero is an intellectually dishonest fuckwit who fallaciously loads his questions to answer for his own straw-men.
What is sad and funny here is Pinker wants more 'progress' that is, going off the cliff! Conservatives are wary of cliffs whereas some people think flying without wings is fun...before they smash on the rocks of reality.
"unfortunately young people don't vote" Agreed with everything he said up until that point. Most people start off left wing and move towards the right as they get older. Many exhaustive studies show that the more a person knows about economics and politics the higher the chance of them voting right wing is. I often hear that put down to 'people get more miserable and racist the older they get" and that's bullshit too. All studies show that the older you get the happier you get, and more tolerant you get. Again you learn as you grow. Late 30s and just about all my friends have gone from left wing to right wing as we've become more interested in politics/government/economics which includes myself who used to think communism was the way (I've communist books but thankfully I read from everyone so switched my position over time one thing after the other). Two of my friends have always been on the right, one is centre ground but still moving right and one remains on the left.
Interesting post which touches on a very interesting topic, but your post is full of unsubstantiated assertions, which require evidence to back them up. And not just anecdotal evidence. Firstly, you should clarify what you mean by "right-wing", because it really matters. My reading of the literature is that more informed voters, on average, tend to be more socially liberal *and* more economically liberal (pro-market). Indeed, as Jason Brennan puts it: "That’s not to say that high-information voters tend to favor the Democrats’ politics. In fact, high-information voters tend to have policy preferences that cut across party lines. For instance, high-information voters are pro-free trade, pro-immigration, in favor of criminal justice reform, wish to raise taxes to offset the deficit, anti-war, pro-gay rights, and skeptical that the welfare state can solve all our problems." foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/ See also here for a similar picture: faculty.las.illinois.edu/salthaus/Publications/althaus_1998_apsr.pdf As Brennan's article also notes, we saw a massive shift in the 2016 election: informed voters, who in previous elections were split pretty much evenly between the Democrats and the Republicans, overwhelmingly favoured Clinton over Trump (which is not difficult to understand given the policy preferences of high-information voters). Interestingly, when we look at the relationship between IQ and political views, we get a similar picture. Studies universally find that those with higher IQs are, on average, more socially liberal. Some studies also find that those with higher IQs are also more economically liberal (pro-market), though some also find a slight increase in high-IQ voters on the far-left. For example, a study of political party preference in Britain found that supporters of the Liberal Democrats (a centrist, socially and economically liberal party) and supporters of the Green Party (a far-left party) had the highest IQs, followed by supporters of the centre-right Conservatives, followed by supporters of the centre-left Labour. Supporters of UKIP (far-right) and the British National Party (even more far-right and outright racist) had the lowest average IQs. www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/8896159/childhood_intelligence_predicts_voter.pdf
Thank you for your post, I was about to write something similar. My thought when he said that was: thank goodness the young people do not vote. For some reason people usually wait till they grow up to vote. (don't read to much into the 'thank goodness' usage, I'm an atheist. :D
@Little Cripple In mentioned recent cases (Trump and Brexit) both the core message was against free trade, which technically speaking is a left wing agenda.
I'd say that it is quite natural to be left wing when you're young, are under influence of authorities such as parents and teachers, have no possessions and rely on social nets. As opposed to being older, wealthy, a parent yourself and having to pay for the social nets. A big part of the interest in politics/government/economics is just looking for ways to avoid feeling guilty about "betraying" your former belief system. Now of course there are huge groups that vote right despite being poor and relying on social nets which their then leaders will seek to remove. Those politicians are very good at exploiting all the mechanisms that are described by Kahneman (mentioned at around 5:10), in case of my country right down to how election posters are designed.
Being raised as a communist I must say that a extreme negative world-view is essential for revolution. Why should you risk your life if the status-quo isn't awful?
I'll just latch on to one figure presented here, but similar arguments could be made for other statistics as well. 700 million people living in extreme poverty. Now, it's just 10% of the World population, but that would be 100% of the World population just two, or two and a half centuries ago. So, statistics are sometimes misleading, and then we are better off with absolute figures when considering an issue, because 700 million people is a terrible number. Basically, there has never been so many people living in extreme poverty, and it doesn't have to be that way, which in term means that there is something seriously wrong with the human society. Now, that's one reason for negativity. Moving on, food production and other manufacturing are up, and they keep satisfying our growing needs, but what the statistics are not telling us, because the statistics are the science of the past presuming that the resources are limitless, is that there's bound to be a breaking point, where the planet is no longer going to be able to sustain us, not the way we exploit and pollute it, and then the lines on these charts may just plummet downwards as they reach a precipice. So, yes, progress does exists, but such type of progress may be taking us to an abyss, with greed and recklessness leading the way. If this trend continues without check, I don't think we'll have 9, 10, or 11 billion people on the planet in 50 years, but if by some miracle there are that many people, are 900 million going to live in extreme poverty or more? So, there may be valid explanations why people deny progress, other than psychological fallacies and biases. There are serious problems facing us, and catastrophes are lurking, so I understand why many people are not ready to celebrate just yet. I also must say this: I don't think Trump is going to brings us any closer to solution to any of these problems, to put it mildly. Science help us. I like and respect Steven Pinker, and I do not presume to possess knowledge anywhere near his, but I'm just discussing the issues as I see them. If I'm wrong, I'd be delighted to be proven as such.
The reason that he's offering a percentage is because that's the only way to accurately compare statistics from uneven sample sizes. "Absolute" figures would be a monumentally horrendous way to measure economic progress. Measuring economic progress with simply the total number of people in extreme poverty would imply that this total number of ultra-poor is the singular metric by which such progress should be measured. If that metric stands alone, and the number of people who are well off economically doesn't factor in, then the ultimate victory would be the extinction of mankind. That would leave 0 people in extreme poverty which, if we don't have to account for people not in extreme poverty, is the pinnacle of economic success for our species. In short, you're proposing that we measure economic progress from the standpoint of death worshippers. The alternative, proportionate analysis that he offers here, on the other hand, takes into account how many people are doing well, along with how many people are not. A world where ten percent of people make up an extremely impoverished 700 million people leaves 6.3 BILLION people with their economic needs being met. If that's no better than a world of 700 million people where 100 percent are in extreme poverty, then I hope you never end up in a position of power.
What? ... You're saying that all the weak, sick, poor, and less fortunate should be exterminated, and that they should be tortured first. Why do you feel that way, isn't that monstrous? Also, why do you say that Kobe is better than Jordan? I hope you never end up NBA Commissioner.
Nowhere in any of that did he say "that all the weak, sick, poor, and less fortunate should be exterminated, and that they should be tortured first." Seriously. Please explain to me how you came to that conclusion.
I'd rather distinguish between "so-called progressives" and "true progressives", the latter being the ones who actually bring progression forward and acknowledge it. A lot of the progression Pinker mentions in the talk is actually _because_ of left movements bringing it forward. This also needs to be acknowledged.
There is much work to be done in Western Civilization; but considering the alternative (radical, neo- Marxist thinking) it is well worth defending. Reason (as well as good values) have brought us the blessings of peace and prosperity. One unsung hero is political stability- which is presently under assault in our polarized culture. This also must be fought. Liberty and UNION One and inseparable Now and forever. Peace
It's just an effect of the current state of idiocracy. Progressive never referred to 'progress' in that sense, progress does not just mean positive change, it means that something is increasing, or going further in the same direction. You can progress in a very bad way indeed, and once you're a part of the idiocracy and identify what essentially amounts to more of the same is always good, you're just racing towards a cliff at high speed.
Bubbas Meisa naming yourself contrary to your beliefs is a common tactic of those looking to blindside the ignorant. They are progressives only in identity politics. Remember Hitler called his party "National Socialists" naming yourself with a descriptive term that is entirely contrary to your real beliefs is an old and well used tactic.
It sometimes seems like a person can base their identity on their activism so much that when their cause loses relevance they wish the problem would return
As for the Tone of News Coverage: It makes sense for the usage of negative words such as "crisis," and "horrific" to increase with a rise in standard of living, because the disparity between horrific events and our day to day lives should increase with standard of living. The increase in this disparity should have a direct effect on the tone of the news coverage.
I would expect conservatives to be triggered more by Pinker's ideas. For one, a major thesis of his book The Better Angels of Our Nature is that government is a civilizing force, responsible for most of the "pacification" (his word) we've seen over the centuries. Of course he also credits commerce with very obvious contributions to human well-being, but, in my experience, progressives are not hostile to commerce in the abstract, just unregulated commerce, and Pinker also supports regulation.
I disagree with so many of the conjectures made by this guy. How does the tone of news coverage = progressives deny progress? This whole lecture is actually a huge causation-correlation fallacy. Who is to say the reason that we have made more progress throughout these years is not in part due to the widespread of news and information that is more grounded and realistic, albeit gruesome or ugly. Not this guy, he's arguing that despite progress, the tone of news (of any kind) is more negative for which he's not even established a cohesive relationship between this two entirely separate pieces of research. This is the equivalent of research jujitsu just for the sake of a catchy presentation name. I would almost call this confirmation bias, but it's actually even worse than that... In addition, populist ideas are probably more resounding among young people than ever before, but Donald Trump's election and the Brexit movements were both movements disguised as populism that actually were far from it. A real populist would've been Bernie Sanders who rallied half the democratic party against the most known political figure of our time by talking about dismantling banks and rising the minimum wage, and almost won the nomination (even without any big-money donors supporting him). That's real populism, not a millionaire sponsored by even more millionaires that lied to working families about cleaning the swamp and then elected half of Goldman Sachs for his administration.
1. Nowhere is he saying that progress is causing bad news. Even though that would indeed be interesting. So no correlation/causation fallacy. 2. "Who is to say the reason that we have made more progress throughout these years is not in part due to the widespread of news and information that is more grounded and realistic, albeit gruesome or ugly" Also you could see from his graphs, progress has been made throughout the decades, while news coverage just got consistently bad bad in the last ones. So for your claim there is not even correlation, let alone causation. 3. "he's not even established a cohesive relationship between this two" There is none, that's the whole point. Like a room getting warmer and warmer and a guy keep complaining about how cold it is and that things are colder than ever before. To an objective eye, there is no relationship to be found. Just my perspective by observing the world, through every day life, media and internet: We have it too good these days.
1. The correlation/causation fallacy that I'm talking about is not that progress causes bad news, but that "negative news tones" means that progressives hate progress. Even worse, he doesn't even establish what a he thinks a "progressive" is, he just assumes all "intellectuals and journalist" are somehow progressives and against progress. 2. Yes it is, it's inverse correlation (hello?). As an example, education and crime rates are inversely correlated, but correlated nonetheless. Aside from that, my point is that he's looking at two pieces of research and then not even explaining how they might be related. There is a plethora of reasons why media tone might be getting more negative and it might have nothing to do with progressives, progress or innovation in science and economics, we don't know. 3. This point is more accurate by saying that the room was freezing and no one was complaining, but now it's 55 degrees (fahrenheit)and people are saying that it's still pretty cold. But actually the conservative point you're making of "We have it too good these days" is an actual hindrance to innovation. Progressives saying "things aren't that good, we need better" DOES lead to progress. Thank you for improving my point so succinctly.
Juan - It is refreshing to see some young person who is as insightful and analytical as you appear to be. Your efforts rebuking and refuting fallacious nonsense is not unnoticed or unappreciated. Thank you.
Yeah he didnt explain what he means by progressives i can see why this might be unsatisfying I dont care much about that point so I did not question it. For the rest I just cant see how you expect in a 10 minutes loosly held talk to get all the definitions and studies and what not for the simple satatement "Look, things seem to get better but the media is doubling down on the negative since some decades" To suggest that only progress is made if there is this negativity bias in the depiction of reality is simply laughable. You seem unable to read/hear the intention of other people when you think that me stating "we have it too good" suggests that I am a couch potato that sits arround all day and someone crying about plastic in tje icean is the next nobel prize winner ^^
Because the fake news media is not reporting f all Trumps positive impacts on the country but instead slander Trump still to this day and instead report conspiracies they wish were true and then have to correct later about Trump. That’s why they’re anti progress, the left wants the opposite of all Trumps policies and Trumps policies are improving the country before our eyes. To be against that you’re against the country. For instance illegal immigration. Trump got illegal MS 13s out of my county that Obama’s literally let walk in. These MS 13s skinned a bus boy at a restaurant called Crickets by me to death. They skinned him and stabbed him until he was a pile of mush. I don’t want MS13s in my town
Another fact FINANCIAL TIMES;One in five US adults now lives in households either in poverty or on the cusp of poverty, with almost 5.7m having joined the country’s lowest income ranks since the global financial crisis
@@PeterHitchens-d6xOkay, but also have a look at what > billion more/decade since the early 1960s has done to the earth, the human condition and the future of all life here. THE hottest fuel driving climate change. And the ultimate stupid human trick, since the more times it's performed the more it and its consequences can't be undone.
Why is it that progressives hate progress when every progressive push in the last 30 years had the goals for the very outcomes that Mr. Pinker described?
This good news is tempered by devastating developments that Pinker ignores because it undermines his argument: 1. Wealth inequality is skyrocketing especially in the USA. 2. The looming consequences of climate change will devastate us yet so many are in denial and feel no obligation to do anything about it. 3. Pinker's claim that more wild habitats are protected than ever before is profoundly misleading, it's downright dishonest. Species extinction is accelerating dramatically and wildlife populations all around the world and in the oceans are plumetting all due to human activity. 4. Democracy in the USA is being systematically undermined by the Republican Party and the interests they serve. 5. Deaths by war are down but wasteful military spending is way up and a technology arms race is underway.
