Steven Pinker Wants Enlightenment Now!

[@ArupGuhaideasanctuary]

wow an interviewer who has actually done some research on the topic and doesn't just leaf through the notes handed to him while pretending to listen

[@AR333]

The divide between Enlightenment values and anti-Enlightenment values has always been a divide over the place of human reason. If you think revelation overrules reason, then reason is subordinated where in practice this means one person's authority rules over another. If you believe that there is no such thing as truth, or that reason is inept at attaining truth, then everything becomes a "power" game. Religious dogma used to be the main enemy of reason, postmodernism is now the new enemy. It's not surprising that enemies of truth and reason in the end are only interested in power. If you're interested in truth, you're interested in dialogue, not domination. If you don't care for truth, you're a despot.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

AR333, that’s one of the best comments I’ve read in a while. You got to the core of the matter, and well put too

[@timtuber8085]

Very good post. Today reason is under assault by both the old traditionalists and postmodernists.

[@BjornMoren]

Nick is a brilliant interviewer, but I would have enjoyed longer and more detailed replies by Pinker. Maybe they tried to cover too many topics. Overall a great interview though, thanks for sharing this.

[@seanwebb605]

It's a big book to get through. I'm very grateful that long format interviews like this are available.

[@joslinnick]

Best hair in science?

[@mikefixac]

He does, but I want to trim Nick's sideburns.

[@neilsparks1978]

Was thinking whether his hair is painted on

[@BuckFieri]

Pinker is such a fundamental thinker.

[@RaceBannonChannel]

This is such a good interview! I immediately bought his new book. Thanks Reason for doing this.

[@colinc1878]

Not yet having watched the whole interview yet I have to say the tone of the introduction alone was very inspiring & motivating. I think Pinker / ReasonTV should expand on the intro video alone as a compassionate plea for the need for Enlightenment reasoning. Too often libertarian / enlightenment arguments cede the empathy / pathos / feelings side of the argument to bleeding heart liberals or "think of the children" conservatives.

[@neilsparks1978]

Great point and wholeheartedly agree

[@BoxRadishScissors]

From Wikipedia: "In February 2001, Pinker, "whose hair has long been the object of admiration, and envy, and intense study",[112] was nominated by acclamation as the first member of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists (LFHCfS) organized by the Annals of Improbable Research."

[@pennsylvaniagazette124]

More interviews, please!

[@williamofdallas]

well that was a short hour

[@SterlingArcherify]

A video published 30 minutes ago, 59 minutes long... as of THIS writing, the haters would have to have arrived from 30 minutes in the future to have watched the whole thing and formulated a reasonable opinion. Watch the damn video, people.

[@soren9833]

The enlightenment is dead, and I have killed it.

[@davidanderson9664]

Good interviewer - and Pinker is The Bomb, intellectually. It might take you awhile but if you read his "Better Angels" and "Enlightenment Now" you will be a much better informed person/voter/. D.A., J.D., NYC

[@benjaminperez969]

When reading Nietzsche, one can't help feeling that he was the first and last brutally honest person (e.g., "The demand to be loved is the greatest kind of arrogance"); when reading Pinker, one can't help feeling that he is the first and last utterly reasonable/rational person. Nietzsche's lessons steel one's soul; Pinker's lessons soothe one's temper and edify one's mind. Nietzsche toughens one up; Pinker straightens one out. It might be best to incorporate the best of each thinker's best: free spirit∞free thinker hybrids might even transcend Enlightenment, after enacting it.

[@mikefixac]

OK, I just got my doctorate in smartness :). Wow, I enjoyed this.

[@Tsukiko.97]

The Truth Cannot be sexist!

[@andrew-paulclements1502]

I assume you mean objective truth Like Gender being biological

[@llamasarus1]

People in Ivory towers telling us things are getting better.....I quit reading his book after he started supporting carbon taxes and claimed that gang violence has no root causes....

[@TheScientificSkeptic]

That just shows that you're ignorant and can't follow.

