We need a new measure of evolutionary success. Here’s why. | Agustín Fuentes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2024
- People say we are better off than ever. Are they right?
❍ Subscribe to The Well on TH-cam: bit.ly/welcometothewell
❍ Up next: The planet-saving lesson humans can learn from beavers • The planet-saving less...
The traditional measure of evolutionary success is a population's ability to continue, adapt and grow. By that measure, humanity has been a huge success: our population is only getting bigger, and for a lot of countries, so is our average life-span.
Biological anthropologist Agustín Fuentes takes issue with this measurement. In his view, the sheer number of humans living on the planet doesn't necessarily equate to success. In fact, the argument that humans are doing better than ever before is problematic, because it only considers a narrow perspective of Euro-American societies, ignoring other vast cultures and populations.
Instead, Fuentes argues, evolutionary success for humans should be measured by our capacity for flourishing, which includes health, security, interaction, and well-being - and importantly, how this flourishing is distributed across our species.
Read the full video transcript: bigthink.com/the-well//what-i...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
❍ About The Well ❍
Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life’s biggest questions, and that’s why they’re the questions occupying the world’s brightest minds.
So what do they think?
How is the power of science advancing understanding? How are philosophers and theologians tackling these fascinating questions?
Let’s dive into The Well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Well on your favorite platforms:
❍ Facebook: bit.ly/thewellFB
❍ Instagram: bit.ly/thewellIG - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ความรักไม่ได้น่ากลัวขนาดนั้น (TRUST ME) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9np-lAtCRpQ/mqdefault.jpg)
It's easier for people to imagine the end of the world than it is for them to imagine the end of capitalism.
zizek said that right?
fredrick jameson
Mark Fisher has a great book on this
I think most don’t see the difference
The world won't end. It won't stay the way it is now regardless. So far all the alternatives to capitalism suck, so why would we want to change?
When I was young and naive, I measured human "progress" based on technological development - the size, speed, and capabilities of electronic devices... but now I've not only come to question this paradigm but have realized that, like "progress", technology for technology's sake is not sufficient in justifying adoption of new tech.
We need to collectively ask ourselves what is meant by "progress" and reconciling that with what we mean by "flourishing." We want "progress" to mean what it implies by leading to "flourishing" but we must first decide if delegating more tasks to technology and further separating ourselves from nature are indeed what lead to individual human "flourishing."
I think many instances of tech have made our lives worse, accelerating and exacerbating the psychological sicknesses, felt on both an individual and societal level, that have already been present since the advent of dense urban living.
The issue is now more pressing than ever given the current state of exponential improvements in A.I.. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
While technology has created a more homogeneous standard of living by raising the quality of life on a global scale, I don't think industrializing countries should follow in the footsteps of the west that lead to people being glued to/reliant on their devices, out of touch with physical nature, and physically/socially isolated.
We want to avoid the dystopian future humanity depicted in "WALL-E", "Cyberpunk 2077", "Blade Runner", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There are so many ways in which our future can go wrong... more ways, in fact, for it to go awry than go well, so we need to be extra judicious to not fuck ourselves in the ass.
I do see potential for a bright future, though. It entails some version of a world where people live in smaller, more tightly knit groups, where technology and nature are, if not seamlessly, partially integrated. A world with natural habitats that are better suited for our homosapien bodies which evolved to live in nature.
Asians are more glued to their devices than westerners, so your fear has already been realized. More so in developing countries
Same
Yeah... I look around whenever I go to a mall, and I see people moving, but I don't think they're truly *living*. If that makes sense. We're not connected to nature or to other humans; humanity seems to be going in a direction of disconnectedness and false connection through technology, instead of actively talking to people face-to-face, working together, stuff like that.
As someone whose world view is shaped by science, I (habitually) think of progress in terms of enlightenment. That is, uncovering the mysteries of the universe. Getting at the truth basically.
In the Matrix, I would definitely choose the red pill, to understand what is happening outside the illusion. Even if the truth made me unhappy.
Some good points have been made! In essence, Humankind needs to focus at sticking to the basics whilst promoting welfare to all at cost zero - pure energy exchange. Governments need to supply resources educating and including all. Stopping the chain of exploitation and nurturing everyone to becoming like Collective Trees on River floors.
