the facts seem pretty clear with war, historical genocide, half the world makes 2 bucks a day, what evidence are you looking at? I don't want to hear about people moving from extreme poverty to poverty that is not making shit better. I don't see the same results you do I guess.
-
-
-
What evidence? The book is more than 500 pages, if you are sincerely interested in the evidence then maybe you should read it. Also, how is poverty not better than extreme poverty? No one is claiming we live in a utopia.
-
So you claim there is no war or has been no genocide take a look around go travel and see for yourself reality real life has more impact than some stupid book full of graphs based on samples
-
What does that even mean? You disregard scientific research because it's "based on samples?" You realize that means disregarding practically all scientific research? Of course there are still terrible things happening in the world, no one is arguing otherwise.
-
I don't disregard it. How crazy would it be if we made no progress at all, it has to make some progress. I argue that by being complacent like his book seems to suggest we forego increasing the velocity of progress. Just seems oxymoron sample and accuracy. They are not 100%
-
He doesn't suggest that we be complacent--in fact the exact opposite. He makes it a point (in the introduction even, IIRC) to make clear that that this progress isn't inevitable. He argues that the progress is a result of enlightenment ideas and that we should defend them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s incredible that by recognising progress you are considered an optimist and by recognising problems and failures you are considered a realist. We must understand progress to help us become less naive about the world!
#EnlightenmentNow - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
We do not live in a sustainable society. You seem to not believe that, or are inexplicably unconcerned. The impressive gains you cite will be lost if we fail to address systemic flaws. Use moral sense: http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2008/12 pic.twitter.com/iQtomyc0bA
-
Did you read the book? Pinker literally says that climate change is the greatest problem humanity has ever faced. Where do you get off saying he is unconcerned? The quote that you cite discusses grinding poverty, which is, undebatably improving, faster than any time in history.
-
He has made mention of the challenge. I have not seen him promote any proposal that would bring rates of carbon emissions into line w/ what most ppl think is acceptable. I don't see that he has said our society is unsustainable. (~1 billion ppl in severe poverty in 1800, & now.)
-
There's no better way to trivialize the reduction in poverty than to cite it the way you just did. More than 90% of the world's population down to less than 10% in destitution. Rates plummeting far faster than the population is growing. This stuff actually matters.
-
We live in an unsustainable society. Any celebrated gains are temporary unless we address that fact. To secure long-term success, we must account for econ. externalities, so that ecological degradation, resource depletion will not be profitable. Solution: http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2018/06/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html …pic.twitter.com/mo9tQtKsV9
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How dare you believe problems can be solved sir? What's next nuance?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"check the facts" That might be a / the core principle of the Enlightenment itself.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Most of us do not live our lives contemplating a selection of quantifiable 'facts.' We live in the world where despair cannot be ignored; where every uplifting 'fact' is far outweighed by evidence of human folly and hubris. Pride precedes tragedy.
-
Right, but it's not about how you live your life. The book is about humanity at the global level, and what factors have correlated to what benefits. At a time when there's a global conservative push against progress, these facts need to be understood
-
Maybe, but his facts are selective. The context is narrow. The trends Pinker touts are fragile and can reverse at any time. He promotes complacency and blind faith in science.
-
You do understand that science is the antithesis of blind faith, right? If the trends are so fragile, why aren't they reversing? Pinker seeks to explain and highlight the trends. I don't see that as complacency, nor do I see a problematic ideology behind it
-
No, I do not understand science as an 'antithesis' of blind faith. Science cannot solve all of our problems. Technological advances initiate new problems. To assume otherwise requires a leap of faith.
-
Look, Pinker's shtick is annoying because he does indeed reiterate that those who see dark times ahead are foolish or stupid. It is exactly about how you live your life. Do you trust the controlling powers or do you not?
-
The global progress you cite comes at great cost. There is a reciprocal loss of individual autonomy with each 'benefit.' Science in the service of global corporatism is a power for enslavement of the many.
-
Maximizing short-term profit implicitly accepts faith in progress. No redundancy in corporate metrics that do not account for long-term costs, costs in human autonomy. W/r/t Pinker's faithful trends, see Nassim Nicholas Taleb's takedown of his statistical methodology.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.