[@llamasarus1]

The Scientific Skeptic ignorant to what? If you think your so rational because your ‘scientific skeptic’ than educate me!

[@roggie77777]

We are not we are idiots, fools and cowards. I talk to people every day who know literally nothing of this country it's history or founding principles

[@j7220]

First of all, I am a huge fan of Steven Pinker. Though I have not read Enlightenment Now, he seems to suggest that general progress and upward mobility of humankind is on such a positive trajectory, we need not be concerned with any potential obstacles in the way of this progress. For instance, does he acknowledge the argument of globalization doing perhaps more harm than good regarding wages and full time employment for "low-skilled" workers? Has globalization helped developing countries at the expense of American workers? I am no fatalist, but I simply want to know if he acknowledges these problems in his new book. I would love to hear from those of you who have read it.

[@sbeast64]

ENLIGHTENMENT + VEGANISM = 👍 ENLIGHTENMENT - VEGANISM = 👎 SIMPLE MATHS FOLKS

[@nikolademitri731]

That last point he makes is critical: we have made progress, but we’re always in danger of losing it. I don’t think people take the time to realize this fact often enough, if at all. I, for one, am increasingly worried about just how likely it appears losing progress is inevitable.. I guess I’m a pessimist, in the sense that I think things will get pretty unbelievably terrible in the future, at least there’s a high probability that such is the case (so perhaps that’s being a realist). The reality is that we’re on a crash course with disaster if we don’t, as a species, change our trajectory in a handful of important ways. I agree with Steve, things have gotten better, and enlightenment values can help ensure that we will continue to improve, but I’m afraid we’re moving away from some of those values in a variety of ways. I’m also afraid that if we don’t do what we need to do to stabilize a lot of global unrest, and correct the problems that are causing it, that we will, sooner or later, be plunged into a situation where enlightenment values are chucked out the window, because chaos will lead to totalitarian tyranny. We’re already seeing this in various ways, as liberty is consistently being traded for a sense of “safety” (but are we any safer?). Looking forward to digging into this book. Thanks, Steven, and thank you, Nick. ✌🏼

[@williamschlass4598]

Nikola Demitri this is why jonathan haidts work on the righteous mind really struck me to the core. We need liberals to show us the way forward, but we also need conservatives to show us the things we musnt forget or let go of. A bird cannot fly without the right or left wings - thats why we use the word wing in the political context. The common reflex today to demonize the other side of the aisle for the crimes of their extreme adherents is unfortunately misplaced and may be leading us to a second civil war.

[@liamshaughnessy6246]

Listening to this on the Overdrive library app!

[@christianrodier3381]

A profound and refreshing discussion

[@MarkWrightPsuedo]

I've been reviewing Kant's work, which led to a denial of reason. Kant asserts we are forever "cut off" from reality, there is a "gulf." Where are the philosophers pointing out the sheer illogic and lunacy of such a proposition? It takes only a brief thought experiment to see this is completely inaccurate. We are not "cut off" from reality, our senses and mind rather link us to reality--a far more empirically representative and accurate term. It MUST be so, because we would not survive long as a species if our sense apparatus was completely cut off from an accurate representation of reality. Now, if Kant only wanted to explore the limits of reason, that is certainly a laudable goal. Our reason is limited. It must be. Identifying exactly how it is can only be helpful to us as thinkers. But apparently that was not his concern--destroying rationality was. To simply deny reason by his slight-of-hand pretending to be philosophy is absurd and offensive.

[@Lopfff]

God I love Pinker! And Nick Gillespie ain't bad either ;)

[@liamshaughnessy6246]

Love this author and said book!

[@justinbosley692]

One thing that is actually going down are happiness and people's positivity about the future. Suicide rates have been increasing since the 50s.

[@MacLuckyPTP]

If schools are any good why is it that you can't get but a min wage job after graduation?

[@ExtremeBogom]

Great discussion.

