> It's based on information. As such, your opinion is objectively wrong. Hang on, I'm not making the claim you think I'm making. Pinker observes that the level

> It's based on information. As such, your opinion is objectively wrong. Hang on, I'm not making the claim you think I'm making. Pinker observes that the level of violence in society is at an all-time low- that is, as you say, an objective fact beyond dispute (modulo measurement error). But there is a clear implied claim there that this fact means pessimism for the future is unwarranted. That is what I am disputing, because I think trends and incentives are more important than current numbers (think about how a company's share price can fall even if they have a great quarter, if investors don't think its future prospects are great) I also dispute your claim that _every_ metric shows things are getting better. Some are, especially in areas like health and lifespan, but others (income inequality, social cohesion, faith in democracy, etc.) are not. There are legitimate grounds for disagreement as to which metrics are more important to the question of "should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future", and maybe your opinion differs from mine, but that does not make me objectively wrong.