1. So if you are doing much better but another person is doing even much more better, this is a devastating development? 2. The looming consequences of climate change will devastate who exactly? Worst case we will lose some coast line, which will create jobs in the housing market. The weather will get a bit more extreme in some few places, nothing we cannot cope with. Furthermore the consequences will force us to develop new solutions to our energy strategy which will push science and engineering. 3. Yeah that's one trend which is unfortunate indeed. 4. How is the freedom of speech, freedom of voting and the majority ruling, freedom of the pursuit of happiness (making your own decisions for your life) undermined by the republicans? These days is easier for me to see how democrats are actually harming the ground pillars of a democracy. 5. So you acknowledge this truly beautiful fact, that's a start.
Seems to me it's better to have more people in relative poverty, than to have more people in absolute material poverty. I have sympathy for the man that goes "I wish I could afford a car as nice as my boss so I can get laid too", but not as much as for the one that just wishes he could not be hungry all the time.
1. Wealth inequality. So what. If I'm getting richer and richer then why should I worry about someone getting richer than me, especially if that rich person is the reason I'm getting richer. 2. After 30 years of extravagant claims, not one adverse consequence of climate change has been seen and I have come to realize that we are being taken in by a gang of loudmouths who want to make names for themselves. I was as gullible as anyone else but I've reached my limit, thank you.
"bad is stronger than good" explains why it is almost impossible to have 3 consecutive elections won by the same political party in the US. If things are going well, you are less likely to vote. Anger and negativity is the strategy that politicians use
Why not make the title "why my caricature of progressives hate progress". It would be closer to the truth. I like Steven Pinker but this is the definition of strawmanning
Lol. Out of touch, much? Progressives are virulently negative and pushing a doom & gloom narrative about the earth, human development, and our future. Don't even pretend the reality is otherwise...who do you think is running all the stories in the increasingly negative news cycles? It's not a bunch of conservative white Christians.
Craig Gibson out of touch with your opinion? Just because you have an opinion or stereotype does not mean that either should change the definition of a word.
Alex, what is doom and gloom about the Trump strategy? Do you mean the media's reporting of Trump? We all see the negativity there, but the removal of regulation, the downsizing of government and the increases we see in financial markets is the very opposite of doom and gloom. I don't understand how having an American president who is not apologetic about the whole idea of America is even remotely doom and gloom. Have you noticed how many people haven't mysteriously turned up dead since the Clintons are no longer in the picture? I will grant you, the news from the entertainment industry isn't upbeat, but hopefully, it will become a safer place for new and young people who would like to work there, but once again, that isn't Trump. Those would be the people who opposed Trump and tried to make him out to be a predator. Those tables sure turned, didn't they? Quit listening to the media. Find the facts for yourself and don't let Mika tell you what to think. The media actually thought we made progress during the Obama Administration so setting things right is very upsetting to them. Look for the good, it is all around you.
I dunno, this all feels like a lot of superficial and lazy analysis. As a 'scientist', shouldn't Pinker give clear demarcations, like defining what a 'progressive' is, so we know exactly what arguments he is suppose to be addressing. Shouldn't there be at least a mention in the problem of quantitatively measuring things like 'democracy', especially when they largely become, in qualitative terms, name only systems but in practice they are anything but representative of the majority of people's wishes. This is the problem with people like Pinker, Sam Harris, Dawkins who think you can apply science in understanding the social world. As Marx said, a social scientist cant take social reality and literally put it under a microscope in the same way a scientist studying cells can. So to use the same tools when the object of observation is fundamentally different seems unacademic, like it just wants to appeal to people who have reached a basic level of social analysis and critical thinking and haven't moved any further.
Pinker has motives that he conceals in most of his talks on social science. He is a diehard materialist and constantly finds ways to denigrate the role of consciousness in...experiencing the world. If everything social can be quantified, according to his reasoning, it means you don't have to pay attention to subjective experience so much and that annoying problem of consicous awareness. It's one reason he avoids discussing suicide in his talks, as besides the fact that suicide is one major area where we have not progressed, it has more complex causes than the decline of war and homicide like our lack of a science of mind.
Why how would u do it? With a Marxist analysis? Geez.. he picks his metrics and they're pretty good, you define progress better then, or is your definition fundamentally a Marxist one? The moral framework within he's defined progress is fine
It's the first sentence on Wikipedia for the article on Progressivism: "Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform". Reform implies that the system is in need of reformation...Pinker is arguing (effectively) that that the system is working fine as it is, with the exception of minor, iterative improvements (breaking big problems into smaller ones, then working on the problems created from unforeseen results of previous solutions). Progressives essentially attempt to push the envelope too far, thereby creating more harm than good.
"Yo, fam. You got like 10 Minutes for a PowerPoint to sum up objective human progress over the last century to a room full of people with a diverse background regarding their level of expertise in social analysis. Don't subtract from the indepth analysis tho." - Me, a Marxist intellectual.
Pinker makes a powerful overall case. We (in the West) no longer consider slavery acceptable, like wise child labour. We are more tolerant towards minorities etc. More equality for women ... Yet he tends to gloss over some issues. He suggests pollution levels have decreased, but the far greater threat of global warming has accelerated in the past decades. If we often see things as getting worse because they are, in many respects. Politicians like Trump and Boris Johnson could never have been elected in former decades. There are fewer active democracies around the globe than was the case fifty years ago.
So you’re for Trumps policies than right? You’re a for a bringing America’s Manufacturing jobs back to America from China and Mexico which Trump is doing? You’re for LEGAL IMMIGRATION AND AGSINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, YES?? You’re for a strong economy with less restrictions on small businesses and lower taxes for small businesses? You’re for less govt spending and instead letting the people keep more of the money they work so hard for? Are you for states having their rights back on education and drug legalization like Trump IS and Hillary and Obams weren’t?? IF YOU SAY YES TO THESE THINGS YOU ARE FOR PROGRESS IF NOT YOU ARE FOR A WEAKER, POORER, TERROST ATTACK PRONE COUNTRY
Larry . You are a prime example of a brainwashed tbag who sucks the lies of the Fox propaganda media. Crooked trumps policies are in line of third world dictators and those like you follow mindlessly. Crooked trump has been taking false credit for Obama's accomplishments. The crap you laid out sounds like your education came from liar and crooked trumps pet dog Sean Hannity. Everything you said is the exact opposite of what crooked trumps achievements are, which are getting dimwits to buy into his lies. Oh and I suppose crooked trump has talked you into joining his pedophile party,
Oh I see what kind of "progressive" you are lol, the only brainwashed one seems to be you. All you gave in response was personal attacks and shots at Fox, that's about it... Go back to Maddow, she needs the viewers.
Intellectuals and media people don't deny progress, they merely point out that we still have a ways to go, and since more people are nowadays aware of the inequalities surrounding them (globally as well as nationally) they point these discrepancies out. I find the tenor of his speech simplistic.
There are some cherry picked stats here. Some are absent: 1: Global inequality. 2: the percentage of plastic in our bodies due to plastic being everywhere in particles small enough to resemble amino acids, This will not go away - ever. Plastic is forever. 3: The number of extinct plants, animals and natural habitats.. 4: The rise in the number of allergies due to a rising number of untested chemicals in consumer "goods". 5: The increase in consumption per person - not proportional to the satisfaction. 6: The ever higher degree of desperate manipulation in advertisement. 7. The rising size of the world population - at some point we will be too many, and 8: the increasing ignorance and vanishing will to adress all of the above - and many more!
Autism has gone from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 36 since 1970. 60% of all wild animals have been killed in the same period. Deaths from alzheimers have increased by 89% since 2000.
The important ones are the plastic, extinctions of species and habitats, the untested chemicals, and the over-population. The other few are not urgent enough. >Inequality is not that bad if the standard you hold is the pretty-1st-world because almost any country outside of it is "poor" in comparison. Real inequality would be measured in poverty rates, which are getting better globally. Another type of inequality could be human rights violations, which are slowly doing better by the year. >The increase in consumption per person not being proportional to the satisfaction can be taken care of after the life or death concerns (the important ones) are stabilized and identified as almost solved. This psychological problem is important but not as urgent as the others. >The manipulation in the advertisement is just as the last point, not important enough at the moment. >And the 8... The only people that do not know about the list you've made are either religious nuts, ultra-conservatives, fools, don't really give a crap or are just oblivious to the reality. And most of these categories are in the US. Their group is not that big anyway.
It's a strong argument supported by evidence but ecologists would point out that there are other indicators (species extinctions, CO2 levels, nitrogen cycle) that are worrisome and that are serious threats. How you look at things depends on what indicators and trends you look at and the importance of the indicators. There's not been a lot of progress on these, and they may be among the most important.
I'm not sure all those stats are correct. For instance how are pollutants being measured? My understanding is the location of the measurement equipment isn't great and the results averaged out so their effects are greatly minimised. I absolutely refuse to believe that say the UK which has had a population explosion over the last 40 years can possibly be less polluted than it was in the 1970's. It may by some miracle be just as polluted as before but not less. Also his measure of democracy is a joke. Just because a government describes itself as a democracy doesn't make it one, neither does the fact that because its part of the international community it is either. There isn't one single democracy with the EU, not on any measure, but I would bet my house in Pinker's analysis they all are. We better tell the Greeks, Italians, UK and anyone else who has had a referendum result that's gone against the wishes of the EU high command that what they voted for wasn't really what they wanted or what they had imposed on them was what the secretly desired. This whole piece lacks serious analysis.
Telcontar1962; I'm assuming that because your references include the UK or are to the UK only that you are British. This makes you a first. I have never come across a subject of Queen Elizabeth 2 who admitted that the UK is not a democracy. Most live under the impression that it is not only a democracy but the best one.
Its hard to compare democracies....simply because they don't exist anywhere in the world. I don't know of a single one that passes two of the most fundamental tests (though maybe Switzerland comes close?) but even there I'm certain would fall foul of the third. What your describing about some legitimate citizens of the UK (certainly nowhere near all these days) is the mistaken view of the sort of political framework that Britain has either exported or had copied by virtually every state in the world.....that of party political dictatorship. Its hardly surprising they hold those views. That's one myth MP's and those they bestow patronage upon never cease to peddle. Why intellectuals do their bidding in describing us anywhere as a democracy is also not so baffling......they don't want to rock the boat, the life isn't too bad so why not lie? They do it often enough for SJW causes why should perpetuating a myth that assists their paymasters or supports deeply held articles of faith be any different? But I don't know any state who professes to be a democracy who doesn't use the party political structure as its foundation. And I don't know any example where political parties don't strike at the very heart of fundamental democratic principles given only a short space of time. So why do we trust in something so blatantly authoritarian? 1. It can't be that it is flawless. Its been directly responsible for repeatedly slaughtering people in truly prodigious numbers using truly awesome firepower. 2. It can't be that its a new fangled thing and needs further testing. Charles II set it in motion and that was about 350 years ago. He certainly didn't employ the cabal to enhance parliamentary democracy. It feels exactly like Capitalism. Something "invented" centuries ago that hasn't ever been truly implemented but is sold to us as the unsurpassable pinnacle of human social achievement What we have today is an almost complete subversion of any democratic principles whatsoever. A world where legitimate majorities are at the mercy of illegitimate and illegal minorities (though they are using their criminal abuse of power to increase their presence by what is termed "human trafficking". Except that governments don't do that ever. Just look at the Americas and West Indies to see how true that was and continues to be right up to the present day). Poor old QE2. QE1 was such a roaring success, even more so viewed with hindsight 416 years later. She will be our last monarch who had a real (if fairly invisible) constitutional role within the state. I just cannot see any of her descendants who anyone would respect....not even traditional supporters of the monarchy like myself. They are simply a joke beyond parody.