As much as I share his criticism of inequality, I would be more convinced of his argument if he could point to a time when humans flourished more, or when there was less suffering.
I guess we have always been blind to the reasons for our success. And my other guess is that this is the absolute best time in history so far.
It always depends in what sense better.
During hunter-gatherer time, we spent less time working, so there is more time for doing human things, like speaking with each other, tending to our societal connections, or just rest. But on the other hand, the lack of sanitation, antibiotics, central heating, etc. made life much harsher then.
In the West, the '70s was thought to be the pinnacle of civilization so far. That was the time most Westerners had the best prospect in life. Now more of the rest of the world live in a better condition, but quite many of the Westerners (including the working class of the former Soviet block) does not live better.
But we can also look at countries that are good to live in. Most say that countries like Austria, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway are good to live in. They all provide strong benefits to everyone, they have a more equal society than others (definitely more so than the US). So while we might not point to a more better period, we can pinpoint better places to live.
10 years ago things were better for some than it is now, 40 years ago is was better for some than others I believe. Depends on how you look at the data really, the wealth gap has been increasing over time lately and the wealth gap is the single greatest predictor for violent crimes in a country. The minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, has gone down significantly, this means people who rely on that are able to have much less than they once did.
Finally I would conclude with this, while it is true that now is the greatest time in history, by that same logic it is the future that has always promised more, we should be cautious, considerate, and grateful fro the systems that got us to this point, but we also need to be able to look at those systems rationally and aknwoeldge when things have changed and when those systems might need to change with them. The industrial revolution played a major role in changing how our systems fucntioned and we are living through an even greater technological shift right now, we're gonna have to change with it unfortunately.
Something is not convincing enough. It simply leaves you with a "how"... And it doesn't completely convince me that in other times, any century, humanity as a whole has had a better time, a greater "flowering". I believe that almost all of humanity has spent most of history existing in "pure survival" mode. Today, clearly, it is not like that.
Damn, you must have a really nice life.
@@fabianthome7698 I hope you too 😅
Your point is good, however you would get surprised by how much of the world's population still lives in "pure survival" mode, a lot (I mean billions) still live with food insecurity or even hunger, high criminality rates, lack of basic sanitation, etc. If you look at statistics, the majority of the people of the globe live in these bad conditions, so while a large number of people can live more flourishing lives, the majority of human race is still in survival mode.
@@arthurdefreitaseprecht2648 It is not true that the majority of humanity lives in subsistence poverty. According to the most recent data from the World Bank, in 2021, around 9.2% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.90 a day. Although this still represents a significant number of people, it is important to note that the extreme poverty rate has decreased significantly in recent decades thanks to development and poverty reduction efforts around the world.
However, there are large numbers of people around the world who live in poverty and struggle to meet their basic needs, such as food, shelter, and health care. Poverty is a complex and multifaceted problem that is influenced by social, political and economic factors, and requires long-term and sustainable solutions.
The number of people living in abject poverty today is at around 10% of the world population. That is the lowest it has ever been in human history.
He mainly argues that there is a disparity between rich and poor countries. But even people in poor countries are better than they were 100 years ago in that same part of the world. Even in developing countries people have somewhat access to things like vaccines and modern medicine which even the people in the rich countries didn't have access to 100 years ago.
His arguement honestly makes no sense to me. Humanity as a whole is much better off by now. Nobody ever argued that it was evenly distributed.
Exactly. He's parroting some of claims made in 'Sapiens' "people were better off before"
Once you realize that the entire purpose of life is the feeling of purpose, which tends to come about for most people through pain and sacrifice, then you realize how counterintuitive our goals are.
If an “easier” or more “comfortable” life leads to existential crisis and extreme depression, is that really better?
Our present abundance of goods (in some parts of the world) is only possible because we are consuming the world's resources at an alarming rate and destabilising ecosystems and climatic systems at an alarming rate.
One can't keep getting richer if one is consuming one's capital in the process. One cannot have infinite growth in a finite world.
