If Everything Is Getting Better, Why Do We Remain So Pessimistic? featuring Steven Pinker

[@traianima]

I was trying to explain these things to my pessimistic friend but culdn't find the right words. Now i'll just send him this video :))

[@nikoscuatro7251]

yeah, the world is getting better, mainly for irakis, sirians, yemenis, lebaneses.Oppression, enforced laws that restrict the living of the people is very good, living under government that are controlled by corporations is really really good!

[@johnmiller7453]

I was saying the same thing above but these things tend to fall on deaf and non compassionate ears.

[@justinstark5732]

Holy shit, I'm astounded how many are resistant to the idea that the world is getting better when I discuss this with people

[@squamish4244]

And this is why.

[@johnmiller7453]

I hope then you're not one of those who believes in man made climate change lol.

[@squamish4244]

I don't believe in it - it is a fact. Pinker doesn't deny that global warming is a serious problem (although he downplays just HOW serious it is). It still doesn't undermine his central point that there are many signs of positive change we don't acknowledge. Human psychology also explains the bizarre fact that many people don't want to hear the world is getting better, but also don't want to hear that the world is getting worse with respect to the climate. Our hunter-gatherer brains can't comprehend the seriousness of global warming. (But imagine if it was global *cooling* - then we'd go apeshit. For the entirety of human evolution, during the Ice Age, our primary enemy was cold, not heat. Cold can kill in a few minutes if you can't find shelter, heat just makes you uncomfortable.)

[@selmir369]

.........its negativity,not hate not anything..its Apathy...its the illusion of the mind-content...mind is a Tool for thinking... Heart is the only way ................

[@konberner170]

This is so amazing!! Great work, Steven, and thanks to CATO for this. This is the sort of content that makes me a proud supporter of CATO.

[@War4theWest]

Just know that Pinker is on the record as advocating for Canadian/German style managed capitalism and sees a large role for govt intervening in your affairs. His worldview is diametrically opposed to the ideas of individual sovereignty. He's an elitist and a social engineer - he's just not a socialist in the sense that he doesn't believe communalism works on a large scale. Here's an interview with him on socialism www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1311-november-2013/steven-pinker-clarifies-his-opposition-socialism I guess I'm at a point where slick guys with big ideas make me nervous from the outset.

[@konberner170]

***** Yes, I have been aware of Pinker's political views for some time, and, as a CATO supporter, I am obviously not a fan of them. This is also true for many scientists that I respect, like Richard Dawkins. As Thomas Sowell pointed out in his Intellectuals book, just because a person is intelligent in one area, doesn't mean they will be intelligent in another. In any case, I don't agree or disagree with particular statements because of who makes them; rather, I try to take each statement on its own merit.

[@konberner170]

***** Interesting points, and seems to go a bit down Rawlsian tracks. As Hoppe has done a fine job pointing out, claiming a system to be ethical that is based on forced/involuntary redistribution is a self-defeating argument, as argumentation presupposes resolving conflict via reason rather than force. Thank you for this quote, "Presumably [there is] some third alternative...in the absence of details I can't judge how well it would deal with the constraints imposed by human nature, but I'd argue that its success in bettering people's lives will depend on how well it deals with them." From one perspective it is hard to argue with this, but I find it interesting that he is stuck in the presumption that monolithic and presumably involuntary systems being imposed is inevitable and capable of being ethical. There is such a thing as largely leaving people alone if they are peaceful, while voluntarily supporting enforcement of NAP violation laws. In any case, I can't help liking Steven Pinker, warts and all :)

[@War4theWest]