That requires a long answer. We have all the principles in place now. We just have an out of control and irredeemably corrupt political and judicial class and structure who are hell bent on defying it. I see absolutely no barrier or reason Parliament can't be put back into its historical and proper position as advisors to the sovereign power in the state. That power is the legitimate citizenry of this country and has (or should have) been for 360 odd years. Rather than have two elected chambers as has been proposed, but shied away from because of the constitutional headache that would create, we could instead approach it from a different angle. The function of Parliament is to MANAGE the affairs of the nation solely conducive to the interests of the citizens for who they work. No one else. Somewhat like a corporate board who work for the interests of their shareholders and not other shareholding interests. The idea of parliamentary sovereignty as Parliament understands it, is both illogical and as we have seen is undeniably destructive to the country. They do not own this country, they are not the supreme power within it, they are functionaries. Nothing more. Government MP's are elected and from that body ministerial positions are filled to form a government. Its usually from one political party but it isn't always, like the UK governments of the 1930's and 1940-45. The remainder of MP's supposedly act as a check and balance over government with some latitude to introduce legislation of their own. The Lords are supposed to be another check against the power of the Commons but with the "reforms" introduced by the illustrious war criminal (none other than TB) their position is so compromised they are hardly worth consideration. Why do we need parties to achieve this outcome at all? Their presence is invariably counter-productive. Why not treat the government at ministerial level as a corporate board. Rather than having career politicians selected for us by parties why not instead have a totally independent commission review of ministerial posts. Since we are not a world power or an international charity, we could charge the commission with meeting a target to halve the number of posts and provide a list of candidates with absolutely no party political affiliation for each of the ministerial positions. The 50 or so positions up for grabs could be voted on by the general public with candidates each being given a set amount of time to make their case in a broadcast made available to the public by law through UK media broadcasters as a condition of their licence. Campaigning outside this would be illegal. Terms of the ministers would be 5 years (and number of terms could be limited as with POTUS). The selection of chairman (or PM/President) would be by same method with same length and term limitations. There would also be an additional process by which the electorate could submit other names for inclusion to specific ministerial candidature lists if they met they required petition volume. Any involvement by big organisations such as corporations or charities to influence this process would be illegal. This commission would have no direct role in government, just act as the talent spotter of the nation. The actual power to elect the ministers in question would reside solely with the electorate. With no inherent party political bias merit should be the deciding factor. The vote wouldn't actually any more difficult than your average woman's mag's survey questionnaires. If the posts being voted on were split so votes could be submitted in time for more than one day of the year I don't see this as being onerous on a serious and engaged citizenry. "Commons" The "Commons" would be elected solely on the candidates ability to foster support from the constituency in which HE or SHE lives and has lived for a considerable period. Political parties would be outlawed. The elected MP would be expected by law to serve the constituency they represent but with latitude to take wider national considerations into account. Their function would be as advisors to their constituents of ministerial action and how it impacts them and because they have democratic power like the ministers they would provide the check and balance to ministers who over-stepped their bounds and have legislation returned for amendment. There would also be space for Private Members bills as now to allow local constituencies to have legislation considered. Ultimate power would reside with the ministers to perform the role their office demands and in accordance with the programme(s) they advanced in securing their election but MP's would have the right to oppose if it could be demonstrated the minister was acting contrary to the national interest (and not merely local ones). The judiciary would be required to adjudicate in cases of impasse. These MP could be voted on as now in a standard general election. But any candidate shown to have obtained material support, financial or otherwise, from outside his constituency to gain election would be barred from sitting as an MP. Terms of 5 years like ministers and possible limit to number of terms. That should eliminate safe-seats, party political patronage or the idea that any constituency was not relevant at every single election. "Lords" Abolish it. Completely unnecessary if the above was in place. Judiciary Difficult one this. Initially I would purge anyone within the judiciary with any connections of active support of the UK's membership of the EU while carrying out their official duties. A person with such sympathies had no business being made a judge in the first place and should have refused and resigned the second they were asked to at in such a way as to subvert the legitimate sovereignty of the nation. Then it would be the concern of the minister responsible to fill the appointments based on merit allied to an unwavering commitment to the supremacy of legitimate citizenry of the UK. Monarchy I'm in favour of retaining an unelected figurehead such as a constitutional monarch. I know its anachronistic but there is something to be said for a person who transcends the electoral process. But whether its possible given the state of the Windsor family is very doubtful indeed. I'd like to give it a chance as there is much to be said for it but it has to be drastically cut to just the immediate line of succession. No more of the Prince Andrews of this world. If the Monarch wants these low-lifes around they can be supported from her purse entirely. All this would underpinned by 4 principles. 1. No branch of government could be deemed to be acting legally if its actions could or would result in the nations sovereignty being transferred away from the legitimate citizenry of the UK, outside of surrender in war. 2. No branch of government could be deemed to be acting legally if its actions could or would result in the dilution of control over the selection of government by the legitimate citizenry of the UK. This would preclude any immigration policy from being implemented without the broad scope (volume, T&C's of the offer) being approved in advance of the offer being made. The period any one policy is allowed to stay in place before another vote takes should not exceed 5 or 10 years. 3. No branch of government could be deemed to be acting legally if its actions could or would result in war being declared on any 3rd party without the legitimate citizenry giving their approval in advance of the action taken outside of actual physical attack on the territory of the UK or its overseas possessions by an aggressor. 4. It is the duty of the Judiciary Armed, Secret and Police Services to act in the defence of the citizenry if any of the executive or legislative branches of government seek to subvert principles 1-3. I make that possibly between 1 & 5 votes (max) for ministerial positions and 1 for MP's and 1 for immigration policy in a period spanning 5 years and just 1 more ad-hoc one in time of potential war. Local government would undergo the similar changes. No political party affiliation allowed. Only support from with the candidates local constituencies permitted. Should help to get people elected on merit. If the wrong people get into power the only finger-pointing would be at ourselves.
Telcontar1962; Thank you for your reply. Much of what you propose is specific to your country and couldn't apply to another and so, I won't comment on it. It's interesting and shows that you've put a lot of thought into it.
I always thought that progressives do like progress, in fact that is why they are called progressives. Humanism and progress are inseparable. May be he is talking about Social Justice vs free market? In that case he commits a false dichotomy.
Len Yabloko Progressive has become a phrase for the new left who want to radically change society, which they perceive to be corrupt. The point he is making is that society IS progressive and interference could (and probably would) interfere with it
There's a difference between university SJWs (whose main objective is social reform, for better or worse), and economic progressives whose interests lie more in how to strike a balance between an equitable and productive economy. For some reason, many right wing people seem to think that the people with pink hair screaming about racism and sexism represent all left wing thinking (to be clear, most of us agree that equality between races and sexes are important, but nowhere near as important as the SJWs would have it). In reality, most left wing people just want a fair and common sense society, although their views on the details of that may differ slightly from what a conservative would say is common sense. It is a disgrace that the media has manage to sow such divisiveness between the two sides of politics -- of course, it benefits them if their readership goes to only them because they hate the other side. (same applies to politicians, they want to secure votes by painting a picture of their opponents which is drastically not true, happens on both sides)
No he doesn't. There is a very real philosophical undercurrent of Cynicism and Nihilism under some progressive thought. Not all progressives of course. I've argued with it. I'm good friends with people who think the world is fucked and human civilization is probably going to end. One is an Anti-whaling activist. It's a wrong idea, and it needs to be refuted, because Nihilism in any domain, left unchecked, can become horrors and catastrophes. Also he means that 'progressives hate progress' in the way that people hate it when they win, not in the way that progressives don't like progress. He is saying they often fail to recognize progress, and go into nihilism that isn't warranted by the data.
Progressing basically means change in the same direction as before. The cancer is growing, its progressing. It does not necessarily follow that the change is for the better.
At 3:00 the problem with measuring GDP vs energy in one country is it fails to account for the fact that the embodied energy in products Americans buy comes from coal plants in China. Stat only makes sense on a global scale.
It's not my aim nor my job to move the discourse forward and I certainly disagree with this topic being complex (as you have described). Try genocide and see how complex that can be compared to this little brain fart video with a chart.
The Progressive definition of progress is different than the conservative definition. To the progressive progress means equality of outcome, which is anathema to liberty. To the conservative progress means liberty and equality of opportunity. *"A society that puts equality -- in the sense of equality of outcome -- ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests." --Milton Friedman*
I think Friedman wrote that while he was helping Pinochet manage the economy he stole from the Chilean people. After the Chicago boys came home and privatized everything they could lay hands on. Or maybe it was China who he consulted with leading to the tragedy at Tienanmen square. He advocates freedom so long as you can pay for it thats what Friedman meant by freedom. Freedom for the mafia to rob you blind as his students forced Russia into after the fall of the Soviet Union. Freedom at the point of a gun is what Rumsfeld gave to Iraq as a partying gift now one of the top 10 most corrupt governments in the world. Freedom tolet your financial systems collapse that the imf advocated in asia during its banking crisis so long as no one asks us to take the same medicine we so freely dole out. The fact is Friedmans policies are always at the point of a gun or no one would ever let them stand. Anytime anyone seriously advocates his advice you can bet the riot police are right behind them. It literally happens every time.Any time a country institutes any of friedmans policies of freedom somebody goes to jail,gets tear gassed and gets shot. thats the historical reality.
Steven Pinker is often so annoying in his optimism. "Number of dead since the end of WWII." Really? On the scale of existence of humans, WWII was 2 seconds ago. Even on the scale of human civilizations, it was 2 minutes ago. It is statistically insignificant. Wait till WWIII starts. Where will progress be then? Makes me think of the play "The Cenci" by Antonin Artaud. During the Renaissance, a young man is about to be killed by his psychopathic father, he appeals to the church for safety, and he doesn't get it. The cardinal is OK with his father (who is a major donor to the church) killing him. No problem. "But this is the 15th century, the age of progress!" the young man cries. And the cardinal just laughs. Progress my ass. There is no progress where it's really needed - in human heart. The rest is superfluous.
As far as some googling shows, 20,000 years ago the death rate by violence was (informeded guess) 10 times as high as present. See e.g.: www.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmedia/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/slides/20160209_1830_eachAgeGetsTheBloodshedItNeeds_sl.pdf
Kurtlane Anything else there snowflake?? Are u serious or just self actualizing?? Boo Hoo... We need more grit in people that can face realistic solutions to real problems and not just dreaming of Lala land.
For all the flaws of this talk I think the following message is what I will take from it: 3:30 "What makes progress possible? ..."I argue that there are two big ideas that have propelled this progress over the last couple of centuries:" "One of them is science and reason more generally - The idea that problems are solvable given the right knowledge" "And the other is humanism - The problems that we ought to solve are how to get as many people as possible to live long healthy prosperous and pleasant lives" The problem is that this could be bearing out far better than it actually is in practice
You make it sound like he contradicted himself. I don't think he was criticising progressives but exploring that particular question "why do progressives hate progress?" as a means to segue into a "quantitative demonstration" that there is actual progress of sorts and that optimism is not unfounded. To be honest I don't know a lot about him myself. You sound like you don't like him..? Is there something that he said you disagree with?
Funny thing, Progressivism is precisely in support of what he detailed, this was misleading. Not to say he didn't have a point, but he missed the heart of Progressivism, which isn't about what we already know is scientifically viable (any true Progressive will support proper use of genetically modified food), but instead ensuring that our political system reflects systems what worked in the past, or in other countries. (Example, Norway, or even FDR's New Deal minus racism.) He has a valid point to make, but it's clear he's misaligned Progressives.
While promoting a positive outlook is commendable, some of the charts and graphs used here are in my opinion a sleight of hand. A few of them when viewed differently may show a decline in quality of living. This is exactly how politicians use charts "Air pollution in US since 1970 ( without considering decline in manufacturing and many other factors), CO2 as % of GDP (Arctic ice don't seem to worry about GDP)". Depends on how you parameterize progress, maybe he did before this segment. Great speaker though.
Part of the problem is that we've been here before, after a fashion. In 1900 conditions in Europe were improving along many of the same lines that Pinker now applies to the world (which is good) and liberalism was the dominant philosophy. It was probably the most optimistic time in our history. That was all shot to shit in 1914 and what followed was 25 years of dictators, left-and-right wing insanity, and in 1939, another huge war. Then a nuclear standoff followed. So yeah, we're kind of worried about getting our hopes up again.
I'll just point out that there were five million deaths in the second Congo War of 1998-2003, according to wikipedia. That's where this graph touches zero deaths per 100,000. Similarly, there was a genocide in Rwanda in which 800,000 people died in 100 days, in 1994. The graph nearly touches zero there too. So I have difficulty accepting the statistics of deaths presented here.
Ok, while i tend to agree with what the professor is saying, i will point something out -and this is not a harsh criticism. The graph showing an increase in protected lands may be deceptive. For one, we don't know if "protected" status actually means anything of substance beyond words on paper. For example, does "protection" mean that the poaching of wildlife is successfully reduced, or is it just "protected" in writing, but with no stewardship? Also, moving from a place where globally, very little land is legally protected from development globally -to say that more are protected now is really not a very high bench-mark to exceed. But here's to hoping that thoughtful land management is on the upswing. Am i making any sense? :)
Budahbaba it also doesn't address the situations where a country could deforest a million acres in a decade but mark two 10 acre plots of land as protected and then say "we've protected two entire areas from deforestation, and didn't have any sanctuary's before...see, progress"
The system us progressives dislike is money in politics. This is a very real problem and stifles the rate at which your cited statistics would improve Mr Pinker.
I've always liked Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation: “The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country.”
Basically, the more matters improve the more intolerable failings seem in comparison.
Just look at North Korea. None of its citizens complain about human rights violations. So its either a Communist Utopia, or people are too afraid to dare say anything against the state.
The Smoking Dog Or, they simply do not have a voice that can be heard. Every North Korean that has escaped, and that I have heard speak, has spoken of the atrocities of that regime. Perhaps, the premise relies on first-world thinking
Joel Wallace Well freedom of speech is a human right is it not? The more it is restricted the less people are able to criticize the government. This does go well with the mentioned hypothesis.
RanEncounter exactly
scarcesense I agree with what your saying here except for the last sentence. I think this inverse relation is more due to the fact that countries without human rights do not allow free speech then it is about the feelings of people in free countries.
Pretty funny that he triggers both left and right
I don't think it's possible for conservatives not to be triggered by any honest intellectual
Remember the good old days when only the right was anti-rational dogmatic extremists? It fucks me up knowing how shitty the left has become :(
That was never the case Em Zee. Both sides have always had their lunatics.
It's been ever thus. Fascism & communism? Extreme right, extreme left. Nothing new.
valar Fascism and communism is both left...
9:34 "Problems are inevitable. Problems are solvable. Solutions create new problems which can be solved in their turn."
More like yikes!
He doesn't understand progressive intent. Progressives only grow progressively worse with time. Along with their pseudo intellectualism comes progressive decadence which is their ultimate aim, not knowledge and enlightenment.