The point is not just that some win some lose. The point is eventually neglect of our fellows including other humans chops us down. His argument is that we are about to lose big time because large overall effects are not intuitive for us and we have to learn those things instead of emoting, feeling helpless, and playing helpless in the face of overwhelm rather than building our keen abilities for tenacity and adaptation.
He's a university professor, he has one mission, to destroy anything traditional and all the work done to get here. He is a card carrying communist.
Here in the U.S. politicians all run on trying to make things better for us here while ignoring the fact that what might be good for us here is not what’s good overall. I do not think of our friends across the globe as “alien.” We are all related. We are all brothers and sisters.
It is possible to say that a larger percentage of people today are better off than before, and simultaneously say that inequality is an enormous problem. “Better” is in no way “best”. To imply that human flourishing is independent of living standards, is problematic. Yet, it is indeed important to also discuss what human flourishing is beyond acceptable living standards. So to my mind, this speaker creates a false dichotomy.
Agree
Really? The American Middle Class began in the late 40's and actually peaked by the mid 80's. Since then, it has slowly been shrinking and the Working Class and poor are growing. Wages have been stagnant for 40 years; workers' rights being dismantled. 3rd world countries being taken advantage of by 1st world countries.
People say look at China and how it has grown economically. Yes, it has in the last 30 years, but there is a hidden bomb in there. As the Chinese workers start to demand higher wages, Chinas ability to export cheap goods will falter which in turn will slow their economy down as people look elsewhere for cheap goods. China took off in the 80's after Reagan shafted the American Unions, and then the large companies moved a lot of industry to China for the cheap wages so they could make bigger profits whilst selling reasonably cheap goods to the domestic market. The consumers in the West want cheap goods all the time, and as such companies find the cheapest labor source to do so. If the Western Consumers understood that the cheap goods they love so much actually hurts their own economy and job opportunities, maybe then they will be happy to pay that extra $100 for the washing machine.
Watch this vide, really explains how one guy stuffed up America with his economic philosophy.
th-cam.com/video/xgXda61MtWE/w-d-xo.html
That's quite a nice framing of the question. To me, that's an incredibly important part of the process because, if you frame it wrong (or don't frame it at all), you can come up with completely wrong answers. Yes, sometimes you can accidentally get a correct answer, but framing the question increases likelihood of correct answers many-fold.
Like the direction you're coming from. Is it true that we'll always have inequity, injustice, and hierarchies? Can humans not learn to move past the standard that has been set by our reality? Given recent developments in the world it is seeming more likely that we'll have the opportunity to create a substantially different future for our species and I would like us to try thinking past this idea that the worst parts of us are things that need to remain to thrive.
We can't move past it as long as it's in our DNA. Look up tragedy of the commons.
Of course inequality, injustice and hierarchies will always exist, as they well should. Why pretend that an adult male who molests children is the same as a female child prodigy with missing legs? The world we live in is unequal, and resources are scarce. That's just the uncomfortable fact of the universe that will ultimately never be solved with technology.
"Can humans not learn to move past the standard that has been set by our reality?"
We have. In fact, that's exactly what we've done by inventing hierarchies and justice systems.
"I would like us to try thinking past this idea that the worst parts of us are things that need to remain to thrive"
People have always been trying this. The issue with trying to change/ignore human nature is that, even if "successful", it often leads to unpredictable downstream negative consequences like depression, impostor syndrome, anxiety, food disorders, mood disorders, addiction and the list goes on and on. We all love to pretend like we're not evolved primates, but then it comes back to haunt us when we take it too far.
I doubt we can all of us learn it but more of us can learn that so basically the effect of beliefs can be aggregates not just personal but a groundswell. Or like a school of fish, directional and emotionally transferable.
I cannot say much beyond that I agree with the thoughts expressed in this video. I would not consider humanity to be a successful whilst the disparities between what is considered successful and what not are so broadly applicable to the so-called less successful side of humanity. I would not say that it is disastrous just yet, because we can correct it, but that the cost of correction is going to become higher and less palatable in time which is likely to be a problem. For example, I don't think that there is a food shortage, but I do think that there are major issues with food distribution, land use, and agricultural practises, the major one being food distribution and allowing food to become a political weapon. This is a major to sort out. All things are possible, but will require collective effort and will. Hopefully that's not a pipe dream. 🤔
Great video, thanks for sharing!