[@PreciousBoxer]

There is no good reason for the war on drugs to have exacerbated to the point of an opioid epidemic/crisis, nor a good reason to keep from repealing the Controlled Substances Act. _Part_ of the problem is the monopoly the AMA has had over medical licensure and why the physician has prescriptive authority rather than the individual adult consumer since evidence-based medicine includes patients' values and preferences as a core staple. smh

[@s0nnyburnett]

Would like to see some deeper discussions touched on here. Bit too much preaching to the choir and skimming over topics. Nick and Pinker have some funny moments in here. Had to pause to laugh about the final terminus on the road to serfdom.

[@robert5897]

really underrated interview

[@mikeissweet]

I started listening to his book today - it's quite good so far, but following his recognition of the free market's unmatched ability to innovate and provide for the poor, he defends social programs which he effectively admits will stagnate innovation

[@michaels1416]

Pinker is definitely correct about religious dogma leading to great carnage. Good point. Sincerely, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot

[@elsupremo3651]

Terrific interview!

[@aiahzohar5636]

I call BS on this. America NEVER was based on the idea that "all men and women are created equal." The first settlers in the lands that would become the US committed genocide on a continental scale. Then we imported slaves. And today, we have the world's highest per capita imprisonment rate, unsurprisingly disproportionately people of similar economic backgrounds and race. Not to mention a WIDENING gap between the super-wealthy and everyone else--and what many scholars find to be an erosion of the democratic process as a result. And in this land of equality, the latest global health challenge is UNequally killing people based on how much money they have, their race, and the kinds of jobs they're stuck in. Nevertheless, corporate moguls unleashed their lobby armies to hound Congress to protect corporations from negligence lawsuits should workers get sick while at work. Pinker said a few years ago that due to medical technological advances and how much better the world had become (tell that to the RECORD number of species going extinct due to humanity), pandemics just don't happen anymore. Maybe enlightenment means coming to terms with what scientists tell us about human beings--that we're among the mammals most likely to savage and kill each other. And that we are behind mind-boggling despeciation and other ecological harms. All the while, many of us argue these things are OK. (OK for us, maybe.) See: Gómez, J., Verdú, M., González-Megías, A. et al. The phylogenetic roots of human lethal violence. Nature 538, 233-237 (2016). & Yinon M. Bar-On, Rob Phillips, Ron Milo, The biomass distribution on Earth, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (25) 6506-6511 (2018).

[@stevenroberts3944]

As did every other cultural expression.

[@aiahzohar5636]

​@@stevenroberts3944 Every other cultural "expression" doesn't claim to recognize, let alone value, the proposition that different people are "created equal," before the law or otherwise.

[@alvincay100]

Moral decay now!

[@roggie77777]

The answer is thorium nuclear, plenty of fuel almost no waste by products

[@Earthandweather]

What is the right amount of carbon dioxide that should be in our air? No one has answered this for me. Plants pretty much die at 115 ppm and flourish at 1,100 ppm.

[@Chronically_ChiII]

It's not the plants that are under direct threat of carbon emissions. The change of climate due to positive-feedback-loop chemical reactions that happen in our atmosphere is the problem. They then have detrimental effects on plants (more importantly, plankton) due to unstable temperature, storms and rising sea level.

[@alvincay100]

Optimists are trying to sell you something.... hmmmm. Like a book?

[@seanwebb605]

Jordan Peterson isn't very optimistic and he is selling his book too.

[@logondash]

I would love to see Steven Pinker discuss the low European birthrates with someone else who is Alt-Right. Thanks for the discussion. It was perfect.

[@LanceWinslow]

It would seem to me that nearly everything he is saying is rather obvious and anyone who has ever stopped to really think about these issues would come to the same conclusions and thus, offer up much of the same in the way of solutions. Just sayin' - I'll read through the book of course, but that's my take on this, after watching the interview herein. BTW - he's not totally infallible as he made a couple of incorrect statements, unsubstantiated claims typical of academia, but all-in-all a good intellectual dialogue here today...thanks

[@robertfapswell3719]

You’ll never get it if you don’t ask!