Problems are inevitable,
problems are _manageable_ .
Cuz there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
Thank you, David Deutsch
@@rey_nemaattorithank you for fixing this comment!
Like Louis CK says: "Everything is amazing and nobody is happy"
Amazing cannot be put on a graph
It may have to do with the rapid changes in technology and more so the constant rearranging of the lines by our political/media class. I only speak as an individual American, and don't know if it's the same across the world, but the mantra from our media is that we are in complete chaos and at each other's throats. Simply not true if you manage to just go about your day and ingnore the 24/7 news industry.
The "Right wing" here isn't much like the days of Reagan and the "Left" ( I consider myself to be a classical liberal) doesn't even resemble what it was 15 years ago. The modern "progressive" left, is the most hateful, narcissistic, racist, ( Yes, critical race theory is entirely racist) overly dramatic and flat out negative group of people I've come across in my lifetime. We have become almost tribal in our understanding, while yammering some nonsense about democracy. It's all about what group you belong to now, as opposed to accepting individuals for who they are. Sad really.
I must apologize. I didn't explain the initial point. It's my belief that we are trying to change things at such a rapid pace and without understanding that positive change takes time. Change for the sake of change is not only pointless, it's destructive as it ignores the slow evolutionary process of human interaction and our ability to cope with our attempts at advancement.
Like Louis CK says "Watch me cum or start looking for a new job"
@@goyonman9655you can’t put the advent of the automobile on a chart as an improvement in people’s lives?
Basically when you don't live with thankfulness you miss it and therefore are never appreciating your current life. It's crazy
This guy is good, even though I disagree with him in many issues, he is one of those people that you must follow, so that you don't get lazy in your thinking, as he will always challenge it, and challenging thinking makes for a better understanding of the world and it's problems, and in turn, makes them easier to fix...
One reason people focus on problems is that they demand something be done about them. A lack of problems is relatively feeble in demand for attention as nothing need be done but to enjoy.
Constant steady improvement seems a letdown when you believe in Utopias.
The ones pushing hard always seemed so frustrated that “their” utopia wouldn’t exist in their lifetime, so would have to force it. The result is Tyranny.
When I was young I was incredibly ignorant about politics mainly because I didn't care enough to even inform myself adequately much less going and voting. You should be careful what you wish for.
Thats the thing, when everyone is young they don't know a damn thing about politics. They see a few articles and then get all outraged. And when you're young, you're not going to have everything together, so might as well help yourself best you can first before setting off on a mission to rescue the world.
The young have no experiences to guide their judgement, they have only a utopian ideal of how they things should be, but we don't live in Utopia and we never will.
One example of "progress" from New Zealand. In the middle of 10s, the New Zealand govt adjusted the way they estimated unemployment. Now, say, if you spent an hour a week doing some charity work, you wouldn't be counted as unemployed and that's how we have such awesome employment figures while also so many people on the dole. I wonder if all those stats Pinker quotes, were produced similar way.
A vigorous, systematic plea for recognizing the empirical facts that we've made significant progress!
Yeah, progress fought for and brought about by actual progressives. Pinker should know this.
"Why do progressives hate progress?" is a ridiculous title. As if there is a future end point to progress. That's absurd.
This is a bait and switch.
You can acknowledge that the world is better AND recognize that both American parties are HIGHLY corporatist.
Was Obama giving 14 trillioin to banks as a bail out progress?
How about the extensive use of drones that kill civilians 90% of the time?
What about the 4 billion in subsidies Exxon Mobil takes annually?
And the killing of Qaddafi with US backed rebels?
Expanding the wars from 2 countries to 7?
All this happened under a democratic administration. Under Obama.
xenoblad you are really going to blame all that on one man? You are unbelievably disingenuous.
"Was Obama giving 14 trillioin to banks as a bail out progress?" - where do you get that figure from? Much if not all that $750 billion bailout money was paid back with interest.
US military actions were already underway when the Obama administration came in. Don't pretend like the previous regime was run by a bunch of hippies. The Bush administration killed around 100,000 in Iraq and engaged in torture, and managed to help foster the conditions for the creation of ISIS. creating a civil war that killed a million in Iraq before Obama was elected.
xenoblad - Democrat =/= Progressive, kiddo. Make an effort to appreciate the difference instead of this simple game of convenience conflation you're playing. "DERP! IFN IT AINT REPUBLIKKKANS IT THEN THAR MUST BEE THEM DIRTY DEMOCRITTERS, H'YUK". This is not a dichotomy of two political brands. There are other options.
14 trillion is the total of goverment commitments to keep the financial sector afloat according to Nomi Prins a respected author on financial matters and former wall street executive. And We the taxpayer did not get paid back nor are we ever likely to be paid back. The very nature of having bailed the banks out increases our costs as consumers because we end up paying the premiums for what is essentially government insurance for whatever destructive behaviour the banks choose to indulge in.
Of course Obama wasnt single handedly responsible for every evil thing done in the name of our empire, but there is a truism about the way our government functions. That is that when an administration takes actions that are deemed to be antidemocratic if after that administration leaves and the other party takes the white house any policy no matter how egregious the new administration continues becomes the new normal and the anti democratic policies will likely never be overturned.
Obama continued Bushs destruction of the bill of rights and took it to new levels prosecuting more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. His refusal to prosecute any executive for their criminal behavior was shameful. And his increasing use of drones killed more people than Bushs drone program and Trump is well on his way to beating Obamas record. Obama has a record of lying extremely well in many different areas unlike Bush and Trump who dont really seem to care if we know they are lying. I cant figure out which is worse. My only praise for Obama is that he didnt make me cringe when he met leaders from other countries. I keep expecting Trump to grab Angela Merkles pussy!
Yes, we can. We can fight against the stupidity in both sides: left and right.
Steven Pinker doesn't talk about happiness in general, state of mind even during peace times. There's this concept that more options we have, more we will feel paralyzed by them. And for everything we do, there's always a better thing we didn't do. For example: getting any job was a success back in the days, but now, any job that we have, we think there's a better job out there that we could do but are not doing. And then there's boredom, impulsivity, lack of meaning, lack of responsibility, and so on that can make the modern peaceful world stressful. He should shed a light on human pscyhology when everything is fine.
It depends what you mean by progress, doesn't it? I've been trying to find airline tickets. Back before progress, I went to the ticket counter and bought a ticket and got on the plane and it was cheap. Now I have to spend all day trying to find something affordable online and hope the airline is still in business when I get there and hope that the door doesn't fall off in the air and the pilot wasn't a DEI hire. That kind of progress we didn't need but it's mostly what we got.
Except most of what you wrote is nonsense. Adjusted for inflation, airfare is much cheaper than the 1990s or earlier. If you are willing to pay the prices you used to pay, you could buy a ticket online in minutes and be happy with your purchase. Also, air travel is statistically much safer than in past decades, despite increased news coverage which makes you think it isn't.
@@nikiyen6 Great reply.
OK, I find myself somewhat puzzled by this vid. I wasn't aware that progressives did hate progress. I was under the impression that progressives just wanted progress to continue and not regress. Indeed from this vid Mr Pinker makes no case for progressives hating progress, as I would expect. He does make a very good case for news media wanting to sell more news media, but that's a very different thing.
St Gray Also, he’s picked certain statistics that are improving- which no-one would want to reverse. But those measurements are choices. Why set the bar at eliminating poverty, instead of ensuring prosperity? Or perhaps focus on happiness and fulfilment rather than productivity? What we regard as progress is somewhat subjective. We can make different choices about what to optimise.
Some (not all as Pinker suggests) progressives want a return to a supposed golden age when humanity was kinder to each other and to the environment. Some (not all) even declare that the best thing would be for humanity to become extinct. Possibly the context was set by an earlier part of the talk, not shown.
Mike, Golden Age type thinking can be applied to some members of most philosophies in my experience. As for the context of the vid, Pinker pretty much sets it up with his first sentence in this vid.
You're working with different shades of the same word. One needs to distinguish between the traditional meaning (in line with Pinker's views) and the newer meaning, which is a somewhat derogatory term for the more radical left.
Clearly you are working with meanings I am unaware of. I thought the meanings used in the vid fairly clear. Would you care to explain your meaning?
He didn't mention suicides or drug overdoses or homelessness. Suicides started raising in 2008 and every year has climed. Except in 2017-19, when it dropped. 2020 started climbing again.
You didnt mention 300K years of mortality from late teens to 30, daily near-starvation, individual rights were unknown, and the radical decrease in war. Etc. You need a rational context for comparing things. Arbitrary,out-of-context comparisons are rationally worthless.
5 minutes into the video and I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate the implied premise: that progressives hate progress. I haven't seen an example so far. Did I miss something?
Okay, I finished the video, the title and premise were clickbait; he doesn't demonstrate the premise. He makes an entirely separate set of points, most of which I agree.
Yes, the news dire while things are improving. Progressives sayin socialism, when capitalism is doing the damn thing.
I totally agree with you. I don't see how this explains why having single-payer healthcare is "anti-progressive"?
Its like how he mentioned that the news media clings to negative stories/titles for views, same as this clickbait, and it got our intension now did it
Same.
Great post! :) I just ordered a personalized bumper sticker that says "(1) Problems are inevitable (2) Problems are solvable (3) Solutions create new problems that can be solved in their turn."
Annoying clickbait title. He didn't really say anything about this in the video.
Copying my elaboration from below for clarity:
His arguments seem to be:
1. The world is objectively making progress
2. The media / psychological biases etc make us hold a more pessimistic view
My problem is that he and the title seems to suggest that 'progressives' hold this view more often than people outside of that group. Also I find the phrasing 'progressives hate progress' strange, unfounded and divisive.
Actually I thought the same thing - but surprise surprise it’s the question verbatim that comes right out of Pinker’s mouth between 0:00 and 0:03.
(easy to miss)
yaiirable At approx the 4 min mark, he talks about how despite the positive trends, the media (in this particular example, the Liberal NY Times) has actually become more negative. "If it bleeds, it leads," etc
His arguments seem to be:
1. The world is objectively making progress
2. The media / psychological biases etc make us hold a more pessimistic view
My problem is that he and the title seems to suggest that 'progessives' hold this view more often than people outside of that group. Also I find the phrasing 'progressives *hate* progress' strange, unfounded and divisive.
Yeah we all know conservative Fox only has positive stories...
itscolin81 I just came from a Jordan Peterson vid and feel the exact same. It's just piles and piles of mental masturbating Who is denying progress ?
Dr. Pinker forgot one thing. Problems are solvable ONLY WITH THE TRUTH, not with narratives that have no basis in fact.
Because as life gets better, we get softer; as we get softer, we expect easier life with more treats. We're spoiled.
I'd say that one big problem is that people are expecting an unrealistically high pace for change. We've been sold an oversimplified idea of how things change i.e. that if you just give people the facts and as a result they will correct their thoughts and behavior. It just doesn't work like that. Even in science the community doesn't just jump over to a new theory until it gains enough backing evidence and momentum despite the myths about the history of science that are so common in the stories of those who popularize science.
I need to listen to this man more often so as to combat my own acknowledged negative bias. It is so easy to obsess on what is not to our personal liking and so easily forget our blessings.
4:00 Which begins to reflect why everyone I know has eliminated most media from their daily lives. The realization that current news is based on emotive hysteria and 'clicks' rather than accumulation and distribution of facts. Most outlets prefer 'non-thinking' content heavy on opinion and little else. They don't trust the viewership to form their own opinions based on facts anymore.
I notice he didn't include Bernie Sanders as a Populist which he most certianly is.
Socialists stealing from others is indeed popular.
Keith Sogge Yep, his data set is cherry-picked to only include anti-immigration populist movements, so it really says very little about populism in general.
Jim Rr
Bernie Sanders is a socialist the same way Donald Trump is a socialist.
Neither of them are socialist.
Orange Boy - You're intelligent like Trump is intelligent. Your IQs combined wouldn't tax the cognitive fortitude of a gibbon. Bernie Sanders is a self admitted socialist and Social Democrat.
Between you and Trump, Trump would be (for lack of a better term) the "smart" one. Let that sink in.
Orange Boy Donald Trump is in no way a socialist, and far removed from any definition you would give Bernie Sanders. Trump isn't campaigning to eradicate or even heavily cut any of the vast social policies that currently exist in the US, but Bernie is a full blown Communist. He would nationalise nearly every means of production if he had his way. He is literally on video saying that "I don't think taxing at 90% is too high".
Progress renders progressives obsolete
This title is so misleading.
It's a direct quote of the first sentence, though.
is not. If you were paying attention to the so called "progressives", they are against pretty much everything that makes the Western world western.
Steven Pinker himself is mislead and misleading the viewer. So dissappointing to see him fail in the simplest and clearest of matters: CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. It is the basis for life.
Get out of the doomsday cult for idiots!
"It's about ethics in media."
Said it once, will forever say it again.
Did I miss something? Did he give any example of any progressive hating any progress? If you like you can just reply with a time stamp and I'll have another listen.
He said the world, by some measures, is improving, and by some measures the NYT is getting more glum, therefore progressives hate progress (?). not a valid conclusion if you ask me
@Paul Judkins how can you possibly know where we need to make strides without talking about it? Once the advances are in place, why not move on to another crap?
@Paul Judkins The opposite of progressive is digressive and the absence of progress is keeping stagnate policy from the distant past. Maybe you can tell us first which of these you prefer over progress.