We measure the success in a wrong way sometimes in a narrow way forgetting others and this world
Great video 👍
Glad you liked it!
We live in a world that gets better by the second. How can you honestly believe that things are not getting better? There's lower than 6% infant mortality rate everywhere in the world. More people gain access to clean water, cheap power, technology, and sustainable food sources every month. Have we damaged the environment? Yes. Are we still? Yes. Do we still wage war? Yes. But by respecting all those cultures you (and we all should) value so much gives rise to disagreements. But to say this isn't the time of the most human flourishing is flat out wrong. Do we have a long way to go? Yes. But you cannot argue that as a world we aren't moving in the right direction. I believe in the power of human intelligence, collaboration and problem solving. There is nothing wrong with the world that can't be fixed by what is right with the world.
It's a fair and inspiring argument. It would be interesting to see Fuentes cite specific examples of places in the world that he considers to have gotten worse and explain what metrics he considers important; other notable figures like Pinker certainly argue the opposite of him and are more in line with your perspective.
That's the longest human neck I saw in my life.
Some good points have been made! In essence, Humankind needs to focus at sticking to the basics whilst promoting welfare to all at cost zero - pure energy exchange. Governments need to supply resources educating and including all. Stopping the chain of exploitation and nurturing everyone to becoming like Collective Trees on River floors.
The fact of matter every human has different concepts of living , with modernity so many things actually got lost, and so many people affected so people who actually evolve and move with world, adjusted become happy but those who are not they are living a hell lofe .And taht very much depend on your culture what you value , what's you goals,what your beleive.
What does "flourishing" data look like? Who decides what metrics are relevant. Is capacity defined? So many questions.
It's actually a big thing just now. There's a global program being conducted by Harvard. I don't think you can provide links on YT but Google "The Global Flourishing Study" and Psychology Today has a good article. It seems kind of weird because the data questions seems to come down to "Hey! How are you feeling right now?" kind of stuff.
In ratios to previous human populations?
How about maternal mortality
I didn't know John Frusciantes brother was an evolutionary biologist
Didn't want to give it away, now
@@The-Well
PS: The Zallinger Diagram is never a good thing to use in refference to evolution because it misleads people to think it's orthogenetic, anthropocentric and just plain inaccurate.
beatiful
dunno why we ever thought it was a good idea to live such sedentary lives. Our brains evolved for daily active lifestyle, (look at the substantia nigra, basal ganglia and cerebellum) even in jumping spiders, it’s revealed how complex movements in an invertebrate have certain neural structures thought only possible in a vertebrate.
we need more public spaces made to engage these neural systems, if people need to spend some time, however long it suits them, foraging, hunting, gardening ect. it should be available, but we look down on this behavior like it’s deviant. It’s so backwards, our culture is so technophilic and nature-phobic.
How many people suffer from this particular way of living 😢
I don’t think what is being described is necessarily EVOLUTIONARY success, sounds more like social success. I think a better way to measure evolutionary success would be to leave out emotions, inequalities, and social issues. Because all of these things, are unique to humans. If you are talking about evolution, there are thousands of other species that also experience evolution that don’t have these. Obviously some species die out, that would be the mark of failure, so logically, the mark of success would be the opposite of that. So longer lifespans, healthier lives, higher population counts.
Our technology helps us achieve all of these, so I believe that we are evolutionarily successful, but I do not think that we are the most successful. I believe that bacterium is the most successful when you really look into it
qué chabon capo!
While I obviously applaud Dr. Fuentes' credentials and achievements, he's conflating the parameters of evolutionary success with cultural ones.
Human evolutionary forces and changes occur over millions and millions of years and have always had only one "goal"(very loosely): survival to reproductive age, period.
I understand that Dr. Fuentes wants to ADD more parameters to the concept, but the red in tooth reality is that evolutionary forces are non-human, with a reckless, sloppy disregard for how that organism arrives to procreation age, human or otherwise.
To add a current cultural human value to a process that regularly grinds out "dumb" but reproductively successful solutions over vast time periods actually diminishes that concept's raw, unsentimental and starkly powerful reality.
p.s. Neanderthals will in all probability easily hold their title as the reigning hominid species champs over us (+200k yrs now!)
