3 ms·
"Better Angels"—and presumably this book—cuts against the grain of popular discourse, since claiming the world is in decline and a state of moral depredation ha
by _greim_ 9y ago
"Better Angels"—and presumably this book—cuts against the grain of popular discourse, since claiming the world is in decline and a state of moral depredation has always been an effective way to agitate for change. Which is understandable on one level, because so much in the world is still obviously suboptimal. The reaction tends to be: "How can you claim the world is getting better when [insert bad current event stuff here]?!?"
The problem is that so much of this lessening of horribleness came about via imperfect systems. We become focused in our opposition to the system's flaws, and (in some circles) that opposition morphs into opposition to the system as a whole, which is a dangerous kind of thinking if it becomes mainstream.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoNot sure I agree. It seems to me that "claiming the world is in decline and a state of moral depredation" has always been primarily a cheap way of bringing attention to yourself, your cause, and gaining popular support. Which is why, for example, journalists love writing doom&gloom articles. Also, if anything, everyone preaching doomsday makes people depressed, disinterested and detached. If the world is falling apart, what could possibly an individual do? IMO we need the exact opposite now - an optimistic tone that tells people that while there are problems, things are looking up, we're winning, and yes, you can help too.
- prepend 9y agoThere is always a lesser evil to tackle as each evil is eliminated. This doesn’t mean that eliminating evil is trivial or isn’t worthwhile. One day we will all be focused on the war on hangnails.