Here we are, just one election away from a stark choice between totalitarianism and the first real change in the color and gender of the executive office in our long history and you and Steven think this would be a good time for progressive thinking to just fade away before it is too late.
Please try to defend your notion that there is now none of the systemic things you said we complain about: patriarchy, domination by whites, oppression. First patriarchy. You do understand that even blacks had the right to vote before women did, right? Problem fixed by progressive change. You also understand that women still don’t get the same pay for the same work, still have a tougher time running for office and being taken seriously in many business and religious cultures, right? These show a need for MORE progressive change. You have noticed blacks were lynched for trying to exercise the rights they gained until progressives demanded they get those rights and an equal education, and still do not have equal rights under the law, right? Do you think either digressive or stagnant thinking changes these things? They are examples of oppression you also say does not exist so we should just stop trying. Only a sexist, racist oppressor thinks like that but rather than be rude and assume you are any those things, I will chalk it up to your personal confusion. I hope this will help clear it up for you.
@Paul Judkins more nonsense. Now you're saying being boastful is a good thing instead of keeping up good work towards good ends.
How can there be too much progress? Too much change for the better?
It is race, gender and sexual diversity we have separating people now. Progressives are trying to erase that heritage.
Speaking of heritage, your idea of American values includes supporting an obvious con man destroying the institutions set up for the well being of citizens but since the wealthy don't need them they consider it a burden. That's not the American values most of us espouse and not something we should conserve.
@Paul Judkins okay, it's all coming clear now, you think conservatives are the ones who make positive change, got women the vote, got blacks better education, worked for living wages, advocate for treating people equally regardless of their differences. I see no point on arguing with anyone that delusional. If you are real, please get help. If not please ask Putin for some new talking points.
Pinker does caricature the left and progressives too often (I’m a left progressive), but I admire his work. In an earlier book, the Blank Slate, he actually showed how the left could use his ideas about human nature and progress to support their cause.
"solutions create problems" which is why I agree with draining the swamp. Politicians have gotten us
$20 trillion in debt with the Fed no the largest employer in the USA. What does the Fed make?
Michael L What have the Romans ever done for us?
"What does the Fed make?"
Debt
What does the fed make? As in the Federal Government? Well for starters, roads, bridges, dams, airports, and universities. Educated scientists, mathmaticians, engineers, and scholars from said universities. The fed built the largest and most powerful military in human history, built space ships that traveled to the moon, and rovers that explored mars. Government Scientists and Doctors at places like the CDC, NIH, and hundreds of public universities and institutions have studied and found cures for an unknown number of diseases, and health problems. Government institutions helped invent the internet, computers, I mean I could literally go on forever, the point is that the "Fed" creates/makes ALOT!
The FED sells debt instruments. Or more precisely, the FED creates poverty.
For $20 trillion of debt and near $5 trillion in spending per year you would think
the roads and bridges would be safe.
Reasoning by induction (= extrapolating from past trends) is a fallacy if you don't understand the underlying causes.
Steven Pinker is right, provided there will be:
- enough energy (not sure if we exclude coal from energy mix)
- enough agriculture productivity (not sure if global weather is more and more changing, and if we keep killing biodiversity)
- enough R&D in things that matter (not sure if economic doesn't factor in the physical side of things),
- enough society stability (not sure when looking at you, AI).
He's betting we can do it, but I'm not confident to bet against nature (= physics).
PS: don't get me wrong, I'd be glad to agree with him
There is nothing unfortunate about younger people not voting.
+Dan Snyder
Hopefully when you're older you'll realize how you don't know shit right now.
We should only allow people on the brink of death to vote tbh
And I made a typo... I need to age some more. Best of aging to you my friend.
+PedroTricking
Nah. Brink of death is too far. It's really a matter of _experience_ succeeding in life. So maybe people who have at least 2 kids, don't receive government welfare, and have been paying taxes for 5 or more years? ;)
Kaleb Abbrat what, for example?
PedroTricking that a nice idea actually. Not very different from the councils that in some tribes gathet old people to vote on matters
I knew it. Despite both sides blaming each other, humans are significantly better off now then they used to be.
They hate it when it doesn't involve them
Which explains why they always hate it.
Also they hate it because if they had to admit that things are not as bad as they proclaim they would have less resources coming in. And they would have to maybe get off their ass and do something else to feel good about themselves.
One of the progressives core tenets is equality, which includes economic equality ... if progress only benefits the few but leaves the rest in poverty, that's a problem.
+AvangionQ
Yes, that would be a problem, but that's not what's happening. Everyone is becoming more well off. The idea that only a rich few are receiving any benefits is a complete lie, and this video is debunking it.
They hate it because it isn't the impossible utopia they're dreaming of. They want to destroy the current system to impose their utopian ideals, and every time the current system improves things it makes it harder to reach their goals.
Which type of progress are we talking about? Humanity can progress in many directions! For example you could messure progress in terms of hapiness like in Bhuttan! Is people happier or less happy than before? What type of reason are you talking about: instrumental reason, positive reason, emotional reason or traditional reason? Man can reason in many ways!!
I thought he sounded a lot like David Deutsch. Good to see the explicit reference.
Frank Mayer He is a major Deutsch fan boy. He has described Deutsch as one of the most interesting minds in the world. I happen to agree with him! :)
Deutsch is something special . My favorite theory of his is that problems are soluble with knowledge. The idea that this is literal not abstract. The concept of information processing in all its forms being a physical process like salt dissolving in water.
There is an irony here in that this video has been given a misleading title to attract clicks.
Important insights. I'm guilty of cynicism and these biases. The fact that we don't live long enough relative to those graphs to realize all this progress probably factors into failing to see this bigger picture/trend. Perhaps we will live long enough though. Also, focusing on a problem is the first step of the solution process, but most of us don't get past this first step for big complex problems or are powerless to solve them. Perhaps tech and AI will help us all help solve problems better or improve power structures (like MIT's TradeCoin). Still, as Pinker said, solutions lead to new problems...might as well relax and smell the roses.
I agree with most of what he said except when it came to his denial of the corruption in washington. I find older liberals are often so stuck in their ways like this, that they cant conceive of the rampant crime these politicians are committing.
The word "conservative" derives from "conserve." Meaning, keep things as they are. However, most conservatives today do not like things as they are and want to go back to how they once were. It is not "Make America greater" nor is it "Keep America great" it is "Make America great again." The term for that is not conservative, but "reactionary." They are reacting to things.
I think regressive might be the term, but that would imply they want things to go back to the way they were rather than an imagined past tinted by nostalgia.
Reformers is the correct term, it has been absolutely redefined by Marxists to mean what it never meant.
Stephen Pinker calls environmental activists alarmists. As if that’s a bad thing. He’s not helping our cause.
"As if that’s a bad thing." Well, any mass histeria in which you don't join tend to look for outsiders as bad thing.
"He’s not helping our cause." Frankly neither are those activists.
Classic Strawman Fallacy.
Make a proposition (the Strawman) that you claim represents your opponents views. Then proceed to refute the Strawman.
This is easier & safer than actually discussing your opponents opinions. Which requires intellect
Dark Academy then you should recognise it when some charlatan uses it in their talk.
Pinker often uses strawman attacks. One of his favorites is how there is supposedly a widely propagated myth, especially in academia, that tribal societies existed in peaceful utopias, which he pulls out at the beginning of presentations in order to dramatically tear down for the audience. Few people actually believe that was a thing. I never encountered it in my anthropological studies courses. And just think of most pop culture depictions of tribal societies - Dances with Wolves, Little Big Man, Last of the Mohicans, Black Robe... Wars, murders, ritual mutilation, torture, lots of blood.
A recent bestseller here in Canada is The Orenda, by native writer Joseph Boyden, set in the 17th Century during the wars between the Huron and Iroquois. It is a very violent book. About 15 years ago, a film called The Fast Runner, based on an Inuit legend from a thousand years ago, was also a big hit. Not long into the movie, a man is murdered sleeping in his tent and three guys armed with spears chase his naked brother out onto the ice.
Pinker is Canadian and he would have been familiar with all of this, but he still pulls the same "People think tribal cultures were peaceful, especially flaky New Age academics, but I'll tell you the real story!"
TheJalipa who is most likely correct. A person who relies on facts, studies, science, etc. to reach a belief or a person who relies on his ideology and the consensus of other people with the same ideology and narrative?
This is the difference between him and most on the left who define the world based on identity politics, post modernosm, etc.
If one's belief is based on facts that are not taken out of context then your position is not a strawman fallacy.
Except I don't think most people on the left are actually like this! Like I said, one of his most common attacks on leftists is their supposed naive ideas about tribal societies, but I've never encountered anyone who holds this belief and I don't think he's right in this case.
valar I've never really watched this guy. The left believes in collectivism - state control to bring about progressive policies for the people to advance their goals.
There are two types of collectivism;
1. Global collectivism which is communism in its extreme.
2. Tribal collectivism which is focused on your country alone. That manifests itself in fascism.
Problems lead to solutions.
CO2 levels as high as they were five million years ago in the Pliocene, when sea levels were 25 feet higher than today and temperatures at northern latitudes up to 16 C warmer. I like Pinker, but he has been dodging the unfolding catastrophe of climate change in these talks for six or seven years now.
Suicide too. Suicide rates in the United States, for instance, have not budged in 70 years while homicide rates have dropped and GDP has soared. I've only seen one of his lectures where someone brought up the issue of suicide and he incorrectly replied that rates have fallen, and did not discuss reasons why it is still so stubbornly high but moved on quickly to another question. Every year, 800,000 people kill themselves worldwide, so basically an annual Rwandan genocide of self-inflicted death during the most prosperous era of history by far - as we can see by his graphs - and our reaction to it is kind of 'meh'.
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
― Richard Feynman
Climate change is a certainty - there is no debate now. There has not been for a long time, except in political circles and in the vagaries of the unreliable human brain, which evolved in an epoch where it did not need to confront very long-term problems. The only question is the scale of it, and the worst estimates by the IPCC are appearing to be the correct ones. We look likely to experience a shift in climate of 5 C by 2100, which is as great as the difference between the Ice Age and today.
And life expectancy has decreased in the US:
' The increase in the U.S. death rate is "a big deal," Philip Morgan, a demographer at the University of North Carolina, told NPR. "There's not a better indicator of well-being than life expectancy ... The fact that it's leveling off in the U.S. is a striking finding." '
www.cnbc.com/2016/12/10/us-death-rate-increases-for-first-time-in-two-decades.html
Why don't you want Greenland to have trees again?
@@oratiolibre1673 Not if it means all that ice doesn't stay put.
"CO2 per dollar of gdp has gone down."
Jesus. He doesn't even hang his head when he says it that way.
Pinker is my hero!!
You don't have very high standards for heroics when your hero is an intellectually dishonest fuckwit who fallaciously loads his questions to answer for his own straw-men.
At least he is honorable with evidence and well studied. Other leftists are just emotional.
What is sad and funny here is Pinker wants more 'progress' that is, going off the cliff! Conservatives are wary of cliffs whereas some people think flying without wings is fun...before they smash on the rocks of reality.
Emsnews Supkis
Seriously? Aren't there dimgusses on both sides? There could be a case for "straw argument" too, I suppose.
Competency is just as important as democracy
"unfortunately young people don't vote"
Agreed with everything he said up until that point. Most people start off left wing and move towards the right as they get older. Many exhaustive studies show that the more a person knows about economics and politics the higher the chance of them voting right wing is. I often hear that put down to 'people get more miserable and racist the older they get" and that's bullshit too. All studies show that the older you get the happier you get, and more tolerant you get. Again you learn as you grow.
Late 30s and just about all my friends have gone from left wing to right wing as we've become more interested in politics/government/economics which includes myself who used to think communism was the way (I've communist books but thankfully I read from everyone so switched my position over time one thing after the other). Two of my friends have always been on the right, one is centre ground but still moving right and one remains on the left.
Interesting post which touches on a very interesting topic, but your post is full of unsubstantiated assertions, which require evidence to back them up. And not just anecdotal evidence. Firstly, you should clarify what you mean by "right-wing", because it really matters. My reading of the literature is that more informed voters, on average, tend to be more socially liberal *and* more economically liberal (pro-market). Indeed, as Jason Brennan puts it: "That’s not to say that high-information voters tend to favor the Democrats’ politics. In fact, high-information voters tend to have policy preferences that cut across party lines. For instance, high-information voters are pro-free trade, pro-immigration, in favor of criminal justice reform, wish to raise taxes to offset the deficit, anti-war, pro-gay rights, and skeptical that the welfare state can solve all our problems." foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/
See also here for a similar picture: faculty.las.illinois.edu/salthaus/Publications/althaus_1998_apsr.pdf
As Brennan's article also notes, we saw a massive shift in the 2016 election: informed voters, who in previous elections were split pretty much evenly between the Democrats and the Republicans, overwhelmingly favoured Clinton over Trump (which is not difficult to understand given the policy preferences of high-information voters).
Interestingly, when we look at the relationship between IQ and political views, we get a similar picture. Studies universally find that those with higher IQs are, on average, more socially liberal. Some studies also find that those with higher IQs are also more economically liberal (pro-market), though some also find a slight increase in high-IQ voters on the far-left. For example, a study of political party preference in Britain found that supporters of the Liberal Democrats (a centrist, socially and economically liberal party) and supporters of the Green Party (a far-left party) had the highest IQs, followed by supporters of the centre-right Conservatives, followed by supporters of the centre-left Labour. Supporters of UKIP (far-right) and the British National Party (even more far-right and outright racist) had the lowest average IQs.
www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/8896159/childhood_intelligence_predicts_voter.pdf
Thank you for your post, I was about to write something similar. My thought when he said that was: thank goodness the young people do not vote. For some reason people usually wait till they grow up to vote. (don't read to much into the 'thank goodness' usage, I'm an atheist. :D
You sound like a person in dire need of Thomas Sowell's excellent book, 'Intellectuals and Society'. Thank me later.