[@jccusell]

Great interview, small piece of advise though: as a host don't start talking more than your guest.

[@caseycarlisle7542]

Agreed. Why watch Grumpy Gillespie perpetually interrupt and talk over yet another guest when one can watch Dave Rubin gracefully interview Steven Pinker for the same amount of time? kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHyWnqBuhZdkl9E

[@qb4428]

One place where Pinker is wrong is assuming that it's good for kids to be in schools. The vast majority of people do not use or remember the vast majority of what is taught in schools, and most kids would be better off working in jobs or in apprenticeships as teens instead of sitting in a classroom learning things they don't care about and will never use again.

[@bearriver685]

Q B Kids that go to school are better off than kids that do not. Facts don't care about your feelings.

[@23wtb]

*Kids who are engaged in a productive activity are better off than kids who are left unattended and unoccupied. FTFY

[@qb4428]

Bear River Explain why home schooled kids perform the best? And I don't deny that getting a credential helps people in life. I simply understand that school is not about getting useful skills, but rather jumping through hoops for a piece of paper. Hell, answer this for me: would you rather have a Harvard diploma without a Harvard schooling or a Harvard schooling without the diploma?

[@qb4428]

William I agree, and school is not productive activity. Evidence for that is that people don't retain much of the course material, proving that it's useless.

[@DiningInwithstevielynn]

Q B An educated populous is more apt to grasp concepts such as reason. Granted there are some people who are academically challenged and should be using their hands instead and vice-versa. The future is mostly intellectual. And please don’t tell me that kids don’t learn in school. Most adults are not illiterate and most adults can do Algebra at the very least.

[@homewall744]

Liberty and equality under the law imply limited government (limited powers over people) are the greatest gift received from the past. But most prefer authority, prefer to punish those they disagree with, prefer a false sense of security/safety, cling to guns and religions, hoping that violence solves national interests.

[@louisblackforester]

But what about the human spirit Mr. Pinker ?

[@syasya3722]

Wdy mean about spirit?

[@michaelmichael2382]

@@syasya3722 i think he an esoteric

[@syasya3722]

@@michaelmichael2382 wydm??

[@Webfra14]

Can we do it tomorrow, I'm busy right now...

[@FPOAK]

Gillespie is a good interviewer. He should take over Charlie Rose's former show.

[@DrNES73]

Let's entirely ignore the profound religious influences on The Enlightenment. It doesn't fit our narrative. Let's also blame wars and carnage on religion and ignore politics as the real source. The Roman Empire was so mild until it adopted Christianity, right? Thanks for the Atheist dogma.

[@freesk8]

Sorry, after such a brilliant interview, I have only this one, stupid comment: Steven Pinker superficially resembles the evil Prince Humperdinck in "The Princess Bride." kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKnCYX6igLR8fZI

[@ptptpt123]

Only lefite which might escape Righty dislike bomb.

[@Renegen1]

The enlightenment is dead.

[@squamish4244]

So long, northern white rhino.

[@MrLibertyFighter]

The idea that the enlightenment grew out of a humanistic worldview is patently rubbish. The vast majority of the people who truly pushed the ideas and understanding that lead to the enlightenment understood the profound impact of Yeshua's Gospel message on their own lives and subsequently the world and all peoples around them. People like the medieval Irish, who's uncalculable impact for truth and love and progress, have all but been ignored. After the conversion and widespread teachings of Saint Patrick, they almost single handedly brought Europe out of the dark ages through a pure teaching of the Gospel that Christ taught, and they (contrary to what Pinker seems to think) combined this with an insatiable desire to explore and understand the world around them, to better their fellow humans, and speak truth to power. I would vehemently argue that without this clearly revolutionary set of ideas that Christians (followers of Christ, not Christendom) held, there would have been no enlightenment whatsoever.

[@andrew-paulclements1502]

MrLibertyFighter Have you ever heard of Christian Humanism?

