The challenges lie before us and we keep developing tools to help solve them. The big picture is a positive one while the problem solving takes place a the human level.
Things are getting better!
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
The challenges lie before us and we keep developing tools to help solve them. The big picture is a positive one while the problem solving takes place a the human level.
You said:
following my post. The part where you addressed Narz specifically is in the next paragraph. you gave no indication in the above paragraph that you were addressing Narz, so I assumed you were addressing me.
Best not to assume.
Or maybe it's best to just write more clearly. If you meant the entire post to be addressed to Narz, you should have put his name at the top, instead of halfway down.
Lexicus
Deity
It's unclear whether Pinker things that some kind of magical History Force is responsible for making things better, or whether he thinks that the dumb complainers he dismisses as just Unable To Grasp Reality in the first few sentences might have had something to do with these measurable improvements. I also would be interested to see whether things would continue to improve if we took Pinker's ostensible advice and became complacent about everything getting better always, because, something something, the Enlightenment, something something.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The devil in the word "measure".
Lexicus
Deity
Ah, I didn't see most of the second half of the article the first time, must've missed the second quote is an accordion. Okay, heading back...
This is interesting, because to me the statement "the Enlightenment is working" contains only marginally more content than a statement like "purple gleeblors are very dangerous." "Keep doing the Enlightenment" is a hopelessly abstract prescription. It's a slogan, a platitude, rather than an actual plan of action, just as "the Enlightenment is working" is a platitude rather than a theory or even a description of historical change. The crudest Marxist dogma about dialectics is more helpful than this stuff.
This is interesting, because to me the statement "the Enlightenment is working" contains only marginally more content than a statement like "purple gleeblors are very dangerous." "Keep doing the Enlightenment" is a hopelessly abstract prescription. It's a slogan, a platitude, rather than an actual plan of action, just as "the Enlightenment is working" is a platitude rather than a theory or even a description of historical change. The crudest Marxist dogma about dialectics is more helpful than this stuff.
Narz
keeping it real
100 years ago lot of people were poor. Now as many people are starving as even existed back then.
Are you saying the existence of the middle-class cancels that out. 6 of 7 semi-well off cancels out kids with flies in their eyes?
Narz
keeping it real
Well put. Wsj has an agenda and better believe their agenda has nothing to do with the well being of the common man. It's moral boosting. "Stfu and be glad you're not working in a factory 20 hours a day minion!" is the message. Gratitude is a beautiful thing, it shouldn't be used as a weapon to silence those with concerns about civilizations blind momentum.
The spoilered content gets squirrelly sometimes. I went back and redid it this morning because some of post two had disappeared.
IIRC Pinker defines "the Enlightenment" as the thoughtful, scientifically oriented process of improvement.
Narz
keeping it real
Pinker gets high off his own supply (of koolaid).
The enlightenment inspired Europeans to manifest destiny, raping all pillaging the whole world. We live in soft times where the costs of crime are higher than the rewards. You got cameras on every street corner and anyone in a large city in the 1st world won't go hungry. If fossil fuel supplies get cut off for even a week or two see how enlightenmed people are.
You would be more on target to say "Steven Pinker has an agenda." It is his book that he is promoting. What is your agenda?
If civilization's momentum to the future is blind as you say, then what we say, think or do is pretty meaningless. If it is controllable, then listening to smart people is not such a bad idea. In any case understanding how we got to where we are now and seeing the big picture is the first step to understanding how all the smaller pieces fit. changing civilization's momentum happens at ground level, but it only works well when you also grasp how the little pieces fit into each larger element that makes up the big picture.
Narz
keeping it real
Wsj published his agenda therefore it's their''s too.
My agenda is a healthy future for my progeny.
Mostly correct, but we should still act as if we can make a difference.
Pinker may have certain types of intelligence but he believes his own hype too much. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Thinking current trends will continue forever is dumb.
Ok. But blanket stating everything is already getting better all the time why should we need to change, just get out of the way of progress
Lexicus
Deity
Aargh, then his whole explanation of the process kinda becomes circular, no? I am interested in how this process of improvement comes about, and he doesn't seem to have much to offer in that department. Fortunately, as you probably know, I have some theories. One problem I noticed in the quoted text in this thread is that in noting how much less dangerous various occupations have become, I think Pinker is perhaps ignoring the fact that the growth of the informal economic sector means that many injuries, etc. simply don't get reported and thus don't show up in the statistics.
On a far more basic level, it's going to take a lot to convince me that a world where Donald Trump has an end-of-the-world button is better than world where he doesn't, even if the latter world includes slavery and feudal monarchs and all that stuff.
I've been grappling with Pinker for a long time, ever since his book The Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined first came to my attention. I think that book makes a number of claims that aren't really tenable It was panned by anthropologists and archaeologists for drastically misrepresenting the levels of violence in pre-state societies, but my beef is deeper: the whole notion that 'violence has declined' essentially relies on comparing two trends. The first trend is the absolute increase in violence, the second is the absolute increase in population. That we're breeding faster than we're killing each other off certainly says something, but I don't think it says that violence has declined.
It's never quite clear to me what agenda he is promoting. He frequently comes across as a kind of "stop whining children, you have it better than your grandparents did" which I just think is Stupid Discourse that breeds complacency about the world.
Don't be silly. What you say is certainly true of the editorial pages, but not of the remaining content. The agenda of the WSJ overall is to be profitable and include in their paper what interests their subscribers. Marketing 101.
Feed them well, educate them, raise them in a clean environment, and help them find meaningful work that provides a decent income.
Why pretend to have control if you don't think we do? Sounds like a waste of time. Just spend your time on the item above.
You need to read the whole article.
Again, read the article.
Narz
keeping it real
I did read it, he gives taken lip service to "yeah there are some problems, environment, etc" but it doesn't dissuade him from his dogma. His theory is wrong and his explinations as to current trends are wrong.
I read a whole book by Pinker, that's more than enuf for one lifetime.
I can see how he'd be popular with the older generation, they don't want to feel like they've f-ed up the world for the rest of us.
I read a whole book by Pinker, that's more than enuf for one lifetime.
I can see how he'd be popular with the older generation, they don't want to feel like they've f-ed up the world for the rest of us.
So because poverty still exists that means we aren't doing any better? You don't see the flaw in that logic? The argument isn't that absolutely every single person on Earth has an awesome life now, the argument is that, on average, humanity as a whole has a higher quality of life than humanity as a whole 100 years ago. This is an undeniable fact. It is also proven by the fact that some of those very same children who have flies in their eyes also have cellphones and internet access.
So I assume you have sold off all your crypto currency and now advocate for the banning of them due to the negative impact crypto mining is having on the environment. Especially since 60% of all crypto mining takes place in China, and the computers that do the mining are connected to a power grid that gets most of its electricity from burning coal.
If not, then this statement just goes to show your raging hypocrisy. Practice what you preach Narz.
Narz
keeping it real
Lol, a kid with flies in his eyes but who had a cell is better than a kid with flies in his eyes without one. Can't argue with that.
The amount of bitcoins is fixed, therefore whether I own them or someone else does the same amount exist.
Just correcting you in case it was your intention to make some sort of coherent argument.
The amount of bitcoins is fixed, therefore whether I own them or someone else does the same amount exist.
Just correcting you in case it was your intention to make some sort of coherent argument.
There's a healthy balance between complacency and whining.
... and that fixed amount will probably take another ~120 years to be mined entirely.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10486/when-will-the-last-bitcoin-be-mined
God only knows how much electricity this will take.
Spoiler :
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
In short... you're a smart guy, WTH are you smoking?
Similar threads