@Little Cripple
In mentioned recent cases (Trump and Brexit) both the core message was against free trade, which technically speaking is a left wing agenda.
I'd say that it is quite natural to be left wing when you're young, are under influence of authorities such as parents and teachers, have no possessions and rely on social nets. As opposed to being older, wealthy, a parent yourself and having to pay for the social nets. A big part of the interest in politics/government/economics is just looking for ways to avoid feeling guilty about "betraying" your former belief system.
Now of course there are huge groups that vote right despite being poor and relying on social nets which their then leaders will seek to remove. Those politicians are very good at exploiting all the mechanisms that are described by Kahneman (mentioned at around 5:10), in case of my country right down to how election posters are designed.
Being raised as a communist I must say that a extreme negative world-view is essential for revolution. Why should you risk your life if the status-quo isn't awful?
I'll just latch on to one figure presented here, but similar arguments could be made for other statistics as well. 700 million people living in extreme poverty. Now, it's just 10% of the World population, but that would be 100% of the World population just two, or two and a half centuries ago. So, statistics are sometimes misleading, and then we are better off with absolute figures when considering an issue, because 700 million people is a terrible number. Basically, there has never been so many people living in extreme poverty, and it doesn't have to be that way, which in term means that there is something seriously wrong with the human society. Now, that's one reason for negativity. Moving on, food production and other manufacturing are up, and they keep satisfying our growing needs, but what the statistics are not telling us, because the statistics are the science of the past presuming that the resources are limitless, is that there's bound to be a breaking point, where the planet is no longer going to be able to sustain us, not the way we exploit and pollute it, and then the lines on these charts may just plummet downwards as they reach a precipice. So, yes, progress does exists, but such type of progress may be taking us to an abyss, with greed and recklessness leading the way. If this trend continues without check, I don't think we'll have 9, 10, or 11 billion people on the planet in 50 years, but if by some miracle there are that many people, are 900 million going to live in extreme poverty or more? So, there may be valid explanations why people deny progress, other than psychological fallacies and biases. There are serious problems facing us, and catastrophes are lurking, so I understand why many people are not ready to celebrate just yet. I also must say this: I don't think Trump is going to brings us any closer to solution to any of these problems, to put it mildly. Science help us. I like and respect Steven Pinker, and I do not presume to possess knowledge anywhere near his, but I'm just discussing the issues as I see them. If I'm wrong, I'd be delighted to be proven as such.
The reason that he's offering a percentage is because that's the only way to accurately compare statistics from uneven sample sizes. "Absolute" figures would be a monumentally horrendous way to measure economic progress. Measuring economic progress with simply the total number of people in extreme poverty would imply that this total number of ultra-poor is the singular metric by which such progress should be measured. If that metric stands alone, and the number of people who are well off economically doesn't factor in, then the ultimate victory would be the extinction of mankind. That would leave 0 people in extreme poverty which, if we don't have to account for people not in extreme poverty, is the pinnacle of economic success for our species. In short, you're proposing that we measure economic progress from the standpoint of death worshippers.
The alternative, proportionate analysis that he offers here, on the other hand, takes into account how many people are doing well, along with how many people are not. A world where ten percent of people make up an extremely impoverished 700 million people leaves 6.3 BILLION people with their economic needs being met. If that's no better than a world of 700 million people where 100 percent are in extreme poverty, then I hope you never end up in a position of power.
What? ... You're saying that all the weak, sick, poor, and less fortunate should be exterminated, and that they should be tortured first. Why do you feel that way, isn't that monstrous? Also, why do you say that Kobe is better than Jordan? I hope you never end up NBA Commissioner.
Lol. Zero reading comprehension. I'm sorry I responded to your post. I didn't realize you were this slow.
Yeah, you should've figured it out faster.
Nowhere in any of that did he say "that all the weak, sick, poor, and less fortunate should be exterminated, and that they should be tortured first."
Seriously.
Please explain to me how you came to that conclusion.
I'd rather distinguish between "so-called progressives" and "true progressives", the latter being the ones who actually bring progression forward and acknowledge it. A lot of the progression Pinker mentions in the talk is actually _because_ of left movements bringing it forward. This also needs to be acknowledged.
8:00 - Y-axes should not start at some random value
What a set up question. Personally i see no contradiction in being a progressive who sees progress as essential.
this is soo awesome, and makes me feel hopeful and optimistic
There is much work to be done in Western Civilization; but considering the alternative (radical, neo- Marxist thinking) it is well worth defending.
Reason (as well as good values) have brought us the blessings of peace and prosperity.
One unsung hero is political stability- which is presently under assault in our polarized culture.
This also must be fought.
Liberty and UNION
One and inseparable
Now and forever.
Peace
Actually I thought "progressives" loved progress, and that's why they are progressives. Maybe I'm getting too old to understand anything.
It's the politics of buzzwords.
It's just an effect of the current state of idiocracy. Progressive never referred to 'progress' in that sense, progress does not just mean positive change, it means that something is increasing, or going further in the same direction. You can progress in a very bad way indeed, and once you're a part of the idiocracy and identify what essentially amounts to more of the same is always good, you're just racing towards a cliff at high speed.
Too many "progressives" live in the past: "Some groups were oppressed in the past, so let's oppress those superficially similar to the oppressors."
Bubbas Meisa naming yourself contrary to your beliefs is a common tactic of those looking to blindside the ignorant. They are progressives only in identity politics. Remember Hitler called his party "National Socialists" naming yourself with a descriptive term that is entirely contrary to your real beliefs is an old and well used tactic.
It sometimes seems like a person can base their identity on their activism so much that when their cause loses relevance they wish the problem would return
As for the Tone of News Coverage:
It makes sense for the usage of negative words such as "crisis," and "horrific" to increase with a rise in standard of living, because the disparity between horrific events and our day to day lives should increase with standard of living. The increase in this disparity should have a direct effect on the tone of the news coverage.
The usage of these words is to push agendas forward by scaring the crap out of people.
Jesus, Thomas Gottschalk aged badly
Gottschalk _is_ 67, after all. Pinker, here, is, what, 63? I understand that aging is part of the biological process, isn't it?
It was a joke. They do look amusingly similar, I almost imagine Pinker is going to start dressing in bizarre clothes and do crazy stunts.
I wondered, but on TH-cam one cannot be certain...
Well done, actually.
I would expect conservatives to be triggered more by Pinker's ideas. For one, a major thesis of his book The Better Angels of Our Nature is that government is a civilizing force, responsible for most of the "pacification" (his word) we've seen over the centuries. Of course he also credits commerce with very obvious contributions to human well-being, but, in my experience, progressives are not hostile to commerce in the abstract, just unregulated commerce, and Pinker also supports regulation.
I disagree with so many of the conjectures made by this guy. How does the tone of news coverage = progressives deny progress? This whole lecture is actually a huge causation-correlation fallacy. Who is to say the reason that we have made more progress throughout these years is not in part due to the widespread of news and information that is more grounded and realistic, albeit gruesome or ugly. Not this guy, he's arguing that despite progress, the tone of news (of any kind) is more negative for which he's not even established a cohesive relationship between this two entirely separate pieces of research. This is the equivalent of research jujitsu just for the sake of a catchy presentation name. I would almost call this confirmation bias, but it's actually even worse than that...
In addition, populist ideas are probably more resounding among young people than ever before, but Donald Trump's election and the Brexit movements were both movements disguised as populism that actually were far from it. A real populist would've been Bernie Sanders who rallied half the democratic party against the most known political figure of our time by talking about dismantling banks and rising the minimum wage, and almost won the nomination (even without any big-money donors supporting him). That's real populism, not a millionaire sponsored by even more millionaires that lied to working families about cleaning the swamp and then elected half of Goldman Sachs for his administration.
1. Nowhere is he saying that progress is causing bad news. Even though that would indeed be interesting. So no correlation/causation fallacy.
2. "Who is to say the reason that we have made more progress throughout these years is not in part due to the widespread of news and information that is more grounded and realistic, albeit gruesome or ugly"
Also you could see from his graphs, progress has been made throughout the decades, while news coverage just got consistently bad bad in the last ones. So for your claim there is not even correlation, let alone causation.
3. "he's not even established a cohesive relationship between this two" There is none, that's the whole point. Like a room getting warmer and warmer and a guy keep complaining about how cold it is and that things are colder than ever before. To an objective eye, there is no relationship to be found.
Just my perspective by observing the world, through every day life, media and internet: We have it too good these days.
1. The correlation/causation fallacy that I'm talking about is not that progress causes bad news, but that "negative news tones" means that progressives hate progress. Even worse, he doesn't even establish what a he thinks a "progressive" is, he just assumes all "intellectuals and journalist" are somehow progressives and against progress.
2. Yes it is, it's inverse correlation (hello?). As an example, education and crime rates are inversely correlated, but correlated nonetheless. Aside from that, my point is that he's looking at two pieces of research and then not even explaining how they might be related. There is a plethora of reasons why media tone might be getting more negative and it might have nothing to do with progressives, progress or innovation in science and economics, we don't know.
3. This point is more accurate by saying that the room was freezing and no one was complaining, but now it's 55 degrees (fahrenheit)and people are saying that it's still pretty cold.
But actually the conservative point you're making of "We have it too good these days" is an actual hindrance to innovation. Progressives saying "things aren't that good, we need better" DOES lead to progress. Thank you for improving my point so succinctly.
Juan - It is refreshing to see some young person who is as insightful and analytical as you appear to be. Your efforts rebuking and refuting fallacious nonsense is not unnoticed or unappreciated. Thank you.
Yeah he didnt explain what he means by progressives i can see why this might be unsatisfying I dont care much about that point so I did not question it.
For the rest I just cant see how you expect in a 10 minutes loosly held talk to get all the definitions and studies and what not for the simple satatement "Look, things seem to get better but the media is doubling down on the negative since some decades" To suggest that only progress is made if there is this negativity bias in the depiction of reality is simply laughable. You seem unable to read/hear the intention of other people when you think that me stating "we have it too good" suggests that I am a couch potato that sits arround all day and someone crying about plastic in tje icean is the next nobel prize winner ^^
Because the fake news media is not reporting f all Trumps positive impacts on the country but instead slander Trump still to this day and instead report conspiracies they wish were true and then have to correct later about Trump. That’s why they’re anti progress, the left wants the opposite of all Trumps policies and Trumps policies are improving the country before our eyes. To be against that you’re against the country. For instance illegal immigration. Trump got illegal MS 13s out of my county that Obama’s literally let walk in. These MS 13s skinned a bus boy at a restaurant called Crickets by me to death. They skinned him and stabbed him until he was a pile of mush. I don’t want MS13s in my town
Another fact FINANCIAL TIMES;One in five US adults now lives in households either in poverty or on the cusp of poverty, with almost 5.7m having joined the country’s lowest income ranks since the global financial crisis
"Uh."
People, work on your filler words and sounds. You don't need to fill every damned silence.
Speaking of progress, exactly how is it defined? Examples? And what is the short and long term price (s) of such progress?
Have a look at life expectancy & disease around the world over the last 200 years.
@@PeterHitchens-d6xOkay, but also have a look at what > billion more/decade since the early 1960s has done to the earth, the human condition and the future of all life here. THE hottest fuel driving climate change. And the ultimate stupid human trick, since the more times it's performed the more it and its consequences can't be undone.
Why is it that progressives hate progress when every progressive push in the last 30 years had the goals for the very outcomes that Mr. Pinker described?
Goals and outcomes are two different things.
What is progress? Progress means moving towards a goal. People not always agree on the goal.
This good news is tempered by devastating developments that Pinker ignores because it undermines his argument:
1. Wealth inequality is skyrocketing especially in the USA.
2. The looming consequences of climate change will devastate us yet so many are in denial and feel no obligation to do anything about it.
3. Pinker's claim that more wild habitats are protected than ever before is profoundly misleading, it's downright dishonest. Species extinction is accelerating dramatically and wildlife populations all around the world and in the oceans are plumetting all due to human activity.
4. Democracy in the USA is being systematically undermined by the Republican Party and the interests they serve.
5. Deaths by war are down but wasteful military spending is way up and a technology arms race is underway.
1. So if you are doing much better but another person is doing even much more better, this is a devastating development?
2. The looming consequences of climate change will devastate who exactly? Worst case we will lose some coast line, which will create jobs in the housing market. The weather will get a bit more extreme in some few places, nothing we cannot cope with. Furthermore the consequences will force us to develop new solutions to our energy strategy which will push science and engineering.
3. Yeah that's one trend which is unfortunate indeed.
4. How is the freedom of speech, freedom of voting and the majority ruling, freedom of the pursuit of happiness (making your own decisions for your life) undermined by the republicans? These days is easier for me to see how democrats are actually harming the ground pillars of a democracy.
5. So you acknowledge this truly beautiful fact, that's a start.
Great points; would only add to #3 that we are currently in the sixth mass extinction and most species extinctions are due to habitat loss.