[@MrLibertyFighter]

I can respect that sort of worldview, although I've always been a bit perplexed by the term, as Christianity in its original sense already included any aspects that humanism might seek to bring to the table. I haven't heard a ton from Pinker, but it seems pretty clear that he's not referring to that sort of thing. Why do you ask?

[@andrew-paulclements1502]

MrLibertyFighter Just wanted to bring it up Secular Humanism came from Christian Humanism, which originated from a merging of Classical thought and Christian Religious thought

[@MrLibertyFighter]

I see. What would you say was brought from Classical thought and what was brought from Christian thought?

[@RenneDanjoule]

The Dark Enlightenment you mean.

[@cnnhean]

Steven Pinker is the next Jorden Peterson of youtube.

[@Chronically_ChiII]

I actually wouldn't mind, unless it gets to his head.

[@cnnhean]

G.G. he is pretty smart with new and good attitude and perspective, but he doesn't seem to have the same momentum, i hope to hear more from him

[@GOffUnit]

I can only imagine how flattered he'd be to hear that...

[@guusvandermeulen7210]

On this moment, I disagree with Pinker on the relative costs of the fukushima incident. And I think it's not unlikely that Pinker will change his opinion on this issue when he explores the costs of this incident in more detail. I like to see a fact based foundation of his claim on this issue. I can't give a fact based foundation of my claim that the fukushima incident is a example for not letting enterprises use nuclear power for producing electricity.

[@DoritoWorldOrder]

46:36 "The fact that parenting doesn't have a lasting effect on the personalities of children..." this is completely wrong, and by no means supported by the preponderance of the available data. There are certainly diminishing returns when it comes to trying to be a perfect parent, but on the other end of the gamut: children enduring abuse, neglect, and other adverse parenting practices or failures of parents to provide for their safety and developmental needs, has been shown to be very strongly predictive of negative outcomes later in life... everything from higher rates of depression/anxiety and mental health issues, higher likelihood to become addicted to drugs and alcohol, higher likelihood of committing property crime and violent crime, lower life expectancy and poorer health outcomes, lower educational attainment, lower career attainment, lower lifetime income... the list goes on and on. Serious failures of parenting can be devastating to the personality development of children, are widespread, and represent one of the few areas where the perceived "decline of society" is in some sense true, as two-parent households continue to decline and put children at greater risk of suffering adverse experiences with lasting consequences--especially in lower income communities.

[@bearriver685]

Looks like a small wave of bot trolls in the comment section. Outstanding.

[@qb4428]

Solar power is not an unquestionable good. Making solar panels is incredibly wasteful, and despite all of this time, money, and govt backing, less than 1% of global energy are produced from solar and wind power combined.

[@qb4428]

Zero dollars and zero cents. Now where is your argument, you filthy hippy? -_-

[@Dubmmb]

"If your energy source is good, then how much is the percent of global is it then energy then? Checkmate atheists" - Rand Paul You are absolutely right the shift from wood to coal were a huge mistake because it were a minor energy source before the evil government funded coal industry started making coal powerplants :(

[@qb4428]

Mobe Solar and wind power have existed for over 50 years. Still waiting.

[@Dubmmb]

if you look locally some places have a much higher percent of their power comming from renewable sources mostly in the western part of the world while third world shitholes are still burning coal and wood like its 1857, which is in fact most of the world globally.

[@Dubmmb]

aww you made get all serious on the internet, good job, sir.

[@withered8253]

thats nice, but my heart belongs to Peterson

[@TheScientificSkeptic]

Why? He's not an intellectual. He's an amateur KZbinr who has an incoherent epistemology and goes after low hanging fruit.