Really interesting points. Neanderthals don't get their due :)
To flourish as humans individually and collectively and to make the ecosystem flourish, we are going to need a socio-economic system that works for the majority, not just a minority. I don't know what this system is but this system is definitely not capitalism. Varoufakis says capitalism is already obsolete and we're actually living under techno-feudalism. Whatever you call the socio-economic system we're living under, it's broken, it makes the majority of people nervous unhappy wrecks, and we've gotta change it.
Flourishing.
I cannot say much besides I disagree with about everything.
We have penicillin now
An anesthesia!
Would love to see this guy debate with Steven Pinker, who provides the receipts.
He provides “some” receipts. Which is a point made in this video.
This guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. The 20 years prior to the pandemic was the greatest increase in global prosperity in human history. Inequity is still high and a problem in some ways but poverty saw its greatest percentage reduction ever! In 20 years a bigger percentage of the human population was released from the suffering of poverty than at times thousands of years of “progress”
That is a monumental achievement, and yes it is “we” it is the majority of humanity. Dude clearly did not read the 2018 world bank report on global poverty and prosperity indices
!
I finally got an answer to my question, thanks to this video, but.
Because of this video, another question asking for answer.
What's the new question?
@@The-Well has humanity fully flourish through out the world?
Four minutes of not really saying anything.
Yup. Another "woke" prof. redefining words. Big surprise.
💯⭐🌟
Let's talk about the men siding their kids out of a landslide in a cobalt mine. Those kids are dying to give you electric cars for a gridc that can't support them. To hell with your climate dogma.
There are two genders, period.
You are making a lot of assumptions. First of all that we evolved. You also paint humans as a blight on the planet, that is another majorly flawed assumption. Only 5% of the world's land mass is developed and all the people on the planet would fit into a dot on a globe. This kind of thinking is going to lead to a totalitarian, anti-human disaster.
We are created beings. We experience so much strife in the world because of our sins. The earth is in a cursed state and is passing away:
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
How do you quantify human "flourishing"? Isn't the sheer number of an increasing population a good indicator of human flourishing? Equality of opportunity is the best equality. Equality of outcome is in essence very anti-equality: you artificially deprived talented people of equal opportunity so they achieve less than untalented ones. If you give animals equal opportunity, fast ones will survive and slow ones will be eaten. Do you want to force fast ones to be eaten at the same rate as slow ones? If so over time the species will become less and less fit. If you want to force equality of outcome in humans, same thing will happen: human race will become less and less fit.
This is just not true. First there is not equity of opportunity while there are inequality of wealth and income. Second no one ever imagined the kind of equity of outcome that anyone can do brain surgery, teach at univeristies or plan a skyscraper. Not everyone will be an Olympic runner or swimmer. So there will be plenty of differences in outcome. But why in wealth and income, that is a purely societal construct and does not reflect any kind of worth, talent, hard work or being good for society, mostly the exact opposite.
@@adamkun5524 I think we should all agree that a brain surgeon should make a lot more money than a cashier. That is how a free market works: if your work is more valuable, you get paid more. Everyone will have the same opportunity to go to school and become a brain surgeon, but only very few can make it. Those who are talented should be rewarded for their valuable work. And if a brain surgeon becomes a lot wealthier than a cashier, it is a good outcome. It incentivizes people to work hard and strive for more success.
You can argue that a cashier puts in as much effort as a brain surgeon does, they both work same number of hours and sweat just the same. But the brain surgeon has more innate talent to begin with, and his work is more valuable and his hourly output generates a lot more value than that of a cashier, and the brain surgeon's talent should be rewarded accordingly. If the cashier thinks the system is unfair, he can work hard to give his children a better education and better nutrition, etc., to make his children more talented and eventually become brain surgeons. This is how our humanity can advance over generations.
Otherwise if you disincentivize people from earning more money through hard work and talent, our society will become lazy and eventually die out.