Seems to me it's better to have more people in relative poverty, than to have more people in absolute material poverty. I have sympathy for the man that goes "I wish I could afford a car as nice as my boss so I can get laid too", but not as much as for the one that just wishes he could not be hungry all the time.
1. Wealth inequality. So what. If I'm getting richer and richer then why should I worry about someone getting richer than me, especially if that rich person is the reason I'm getting richer. 2. After 30 years of extravagant claims, not one adverse consequence of climate change has been seen and I have come to realize that we are being taken in by a gang of loudmouths who want to make names for themselves. I was as gullible as anyone else but I've reached my limit, thank you.
yeah I too thought some of his arguments were dishonest.
but look at some of the looney responding to you.
Republican kool aid drinkers!
"bad is stronger than good" explains why it is almost impossible to have 3 consecutive elections won by the same political party in the US. If things are going well, you are less likely to vote. Anger and negativity is the strategy that politicians use
Why not make the title "why my caricature of progressives hate progress". It would be closer to the truth. I like Steven Pinker but this is the definition of strawmanning
Lol. Out of touch, much? Progressives are virulently negative and pushing a doom & gloom narrative about the earth, human development, and our future. Don't even pretend the reality is otherwise...who do you think is running all the stories in the increasingly negative news cycles? It's not a bunch of conservative white Christians.
"Pushing a doom and gloom narrative" is the Trump campaign strategy in a sentence.
Craig Gibson out of touch with your opinion? Just because you have an opinion or stereotype does not mean that either should change the definition of a word.
because that wouldn't be a comical nor ironical title.
Alex, what is doom and gloom about the Trump strategy? Do you mean the media's reporting of Trump? We all see the negativity there, but the removal of regulation, the downsizing of government and the increases we see in financial markets is the very opposite of doom and gloom. I don't understand how having an American president who is not apologetic about the whole idea of America is even remotely doom and gloom. Have you noticed how many people haven't mysteriously turned up dead since the Clintons are no longer in the picture? I will grant you, the news from the entertainment industry isn't upbeat, but hopefully, it will become a safer place for new and young people who would like to work there, but once again, that isn't Trump. Those would be the people who opposed Trump and tried to make him out to be a predator. Those tables sure turned, didn't they? Quit listening to the media. Find the facts for yourself and don't let Mika tell you what to think. The media actually thought we made progress during the Obama Administration so setting things right is very upsetting to them. Look for the good, it is all around you.
Bad news gets more eyeballs than good news. Simple as that.
I dunno, this all feels like a lot of superficial and lazy analysis. As a 'scientist', shouldn't Pinker give clear demarcations, like defining what a 'progressive' is, so we know exactly what arguments he is suppose to be addressing. Shouldn't there be at least a mention in the problem of quantitatively measuring things like 'democracy', especially when they largely become, in qualitative terms, name only systems but in practice they are anything but representative of the majority of people's wishes. This is the problem with people like Pinker, Sam Harris, Dawkins who think you can apply science in understanding the social world. As Marx said, a social scientist cant take social reality and literally put it under a microscope in the same way a scientist studying cells can. So to use the same tools when the object of observation is fundamentally different seems unacademic, like it just wants to appeal to people who have reached a basic level of social analysis and critical thinking and haven't moved any further.
Pinker has motives that he conceals in most of his talks on social science. He is a diehard materialist and constantly finds ways to denigrate the role of consciousness in...experiencing the world. If everything social can be quantified, according to his reasoning, it means you don't have to pay attention to subjective experience so much and that annoying problem of consicous awareness. It's one reason he avoids discussing suicide in his talks, as besides the fact that suicide is one major area where we have not progressed, it has more complex causes than the decline of war and homicide like our lack of a science of mind.
Why how would u do it? With a Marxist analysis? Geez.. he picks his metrics and they're pretty good, you define progress better then, or is your definition fundamentally a Marxist one? The moral framework within he's defined progress is fine
gammypage well said.Dialectics opening seems reasonable and logical, but as you read on he seems very Marxist.
It's the first sentence on Wikipedia for the article on Progressivism: "Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform". Reform implies that the system is in need of reformation...Pinker is arguing (effectively) that that the system is working fine as it is, with the exception of minor, iterative improvements (breaking big problems into smaller ones, then working on the problems created from unforeseen results of previous solutions). Progressives essentially attempt to push the envelope too far, thereby creating more harm than good.
"Yo, fam. You got like 10 Minutes for a PowerPoint to sum up objective human progress over the last century to a room full of people with a diverse background regarding their level of expertise in social analysis. Don't subtract from the indepth analysis tho."
- Me, a Marxist intellectual.
Pinker makes a powerful overall case. We (in the West) no longer consider slavery acceptable, like wise child labour. We are more tolerant towards minorities etc. More equality for women ... Yet he tends to gloss over some issues. He suggests pollution levels have decreased, but the far greater threat of global warming has accelerated in the past decades. If we often see things as getting worse because they are, in many respects. Politicians like Trump and Boris Johnson could never have been elected in former decades. There are fewer active democracies around the globe than was the case fifty years ago.
I am a progressive and I strive for progress. What the hell are you talking about??
So you’re for Trumps policies than right? You’re a for a bringing America’s Manufacturing jobs back to America from China and Mexico which Trump is doing? You’re for LEGAL IMMIGRATION AND AGSINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, YES?? You’re for a strong economy with less restrictions on small businesses and lower taxes for small businesses? You’re for less govt spending and instead letting the people keep more of the money they work so hard for? Are you for states having their rights back on education and drug legalization like Trump IS and Hillary and Obams weren’t?? IF YOU SAY YES TO THESE THINGS YOU ARE FOR PROGRESS IF NOT YOU ARE FOR A WEAKER, POORER, TERROST ATTACK PRONE COUNTRY
Larry . You are a prime example of a brainwashed tbag who sucks the lies of the Fox propaganda media. Crooked trumps policies are in line of third world dictators and those like you follow mindlessly. Crooked trump has been taking false credit for Obama's accomplishments. The crap you laid out sounds like your education came from liar and crooked trumps pet dog Sean Hannity. Everything you said is the exact opposite of what crooked trumps achievements are, which are getting dimwits to buy into his lies. Oh and I suppose crooked trump has talked you into joining his pedophile party,
Oh I see what kind of "progressive" you are lol, the only brainwashed one seems to be you. All you gave in response was personal attacks and shots at Fox, that's about it...
Go back to Maddow, she needs the viewers.
Nathan Robinson This is what progressives , aka Communists, do. AD HOMINEM! They can't answer simple questions so they resort to personal attacks.
Intellectuals and media people don't deny progress, they merely point out that we still have a ways to go, and since more people are nowadays aware of the inequalities surrounding them (globally as well as nationally) they point these discrepancies out. I find the tenor of his speech simplistic.
There are some cherry picked stats here. Some are absent:
1: Global inequality.
2: the percentage of plastic in our bodies due to plastic being everywhere in particles small enough to resemble amino acids, This will not go away - ever. Plastic is forever.
3: The number of extinct plants, animals and natural habitats..
4: The rise in the number of allergies due to a rising number of untested chemicals in consumer "goods".
5: The increase in consumption per person - not proportional to the satisfaction.
6: The ever higher degree of desperate manipulation in advertisement.
7. The rising size of the world population - at some point we will be too many, and
8: the increasing ignorance and vanishing will to adress all of the above - and many more!
mental illnesses should have been stated as well.
Autism has gone from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 36 since 1970.
60% of all wild animals have been killed in the same period.
Deaths from alzheimers have increased by 89% since 2000.
Inequality is an asinine assumption, of course there's going to be inequality among a vastly diverse modern humans lol
Except that we are becoming less diverse thanks to technology connecting us so we should expect inequality due to that to drop.
The important ones are the plastic, extinctions of species and habitats, the untested chemicals, and the over-population. The other few are not urgent enough.
>Inequality is not that bad if the standard you hold is the pretty-1st-world because almost any country outside of it is "poor" in comparison. Real inequality would be measured in poverty rates, which are getting better globally. Another type of inequality could be human rights violations, which are slowly doing better by the year.
>The increase in consumption per person not being proportional to the satisfaction can be taken care of after the life or death concerns (the important ones) are stabilized and identified as almost solved. This psychological problem is important but not as urgent as the others.
>The manipulation in the advertisement is just as the last point, not important enough at the moment.
>And the 8... The only people that do not know about the list you've made are either religious nuts, ultra-conservatives, fools, don't really give a crap or are just oblivious to the reality. And most of these categories are in the US. Their group is not that big anyway.
It's a strong argument supported by evidence but ecologists would point out that there are other indicators (species extinctions, CO2 levels, nitrogen cycle) that are worrisome and that are serious threats. How you look at things depends on what indicators and trends you look at and the importance of the indicators. There's not been a lot of progress on these, and they may be among the most important.
I'm not sure all those stats are correct. For instance how are pollutants being measured? My understanding is the location of the measurement equipment isn't great and the results averaged out so their effects are greatly minimised.
I absolutely refuse to believe that say the UK which has had a population explosion over the last 40 years can possibly be less polluted than it was in the 1970's. It may by some miracle be just as polluted as before but not less.
Also his measure of democracy is a joke. Just because a government describes itself as a democracy doesn't make it one, neither does the fact that because its part of the international community it is either. There isn't one single democracy with the EU, not on any measure, but I would bet my house in Pinker's analysis they all are.
We better tell the Greeks, Italians, UK and anyone else who has had a referendum result that's gone against the wishes of the EU high command that what they voted for wasn't really what they wanted or what they had imposed on them was what the secretly desired.
This whole piece lacks serious analysis.
Telcontar1962; I'm assuming that because your references include the UK or are to the UK only that you are British. This makes you a first. I have never come across a subject of Queen Elizabeth 2 who admitted that the UK is not a democracy. Most live under the impression that it is not only a democracy but the best one.
Its hard to compare democracies....simply because they don't exist anywhere in the world. I don't know of a single one that passes two of the most fundamental tests (though maybe Switzerland comes close?) but even there I'm certain would fall foul of the third.
What your describing about some legitimate citizens of the UK (certainly nowhere near all these days) is the mistaken view of the sort of political framework that Britain has either exported or had copied by virtually every state in the world.....that of party political dictatorship.
Its hardly surprising they hold those views. That's one myth MP's and those they bestow patronage upon never cease to peddle.
Why intellectuals do their bidding in describing us anywhere as a democracy is also not so baffling......they don't want to rock the boat, the life isn't too bad so why not lie? They do it often enough for SJW causes why should perpetuating a myth that assists their paymasters or supports deeply held articles of faith be any different?
But I don't know any state who professes to be a democracy who doesn't use the party political structure as its foundation. And I don't know any example where political parties don't strike at the very heart of fundamental democratic principles given only a short space of time. So why do we trust in something so blatantly authoritarian?
1. It can't be that it is flawless. Its been directly responsible for repeatedly slaughtering people in truly prodigious numbers using truly awesome firepower.
2. It can't be that its a new fangled thing and needs further testing. Charles II set it in motion and that was about 350 years ago. He certainly didn't employ the cabal to enhance parliamentary democracy.
It feels exactly like Capitalism. Something "invented" centuries ago that hasn't ever been truly implemented but is sold to us as the unsurpassable pinnacle of human social achievement
What we have today is an almost complete subversion of any democratic principles whatsoever. A world where legitimate majorities are at the mercy of illegitimate and illegal minorities (though they are using their criminal abuse of power to increase their presence by what is termed "human trafficking". Except that governments don't do that ever. Just look at the Americas and West Indies to see how true that was and continues to be right up to the present day).
Poor old QE2. QE1 was such a roaring success, even more so viewed with hindsight 416 years later. She will be our last monarch who had a real (if fairly invisible) constitutional role within the state. I just cannot see any of her descendants who anyone would respect....not even traditional supporters of the monarchy like myself. They are simply a joke beyond parody.
Telcontar1962; So, how would this democracy of your's work?
That requires a long answer. We have all the principles in place now. We just have an out of control and irredeemably corrupt political and judicial class and structure who are hell bent on defying it.
I see absolutely no barrier or reason Parliament can't be put back into its historical and proper position as advisors to the sovereign power in the state. That power is the legitimate citizenry of this country and has (or should have) been for 360 odd years.
Rather than have two elected chambers as has been proposed, but shied away from because of the constitutional headache that would create, we could instead approach it from a different angle.
The function of Parliament is to MANAGE the affairs of the nation solely conducive to the interests of the citizens for who they work. No one else. Somewhat like a corporate board who work for the interests of their shareholders and not other shareholding interests.
The idea of parliamentary sovereignty as Parliament understands it, is both illogical and as we have seen is undeniably destructive to the country. They do not own this country, they are not the supreme power within it, they are functionaries. Nothing more.
Government
MP's are elected and from that body ministerial positions are filled to form a government. Its usually from one political party but it isn't always, like the UK governments of the 1930's and 1940-45. The remainder of MP's supposedly act as a check and balance over government with some latitude to introduce legislation of their own. The Lords are supposed to be another check against the power of the Commons but with the "reforms" introduced by the illustrious war criminal (none other than TB) their position is so compromised they are hardly worth consideration.
Why do we need parties to achieve this outcome at all? Their presence is invariably counter-productive.