[@sjenner76]

I’m a big fan of Pinker. But just one point of clarity (admittedly on an incomplete side thought that Pinker expressed): Roman Catholicism has never had a problem with major scientific advances or theories. (Indeed, even the great wrong done to Galileo had more to do with his work as a satirist and his disobedience of political authority than it did with the fundamental idea of heliocentrism. Emerson T. McMullen, Galileo’s Condemnation: the real and complex story, Ga. J. Sciences (2003).) Thus, while the decided majority of Protestant congregations were highly condemnatory of the teachings of Geology and Evolution, the Catholic Church never condemned these disciplines. Quite the opposite, while favoring a generally allegorical interpretation of Genesis (a very ancient idea within the Church as it is within Judaism). Great Catholic thinkers actually added considerably to the body of knowledge. For example, Nicolas Steno, a Roman Catholic bishop, pioneered Geology, while Gregor Mendel, an Abbot of the Augustinian order, actually invented the science of Genetics, which is Evolution’s indispensable twin. And Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, pioneered the idea of an expanding non-steady state universe, the origin of which was the Big Bang (from which arose a great deal of modern cosmology). These are just a smattering of the enormous contributions made to our understanding of the material universe by those professing a spiritual life, in profound harmony with scientific rigor and discipline.

[@seanwebb605]

Nonsense.

[@VrilWaffen]

Newton and Locke were deeply religious people as well. They also were both English and drank coffee. Being English and being a coffee drinker are as legitimate variables as religious denomination. Their personal opinion on the fate of the universe has nothing to do with their rigorous, scientific investigation into physical reality.

[@sjenner76]

exjxk 1993, I wouldn’t argue your point. I do, however, believe that certain traditions adapt more easily to scientific truth than others, and foster an environment more conducive to it. That was my primary concern.

[@Warren_Oates_Ghost]

His hair proves he knows what he's talking about.

[@carolm62]

Great interview! Looking forward to reading the book!

[@seanwebb605]

I found it very difficult to get through The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Blank Slate and The Sense of Style. Perhaps because Pinker's books tend to be about 600 pages long, but more likely because many of the topics were fairly new to me. Often while reading one of his books I'll put it down and find an easier book on the topic then come back to it. So each Pinker book requires me to read two or three other books. lol This one is going faster for me.

[@freerovingbovine]

Professor Picker is truly awesome in his promotion of Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress but misses global warming issues. I would point out that waste heat is the problem with nuclear power or any power that adds a heat load that the Earth is not equipped to reject to space. Solar power, while not as efficient (25% vs 45% for nuclear) in the conversion to electricity, solar would have otherwise went to heat the planet anyway. So, in that sense solar power reduces the net heat load by converting 25% to useful work, while nuclear, and fossil fuel combustion adds to the heat load even though some goes to useful work. It's like turning on the stove to cook your tea rather than making sun tea. It the first case you need to run the air conditioner to reject the stove heat as well as the sun coming in the window, while in the second case the sun's heat is diverted to the tea and the house might be cooler overall. The problem with the added heat load from burning or decaying (fossil uranium comes from 10 Ga supernovas and fossil plant matter comes from 400 Ma Carboniferous forests) is that it immediately increases moisture and cloud cover which insulates the planet at least 25 times more than CO2 emissions. A clear dry night sky rejects @ 50 W m-2 more than cloudy nights, while CO2 emissions is maybe 2 W m-2 more than pre-industrial times. To be fair, nuclear energy would be okay if the reactor were placed at high altitude desert locations where the excess heat could be rejected directly to space using nighttime infrared radiators rather than heating up local reservoirs which increase in humidity and cloud cover. More effort needs to be made to improve the planets Active Thermal Control Systems. IMHO

[@syasya3722]

Steven Pinker discusses the environmental chapter. He acknowledged global warming and the destruction of nature as problems that must be addressed immediately. But he rejects the leftist alternative against industry and returns to a past life of beauty. Pinker offers several rational alternatives such as nuclear to replace fossil fuels. He also explained how environmental projects have saved the ecosystem, something that is rarely published in the media About nuclear 70% of the French industry is nuclear and not fossil based. And the result? France is an industrial country with the lowest carbon emissions. Not only that, France is also the largest exporter of electricity so far en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

[@freerovingbovine]

@@syasya3722 Since the invention of the steam engine the limitation in delivering work from heat has been in the effectiveness of the radiator. Our radiators dump heat to the air and water bodies. While the planet has been accumulating heat 22x the rate of human consumption, we concentrate all our efforts on the tiny wavelength between 10-15 cm, where CO2 is the dominant heat flow barrier. Obviously I am a heretic for saying so, but this is will not solve the problem.