***** Having furnished the link you are citing from I'm well aware of his fuller comments and I don't think they contravene a thing I said. Sowell's A Conflict of Visions points at a similar, Hobbesian point. But I also think too many humanities/sociologist types see "biological determinism" in a simplisitc, black-white idea when in fact what's innate and what's "socially constructed" are often much harder to divvy up. I read some stupid socialist commenting on Pinker's work lament something along these lines, "it can't be that we are just stuck with greed and aggression due to our biology". The misunderstandings and political biases present in such a statement are legion, but suffice it to say that it's all horseshit. Self-interest is the fucking game of life. We over re-produce and then struggle to survive and thrive like any species. And "aggression" being innately bad? In fact, aggression is quite helpful at times, used properly. At the biological level, the genetics aren't straightforward at all. We are a sexually dimorphic species with vast differences just between men and women - men's genetic material mutates/evolves 33% more rapidly than female, for example. And within species we have a lot of genetic variation. And then each of us is subject to epigenetics that effect how genes are expressed, and these factors come from a huge range of causes. Environment, hormones, emotions, behavior, diet, illness - genes can be switched on and off, and may not even directly be the "cause" of a given behavior. So the whole dialog is kind of idiotic to me. Another way of putting my POV is that there is no real conflict of visions - the unconstrained view is wrong. We've known it for a long time and I'm done treating those who operate from that lens as anything other than dingbats. Just sayin'...Nice commentary here, thanks.

[@konberner170]

***** Nice post. I'm now re-reading Bastiat's _Economic Harmonies_ and he would clearly agree with you that "... The misunderstandings and political biases present in such a statement are legion."

[@aaronyandell2929]

I am a realist and embrace pessimism. I can't I have ever felt bad for losing small amounts of money, because for me that is a minor consequence.

[@jamesclerkmaxwell676]

Great talk.

[@blisteredvision]

If I was to write my list of *bad* things, first. I could counter the length of this list, by applying the _opposite_ effect to each occurrence, in order to compile my *good* list.

[@beatthebag]

blisteredvision So the opposite of driving off a bridge getting trapped in your car and being burned alive would be to NOT drive off a bridge, get trapped in your car and be burned alive? The point is, the opposite of a bad thing isn't necessarily a good thing. And the bad things can be far worse then the good things. The girl you like calling you and saying she wants to go on a date or getting a financial raise is great but quite trivial compared to having a tree fall on you and breaking your rib cage.

[@ChuckSilva]

Steven is amazing.

[@johnmiller7453]

an amazing what?

[@voiceofreason2691]

@@johnmiller7453 Amazing speecher

[@bryanjackson4439]

Not trying to be pedantic, but I thought that the misspelling of "Harvard" at 0:09 was sorta funny.

[@ManicMindTrick]

Shit happens :D

[@myothersoul1953]

4:10 " ...the illusion of the good old days ..." I bet many in the Cato Institute audience were not too happy to have the world view called an "illusion".

[@Andreas-hh9yg]

When i read some comments here I must come to the conclusion that some values and ethics are fundamental different between (Western) Europe and the USA. For me a strong government (which is controlled by the voters!) is a good and important part for a thriving society. And it must be equipped with enough money to do it's work. I'm one of these tax-payers with the highest tax burden and often I think it is too much. But on the other hand I know that by misfortune the next day I could be in a situation where I need the help from our social security system. And it is very helpful for personal hapiness not always living in fear of unemployment and losing health insurance ect. To put constraints on the brutal forces of unregulated capitalism is also very important for a society as a whole. You cannot produce equal living standards for everyone. But by shifting tax money to the poor you can at least provide a minimum of standards so that no one must beg or sleep under a bridge. And this is important to minimize unrest and violence. Certainly there must be incentives to go to work when someone is fit for work. The donations cannot be given without duties. For me it has nothing to do with losing freedom when I pay taxes. I feel freer by not permanently living under the threat of poverty and short life expactency. I know that the irrational fear many US-Americans have against a strong government comes from the 18th and 19th century and was forwarded from one generation to the next. But a modern functioning government has nothing to do with the despotism of monarchies of ancient ages or legal vacuums like the former Wild West (where everybody was shift for oneself). When you compare the huge inequalities of the US-society (and often it has nothing to do with laziness or hard work under which circumstances you must live) and the society for example in Germany or the scandinavian states for me it is no question in which society I want to live. I think that the social market economy is one of the best systems we have at the moment to maximize the well-being of a society and in any case better then the predatory capitalism of the USA. But the USA has the additional problem that the politicians are hugely dependent from the money of the super rich and so the legislative and the government is not independent. In Germany political parties gets money from the "evil" state for their election campaigns (this creates no obligations for specific political directions whatsoever!) and so they are not relying only on donations from corporations and wealthy people. The costs for a presidential campaign in the USA is insane. Because of this I think the political system of the USA is broken and a stronger government can be indeed a problem in this country because the super rich gets even more power. So first the financing of the political system must be fixed. But my fear is that persons like for example the Koch brothers are already too powerful so that a conversion of the USA into a really functioning democracy is not possible in the foreseeable future.