Why not treat the government at ministerial level as a corporate board. Rather than having career politicians selected for us by parties why not instead have a totally independent commission review of ministerial posts. Since we are not a world power or an international charity, we could charge the commission with meeting a target to halve the number of posts and provide a list of candidates with absolutely no party political affiliation for each of the ministerial positions. The 50 or so positions up for grabs could be voted on by the general public with candidates each being given a set amount of time to make their case in a broadcast made available to the public by law through UK media broadcasters as a condition of their licence. Campaigning outside this would be illegal. Terms of the ministers would be 5 years (and number of terms could be limited as with POTUS). The selection of chairman (or PM/President) would be by same method with same length and term limitations.
There would also be an additional process by which the electorate could submit other names for inclusion to specific ministerial candidature lists if they met they required petition volume. Any involvement by big organisations such as corporations or charities to influence this process would be illegal.
This commission would have no direct role in government, just act as the talent spotter of the nation. The actual power to elect the ministers in question would reside solely with the electorate. With no inherent party political bias merit should be the deciding factor.
The vote wouldn't actually any more difficult than your average woman's mag's survey questionnaires. If the posts being voted on were split so votes could be submitted in time for more than one day of the year I don't see this as being onerous on a serious and engaged citizenry.
"Commons"
The "Commons" would be elected solely on the candidates ability to foster support from the constituency in which HE or SHE lives and has lived for a considerable period. Political parties would be outlawed. The elected MP would be expected by law to serve the constituency they represent but with latitude to take wider national considerations into account. Their function would be as advisors to their constituents of ministerial action and how it impacts them and because they have democratic power like the ministers they would provide the check and balance to ministers who over-stepped their bounds and have legislation returned for amendment.
There would also be space for Private Members bills as now to allow local constituencies to have legislation considered.
Ultimate power would reside with the ministers to perform the role their office demands and in accordance with the programme(s) they advanced in securing their election but MP's would have the right to oppose if it could be demonstrated the minister was acting contrary to the national interest (and not merely local ones). The judiciary would be required to adjudicate in cases of impasse.
These MP could be voted on as now in a standard general election. But any candidate shown to have obtained material support, financial or otherwise, from outside his constituency to gain election would be barred from sitting as an MP. Terms of 5 years like ministers and possible limit to number of terms.
That should eliminate safe-seats, party political patronage or the idea that any constituency was not relevant at every single election.
"Lords"
Abolish it. Completely unnecessary if the above was in place.
Judiciary
Difficult one this. Initially I would purge anyone within the judiciary with any connections of active support of the UK's membership of the EU while carrying out their official duties. A person with such sympathies had no business being made a judge in the first place and should have refused and resigned the second they were asked to at in such a way as to subvert the legitimate sovereignty of the nation.
Then it would be the concern of the minister responsible to fill the appointments based on merit allied to an unwavering commitment to the supremacy of legitimate citizenry of the UK.
Monarchy
I'm in favour of retaining an unelected figurehead such as a constitutional monarch. I know its anachronistic but there is something to be said for a person who transcends the electoral process. But whether its possible given the state of the Windsor family is very doubtful indeed. I'd like to give it a chance as there is much to be said for it but it has to be drastically cut to just the immediate line of succession. No more of the Prince Andrews of this world. If the Monarch wants these low-lifes around they can be supported from her purse entirely.
All this would underpinned by 4 principles.
1. No branch of government could be deemed to be acting legally if its actions could or would result in the nations sovereignty being transferred away from the legitimate citizenry of the UK, outside of surrender in war.
2. No branch of government could be deemed to be acting legally if its actions could or would result in the dilution of control over the selection of government by the legitimate citizenry of the UK. This would preclude any immigration policy from being implemented without the broad scope (volume, T&C's of the offer) being approved in advance of the offer being made. The period any one policy is allowed to stay in place before another vote takes should not exceed 5 or 10 years.
3. No branch of government could be deemed to be acting legally if its actions could or would result in war being declared on any 3rd party without the legitimate citizenry giving their approval in advance of the action taken outside of actual physical attack on the territory of the UK or its overseas possessions by an aggressor.
4. It is the duty of the Judiciary Armed, Secret and Police Services to act in the defence of the citizenry if any of the executive or legislative branches of government seek to subvert principles 1-3.
I make that possibly between 1 & 5 votes (max) for ministerial positions and 1 for MP's and 1 for immigration policy in a period spanning 5 years and just 1 more ad-hoc one in time of potential war.
Local government would undergo the similar changes. No political party affiliation allowed. Only support from with the candidates local constituencies permitted. Should help to get people elected on merit.
If the wrong people get into power the only finger-pointing would be at ourselves.
Telcontar1962; Thank you for your reply. Much of what you propose is specific to your country and couldn't apply to another and so, I won't comment on it. It's interesting and shows that you've put a lot of thought into it.
Almost everyone is capable of consuming the world at an accelerated rate. That’s progress.
I always thought that progressives do like progress, in fact that is why they are called progressives. Humanism and progress are inseparable. May be he is talking about Social Justice vs free market? In that case he commits a false dichotomy.
Len Yabloko Progressive has become a phrase for the new left who want to radically change society, which they perceive to be corrupt. The point he is making is that society IS progressive and interference could (and probably would) interfere with it
There's a difference between university SJWs (whose main objective is social reform, for better or worse), and economic progressives whose interests lie more in how to strike a balance between an equitable and productive economy.
For some reason, many right wing people seem to think that the people with pink hair screaming about racism and sexism represent all left wing thinking (to be clear, most of us agree that equality between races and sexes are important, but nowhere near as important as the SJWs would have it). In reality, most left wing people just want a fair and common sense society, although their views on the details of that may differ slightly from what a conservative would say is common sense.
It is a disgrace that the media has manage to sow such divisiveness between the two sides of politics -- of course, it benefits them if their readership goes to only them because they hate the other side. (same applies to politicians, they want to secure votes by painting a picture of their opponents which is drastically not true, happens on both sides)
mellamosean
Some people have been conned by the conservative media as to who the left are, who they follow, and what their views and policies are.
No he doesn't.
There is a very real philosophical undercurrent of Cynicism and Nihilism under some progressive thought. Not all progressives of course. I've argued with it. I'm good friends with people who think the world is fucked and human civilization is probably going to end. One is an Anti-whaling activist. It's a wrong idea, and it needs to be refuted, because Nihilism in any domain, left unchecked, can become horrors and catastrophes.
Also he means that 'progressives hate progress' in the way that people hate it when they win, not in the way that progressives don't like progress. He is saying they often fail to recognize progress, and go into nihilism that isn't warranted by the data.
Progressing basically means change in the same direction as before. The cancer is growing, its progressing. It does not necessarily follow that the change is for the better.
At 3:00 the problem with measuring GDP vs energy in one country is it fails to account for the fact that the embodied energy in products Americans buy comes from coal plants in China. Stat only makes sense on a global scale.
A little too simple. Sorry Mr. Pinker.
It's not my aim nor my job to move the discourse forward and I certainly disagree with this topic being complex (as you have described). Try genocide and see how complex that can be compared to this little brain fart video with a chart.
Genocide is likely at an all time low along with all the other things mentioned in this video.
YOUR MOVE, CYNIC >:P
Not everything has to be pretentiously complex, simple isn't negative
The Progressive definition of progress is different than the conservative definition.
To the progressive progress means equality of outcome, which is anathema to liberty. To the conservative progress means liberty and equality of opportunity.
*"A society that puts equality -- in the sense of equality of outcome -- ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests." --Milton Friedman*
I think Friedman wrote that while he was helping Pinochet manage the economy he stole from the Chilean people. After the Chicago boys came home and privatized everything they could lay hands on. Or maybe it was China who he consulted with leading to the tragedy at Tienanmen square. He advocates freedom so long as you can pay for it thats what Friedman meant by freedom. Freedom for the mafia to rob you blind as his students forced Russia into after the fall of the Soviet Union. Freedom at the point of a gun is what Rumsfeld gave to Iraq as a partying gift now one of the top 10 most corrupt governments in the world. Freedom tolet your financial systems collapse that the imf advocated in asia during its banking crisis so long as no one asks us to take the same medicine we so freely dole out. The fact is Friedmans policies are always at the point of a gun or no one would ever let them stand. Anytime anyone seriously advocates his advice you can bet the riot police are right behind them. It literally happens every time.Any time a country institutes any of friedmans policies of freedom somebody goes to jail,gets tear gassed and gets shot. thats the historical reality.
Steven Pinker is often so annoying in his optimism.
"Number of dead since the end of WWII." Really? On the scale of existence of humans, WWII was 2 seconds ago. Even on the scale of human civilizations, it was 2 minutes ago. It is statistically insignificant.
Wait till WWIII starts. Where will progress be then?
Makes me think of the play "The Cenci" by Antonin Artaud. During the Renaissance, a young man is about to be killed by his psychopathic father, he appeals to the church for safety, and he doesn't get it. The cardinal is OK with his father (who is a major donor to the church) killing him. No problem.
"But this is the 15th century, the age of progress!" the young man cries. And the cardinal just laughs.
Progress my ass. There is no progress where it's really needed - in human heart. The rest is superfluous.
As far as some googling shows, 20,000 years ago the death rate by violence was (informeded guess) 10 times as high as present. See e.g.:
www.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmedia/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/slides/20160209_1830_eachAgeGetsTheBloodshedItNeeds_sl.pdf
You'll be waiting a while for that ol' human heart to evolve mate.
Kurtlane That last paragraph is the dumbest thing I have ever read.
Kurtlane Anything else there snowflake?? Are u serious or just self actualizing?? Boo Hoo...
We need more grit in people that can face realistic solutions to real problems and not just dreaming of Lala land.
Clearly you didn't watch the whole video.
Because to them, only their principles is progress.
The decrease in the 5 major pollutants while vehicle miles etc. increase is pretty anecdotal and doesn't reflect environmental trends as a whole.
Sad, young people are being denied critical thinking in the school, and thus ,they are in total compliance with established authority.
Nice video I’ll buy your book, cuz you have similar views as me after reading more books on philosophy
Progress doesn't mean anything without context. A blind person can progressively walk down a street until they fall in a hole.
For all the flaws of this talk I think the following message is what I will take from it:
3:30 "What makes progress possible? ..."I argue that there are two big ideas that have propelled this progress over the last couple of centuries:"
"One of them is science and reason more generally - The idea that problems are solvable given the right knowledge"
"And the other is humanism - The problems that we ought to solve are how to get as many people as possible to live long healthy prosperous and pleasant lives"
The problem is that this could be bearing out far better than it actually is in practice
You make it sound like he contradicted himself. I don't think he was criticising progressives but exploring that particular question "why do progressives hate progress?" as a means to segue into a "quantitative demonstration" that there is actual progress of sorts and that optimism is not unfounded. To be honest I don't know a lot about him myself. You sound like you don't like him..? Is there something that he said you disagree with?
I consider myself a progressive. I don't hate progress.
Can you give a link to full talk?
Funny thing, Progressivism is precisely in support of what he detailed, this was misleading. Not to say he didn't have a point, but he missed the heart of Progressivism, which isn't about what we already know is scientifically viable (any true Progressive will support proper use of genetically modified food), but instead ensuring that our political system reflects systems what worked in the past, or in other countries. (Example, Norway, or even FDR's New Deal minus racism.)
He has a valid point to make, but it's clear he's misaligned Progressives.
Good that you are the authority on what progressivism is. Too bad most progressive didnt get the memo.
While promoting a positive outlook is commendable, some of the charts and graphs used here are in my opinion a sleight of hand. A few of them when viewed differently may show a decline in quality of living. This is exactly how politicians use charts "Air pollution in US since 1970 ( without considering decline in manufacturing and many other factors), CO2 as % of GDP (Arctic ice don't seem to worry about GDP)". Depends on how you parameterize progress, maybe he did before this segment. Great speaker though.
Part of the problem is that we've been here before, after a fashion. In 1900 conditions in Europe were improving along many of the same lines that Pinker now applies to the world (which is good) and liberalism was the dominant philosophy. It was probably the most optimistic time in our history. That was all shot to shit in 1914 and what followed was 25 years of dictators, left-and-right wing insanity, and in 1939, another huge war. Then a nuclear standoff followed. So yeah, we're kind of worried about getting our hopes up again.
I'll just point out that there were five million deaths in the second Congo War of 1998-2003, according to wikipedia. That's where this graph touches zero deaths per 100,000. Similarly, there was a genocide in Rwanda in which 800,000 people died in 100 days, in 1994. The graph nearly touches zero there too. So I have difficulty accepting the statistics of deaths presented here.
Everyone SHOULD view this talk
This is really good. Thanks.
Edit: Plus, the presenter pronounces 'short-lived' and 'long-lived' correctly. Very rare.
Funny how democracy is revered, but populism (voting for who you like the sound of) is reviled.
Ok, while i tend to agree with what the professor is saying, i will point something out -and this is not a harsh criticism. The graph showing an increase in protected lands may be deceptive. For one, we don't know if "protected" status actually means anything of substance beyond words on paper. For example, does "protection" mean that the poaching of wildlife is successfully reduced, or is it just "protected" in writing, but with no stewardship? Also, moving from a place where globally, very little land is legally protected from development globally -to say that more are protected now is really not a very high bench-mark to exceed. But here's to hoping that thoughtful land management is on the upswing. Am i making any sense? :)
Budahbaba it also doesn't address the situations where a country could deforest a million acres in a decade but mark two 10 acre plots of land as protected and then say "we've protected two entire areas from deforestation, and didn't have any sanctuary's before...see, progress"
The system us progressives dislike is money in politics. This is a very real problem and stifles the rate at which your cited statistics would improve Mr Pinker.