@@mikecwu Why not question the premise of a brain surgeon making more value? Most people can live a full life without needing a brain surgeon, but no one can live without a need for a cashier. But why do we always make this with brain surgeons and cashiers, why not compare bankers and teachers. Bankers make a lot of money while destroying value. Teachers create a lot of value (for example brain surgeons) but get little pay. It is myth that salaries have anything to do with value.
And why would we become lazy if some jobs do not get more salary than others? If the salary is the same, what would you rather be: a cashier or a brain surgeon?
@@adamkun5524 I agree that we over value brain surgeons. I used brain surgeon only because you brought it up. Let's use rocket scientists, I think their work is far more valuable than cashier or burger flippers. You can use self-checkout and no need for cashier; you can eat at home and no need for burger flippers. But without rocket scientists, humanity will not advance, and can never venture out to the stars. Without expanding into stars and beyond, humanity is eventually doomed, if we stay only here on earth forever.
Teachers' work can be extremely valuable if we educate children not just simple math and language, but also on building good personality, good moral characters, etc. But only very highly training specialists are able to do that, and most teachers can only teach simple math and language.
At the end, it's the market that determines the pay. If the job is simple and many people can do it, then the pay is low. If the job is complex and very few people can do it, and also many people need that service, then those workers are highly paid.
I started out as a government employee and was not satisfied with the pay, so I applied for a senior position. I didn't pass the exam, meaning I'm not as qualified as others who passed, and who have better ability than me and thus can earn more money than me. I was not resentful, I just kept looking for different opportunities.
I later quit the job and started my own business. It was hard and risky, and I put in long hours and lost lots of money. But eventually I learned from my mistakes, and found my market niche, and succeeded in making more money than any government positions at my old employer's place. Had I stayed in my old job I would never make as much. So if someone wants more money, you can always work harder and smarter, not complaining about the society not being fair.
@@adamkun5524 Bro I would rather be the surgeon. Its nonsensical to just get paid by the number of hours you have worked. One big point you are missing is:
You get paid for your specific knowledge and abilitys. Almost everyone can be a cashier but not that many people can be a neurosurgeon
This dude is WRONG about almost everything.
Human beings are better off today than ever, and that is based on the falling number of people living in abject poverty, child mortality rates, availability of electricity and clean water, and a single major shooting war is a big deal today where in the past it was common to have several at once.
He is also,wrong about who supports the idea that we’re not so bad off. The argument is NOT being made only by the West, but is true in India and even China (even in the face of their laundry-list of problems. This shows us the majority of the world making real progress, even in halting steps.
Basically, there is NO data that puts 2023 humanity worse off than 1900 humanity. None. There has been improvement in every direction, all over the world.
NOTE: This dude should never, ever be allowed anywhere near AI because it is his kind of sour, limited, and wrong-headed thinking that will urge AI to kill us all.
Watch any video by Hans Rosling, former statistician for the UN. He lays it out in clear language. He’s on TH-cam.
He's a university professor, enough said
Kid's, he's professor and speaks things those are sensible. Your comment is sensless crap.
God created us. We didn't evolve from animals. *1st Corinthians 15:39 KJV* Please stop believing this lie of evolution, repent to God & get saved by Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour. God loves you. *Romans 10:9-10 KJV* 🙏
His arguments are flawed. Even the poorest people today are still better off than the richest people in the past. I am lucky enough to live in a wealthy country but I am very aware that there are still millions of people suffering in the world. But I dont think guys like this even realize how bad life was before. No medicine, no vaccines, no hygiene, no Housing….literally nothing. Yes you could argue that even if times were harder people where much happier and much less people were suffering depression. Maybe but if you argue that you didnt take into account that in earlier days if you suffered depression or any other disease or mental disability you would habe just died! So yeah people may have been happier but just because the unhappy people die
Woho no medicine caused depression to be cured,look wt COVID disease we now have capacity to make deadly virus ourselves look at technology we can cause depression,look at fake news on social media we can cause panic just by sitting, hahahahah.World is better well depends upon for whom
Agustín Fuentes for president
Please god No!
That's for all of you Steven Pinkers of the world
Would love to see him debate Pinker!
This man completely lacks perspective. We, yes, we as a human species, in the aggregate live longer and better, yes, better, than 99% of all people who have ever lived.