[@syasya3722]

@@freerovingbovine I still don't see a solid basis for arguing against being nuclear. Carbon emissions and global warming will clearly occur. But we can mitigate the impact of global warming. The key is to minimize the damage without sacrificing the human need for energy. Nuclear is an alternative here. Western European countries have made nuclear an alternative. France is just one example of how effectively nuclear mitigates carbon emissions but with an abundance of energy. If there is a problem, then the problem lies in America which opposes environmental projects, including refusal to ratify the Paris Agreement

[@freerovingbovine]

@@syasya3722 Nuclear, when properly designed is not a problem. But, it doesn't make sense a lot of sense exhausting industrial waste heat to pools of water and increasing air temperature that holds more water vapor. It's not a coincidence that Hurricane Harvey struck Texas and Louisiana where average temperatures were 3.5 oF higher due in part to vast fields of petroleum refineries in the area. My choice would be wood chips from forest underbrush: carbon neutral, ash easily sequestered on crop land, and fire control in one step. Still, I'd prefer the generators run only on clear nights, to more easily radiate directly to space. "The unprecedented heat during the summer period (June-August) of 2011 across Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana resulted in these states having their warmest summers on record. Average temperatures for the summer in Texas and Oklahoma, at 86.8 degrees F (30.4 degrees C) and 86.5 degrees F (30.3 degrees C), respectively, exceeded the previous seasonal statewide average temperature record for any state during any season. The previous warmest summer statewide average temperature was in Oklahoma, during 1934, at 85.2 degrees F (29.6 degrees C)." www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201108

[@syasya3722]

@@freerovingbovine Regarding carbon neutral, it is also proposed by Pinker in the enlightenment now as an alternative energy. I just agree with that. As for nuclear, I still take France as an example. France has a good mechanism for managing the nuclear waste "France is one of the few countries in the world with an active nuclear reprocessing program, with the COGEMA La Hague site. Enrichment work, some MOX fuel fabrication, and other activities take place at the Tricastin Nuclear Power Center. Enrichment is completely domestic and is powered by 2/3 of the output of the nuclear plant at Tricastin. Reprocessing of fuel from other countries has been done for the United States and Japan, who have expressed the desire to develop a more closed fuel cycle similar to what France has achieved . MOX fuel fabrication services have also been sold to other countries, notably to the USA for the Megatons to Megawatts Program, using plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons "(wikipedia) As for the release of energy at night only, green Land is one of the countries (CMIIW) which due to the rotation of the earth has 3 months without night. Such an alternative simply does not make sense

[@Landern11]

He wants a carbon tax? I'm out.

[@williamofdallas]

Even if it means cutting income tax?

[@BuonoBruttoCattivo77]

Why wouldn't you want you and your neighbor to pay the full cost of their activity? How would the market work properly without internalizing that externality? Isn't that a market distortion?

[@nikolademitri731]

Me too. I can’t listen to someone’s ideas if they differ from mine. No matter how many interesting and poignant things he has to say and/or valid points he has to make, he is for something that I am opposed to, so goodbye baby and goodbye bath water!

[@Chronically_ChiII]

Like Sam Harris argued for. A carbon tax is way more libertarian than people give it credit. You as an individual is getting disrupted by pollution of other people and companies. They should pay that cost.

[@AKlover]

He already did an interview with Dave Rubin that has gotten over 70K views in a day. I'm surprised he bothered with Reason at all.

[@FPOAK]

The difference is that Nick actually read the book.

[@xxcrysad3000xx]

Haha, yes. And is a better interviewer in general.

[@Chronically_ChiII]

xxcrysad3000xx, Chimfish. True, true. Nick has read more books than Dave and then can therefore, ask more serious questions. I just feel like that this interview could have been longer, or that they would not skim over so many subjects.