[@otoolepw]

That's it, I'm getting off Live Leak 😳

[@Someone-cr8cj]

You should've done that a long time ago.

[@johnmiller7453]

I haven't really seen evidence that everything is getting better. Who said that? and I don't see any golden age as he says I should and I'm 65 and well read. He sure assumes a lot. There was no good old days. Things have always been a mix of better and worse moment to moment. I never think things are better or worse. I think things are just generally bad all the time and nothing much changes over time.

[@BUSeixas11]

john miller But that is your perspective. From a disinterested point of view, have poverty, disease and hunger declined? The answer is yes for all three. Check Our World in Data

[@squamish4244]

Yes. Psychology is reality where our personal happiness is concerned, though, so we have to do more than make external conditions better if we want to truly be happy. It's a problem of internal wiring.

[@aaronyandell2929]

He has a point. People in life today have greater advantages. More people are able to survive, thanks to modern medicine. Music, art and literature have advanced, and with it moral standard. Science and technology have advanced, making life easier. We now know more about health, that is many people strive to keep themselves in healthy condition (physically, mentally, socially and sexually).

[@johnmiller7453]

@@BUSeixas11 As population increase these will again increase and are. Things travel a circular route or hadn't you noticed?

[@johnmiller7453]

@Keadin Mode see my reply to Bernardo

[@dbraden1958]

Things are getting better, but government corruption is also increasing, and capturing much of the benefits.

[@darwinkilledgod]

I don't think government corruption is increasing. Its size is increasing certainly, but corruption? FDR tried to appoint new justices to the Supreme Court because they kept stopping him. Imagine if Obama suggested that? No one would tolerate it.

[@dbraden1958]

darwinkilledgod There is a lot of evidence of increasing government corruption, even though evaluating the level of corruption is difficult.. Look at the list of convicted politicians and note how most of them are recent: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes or federal politicians: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicans_convicted_of_crimes Also consider the growth of government spending (more opportunity for pay to play corruption), and the increase of unfunded liabilities of government pensions, Social Security and Medicare: where favors are sold to be paid by increasing taxes on our children. The bonds sold by Illinois are rated as junk. Per www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/opinion/laurence-kotlikoff-on-fiscal-gap-accounting.html?_r=0 "I calculate that the “fiscal gap” - a yardstick of total government indebtedness that I’ve worked on with the economists Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale - was $210 trillion last year, up from $205 trillion the previous year. Thus $5 trillion was the true deficit." Kotlikoff also points out that grandma's Social Security payments aren't included in the official debt, while her income from treasury bonds is showing the accounting corruption.

[@beatthebag]

dbraden1958 government corruption was invented with the concept of government. It's been around for 3,000 years, it's not "increasing", it's always been there. Governments used to burn people alive for saying anything anti-government, we now have free speech, voting rights among many other rights that are very new in human history.

[@dbraden1958]

Auditory Entertainment I think long term, government power and corruption have declined, starting with the Magna Carta thru the founding of the USA. And I think the USA was doing quite well until about 1910, at which point progressives created the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and started doing two things: Creating national welfare (Social Security, the Great Society, etc.) Regulating commerce The first was an insult to the idea that government's purpose was to protect our freedoms, and started allowing it to take from some for the benefit of others. This is an incentive to produce less, so we've have produced less and are less prosperous as a result. As the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ..." Taking from some for the benefit of others isn't equality nor is it protecting us from those who'd take our money via a vote such as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. The second replaced a free market with a scheme that allows politicians to pick winners/losers in commerce, giving the 1% rich an advantage in getting picked as a winner at the expense of everyone else. This corruption has captured much of the value that we would otherwise have.

[@squamish4244]

Things are still incalulably better than they were 100 years ago.

[@MrSvenovitch]

Read this guy's book while you're starving on the sand somewhere, riddled with disease. The Kool Aid is strong in him.