[@GOffUnit]

I suspect Pinker is more interested in reaching Reason's demographic than Rubin's.

[@AKlover]

By that you mean commies pretending to be Libertarians because they like Marijuana??? Half of this videos views come from people replying to comments.

[@loug6445]

How can you take this guy seriously when he wears his like like a hobo?

[@Lopfff]

I happen to like his like

[@coletrain5667]

I'm not usually one to get involved in the infighting amongst libertarians, but when it comes to climate change alarmism & carbon tax supporters I have to draw the line. It rubs me the wrong way that Reason would even give someone who believes in anthropogenic climate change the time of day. I don't know anything about climate forecasting, but I do know economics. What I KNOW is that the state is little more than a cult, and the same people pushing climate change alarmism have been the same people pushing every other kind of social engineering based on marxist presuppositions. I KNOW these people are wrong about every other state intervention they push, I know how much damage their precious state has done to society. These people are completely brainwashed, they worship the state, and they know absolutely nothing about the way the world works.

[@squamish4244]

Science doesn't care about your political agenda. You can't stand that we're causing it, because that means we MUST confront it regardless of whether you like the economic measures that must be taken or not. (Of course, even if we're *not* causing it, that doesn't mean we can then do nothing to adapt to it, but people like you also seem determined to do nothing to adapt as well.)

[@Chronically_ChiII]

Well, I have done a fair share of study around climate change and I can tell you that from a non-biased perspective that climate change is real (no doubt here), and the likelihood of being anthropological is very high, too high for someone to ignore it as a myth (which would also solve nothing). We live in a crony capitalist world, so sadly, you will see governments and political groups use it for their growth / ideological agenda. BUT, that is in no way a reason to disbelieve in the science. IN FACT, the best thing that libertarians / Republicans can do is to be part of the conversation and shape the solutions.

[@squamish4244]

What's sad is that 30 years ago, climate change was not a partisan issue. Both Democrats and Republicans wanted to take action when it first became widely known by the public in 1988. But soon political agendas took over. I don't know which side, or both, decided to make it about their political stance on economics, but regardless, taking measures to stymie climate change back then would have been far less costly than it could be now.

[@williamschlass4598]

Why cant we accept anthropogenic climate change without the hysteria? What predictions have actually come true from the resulting models proposed over the years? What is a scientific theory without predictive validity? Im not sure one way or the other and im on board that the climate is changing and we might be a major factor for its acceleration, but I fail to see why we cant adapt to changes in our environment like any other organism. To me it seems like doing nothing / subsidizing oil companies or subsidizing every alternative energy company / denying energy to developing countries who need it to increase their standards of living is politically driven and not supported by the data.

[@squamish4244]

Previously, when the news was not so bad, I was less frustrated. But the news gets worse all the time, and now the high end of the predicted rise for the end of the century is higher than the change between the last ice age and today. That is so rapid and so huge as to be unbelievable, and meanwhile in 2016 Americans elected a man who is trying to scrap climate agreements and forbid people from using the phrase 'climate change' in official documents in certain cases. I agree that running around trying to frighten people into action generally does not work, but we should not delude ourselves into thinking the problem is less bad than it is. In his presentations, Pinker dances around this and in his book he spouts off some stuff about geoengineering to fix the problem - because there is already too much crap in the atmosphere and if we stopped emissions today the world would keep heating for 40 years on sheer momentum alone. Well, geoengineering it is then - but who's going to do it, when, and how? And most importantly, who is going to pay for it?

[@vishnuteja7522]

3rd grade level arguments done as if two intellectuals are talking..

[@iampracticingpiano]

If the man "believes" in evolution, he aint all that smart.

[@mikeissweet]

Do you suppose we are descendent from Adam and Eve?

[@andrew-paulclements1502]

I feel like I walked into the wrong commemt since I believe in both the idea we were created by God as well as Evolution.

[@rufuscrackle]

I remember back in Catholic school in the 60s the nuns said evolution was true. Not all religious people are complete self deluded fools

[@zachjohnson637]

lol