4 ms·

I've found this 'things have never been better' attitude put forward by the world's (neo-)liberal elite mostly used as an excuse to keep their heads in the sand

I've found this 'things have never been better' attitude put forward by the world's (neo-)liberal elite mostly used as an excuse to keep their heads in the sand about serious threats to the ecosystem and the unsustainability of their socio-economic model.

infodroid 9y ago
Like when Bill Gates called it his "new favorite book of all time".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
boomboomsubban 9y ago
This doesn't seem to be advocating sticking your head in the sand, but to continue using science to address the problems and stop panicking. As we've faced serious threats for a long time, and this model has dealt with them far better than others.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >This doesn't seem to be advocating sticking your head in the sand, but to continue using science to address the problems and stop panicking. When those problems were created by use of science (or, more precisely, technology) in the first place, and when people don't take serious steps to fix them, then what you say is the last thing we want to do. Instead we should panic, and stop believing we can abuse the environment as much as we want and "science" will magically solve our problems (as if we have some contract with science or nature).
- roymurdock 9y ago
  From the review, it sounds like our current political problems receive no attention/treatment, and that Pinker advocates a future-dependent technological solution (better/more nuclear power to increase clean power generation) to a political problem we currently face (no will/incentive to enforce taxation scheme to reduce the status quo of carbon emissions) : > What, for instance, about climate change? Pinker is no climate-change denier, and admits that “the challenge is daunting.” But then he quickly pivots from his position that things are getting better and better to say that we can avoid the looming doom if only we start taxing carbon emissions, increase the use of nuclear power, and engage in deliberate climate engineering to lower global temperatures. > He largely disregards the fact that the political will to move in any of these directions is wholly lacking and will remain so as long as the party that controls the White House and Congress refuses to admit that a problem even exists. When it comes to his favored technological solution, nuclear power, Pinker also seems determined to ignore the problem that the people who manage plants do not always follow their own safety procedures and cannot plan for every possible natural disaster (as Fukushima showed all too dramatically). The industry, he insists, has learned from its mistakes. But has it? I haven't read the book so I can't comment on how accurate this portrayal is
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Much of the current political situation arises from a lack of trust in science and fear mongering leading to panic.
    - roymurdock 9y ago
      Really? I think it arises from simple economic incentives - not taxing emissions makes people (politicians and employees of basically all companies) richer than taxing emissions. Even the most educated and science worshiping populace would be hard pressed to vote for policy that would hamper economic growth and cost jobs/profits.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        All the various rules under the EPA cost money, yet people passed it as there was a clear need to do so. The unwarranted doubt placed on global warming research is being used to mask the clear need. The economic implications aren't as clear as you make them. Companies may make less profit right away, but assuming the amount of work needed is the same, that gap would need to be filled by innovation or manual labor.
- PeterStuer 9y ago
  Well this time is different. There is just one planet. Inevitably someone will pipe up that we need planet scale 'Geo-engineering' and faced with a system so far out of control already inevitably someone is going to fund some 'academics' to do something drastic to "save the planet". Problem is in science 99% of the time in complex systems the experiments turn out something unexpected. Odds we'll accelerate doom instead of postponing it are pretty significant. And all that just because we refuse to reign-in a socio-economic system in which the safe and assured solution, abstinence, is impossible to achieve as there is no single party making 'a profit' on it.
- gameswithgo 9y ago
  Perhaps the reason things keep getting better is because a lot of people are always panicking and furiously working to undo the damage of people who aren't? =)
lisper 9y ago
You must not have been reading the news lately. It is not the "liberal elite" that is burying their heads in the sand about threats to the ecosystem. It is the political right that is doing that by calling anthropogenic climate change a "hoax" and chanting "drill baby, drill."
- bobthechef 9y ago
  Neoliberalism is not partisan. You're letting the "liberal" in "neoliberal" throw you off.
  - lisper 9y ago
    The "neo" part was in parentheses. But whatever was meant, there is very little overlap between those who cite Pinker favorably and those who don't care about the environment.

infodroid 9y ago

Like when Bill Gates called it his "new favorite book of all time".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

boomboomsubban 9y ago

This doesn't seem to be advocating sticking your head in the sand, but to continue using science to address the problems and stop panicking. As we've faced serious threats for a long time, and this model has dealt with them far better than others.

coldtea 9y ago
>This doesn't seem to be advocating sticking your head in the sand, but to continue using science to address the problems and stop panicking. When those problems were created by use of science (or, more precisely, technology) in the first place, and when people don't take serious steps to fix them, then what you say is the last thing we want to do. Instead we should panic, and stop believing we can abuse the environment as much as we want and "science" will magically solve our problems (as if we have some contract with science or nature).
roymurdock 9y ago
From the review, it sounds like our current political problems receive no attention/treatment, and that Pinker advocates a future-dependent technological solution (better/more nuclear power to increase clean power generation) to a political problem we currently face (no will/incentive to enforce taxation scheme to reduce the status quo of carbon emissions) : > What, for instance, about climate change? Pinker is no climate-change denier, and admits that “the challenge is daunting.” But then he quickly pivots from his position that things are getting better and better to say that we can avoid the looming doom if only we start taxing carbon emissions, increase the use of nuclear power, and engage in deliberate climate engineering to lower global temperatures. > He largely disregards the fact that the political will to move in any of these directions is wholly lacking and will remain so as long as the party that controls the White House and Congress refuses to admit that a problem even exists. When it comes to his favored technological solution, nuclear power, Pinker also seems determined to ignore the problem that the people who manage plants do not always follow their own safety procedures and cannot plan for every possible natural disaster (as Fukushima showed all too dramatically). The industry, he insists, has learned from its mistakes. But has it? I haven't read the book so I can't comment on how accurate this portrayal is
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  Much of the current political situation arises from a lack of trust in science and fear mongering leading to panic.
  - roymurdock 9y ago
    Really? I think it arises from simple economic incentives - not taxing emissions makes people (politicians and employees of basically all companies) richer than taxing emissions. Even the most educated and science worshiping populace would be hard pressed to vote for policy that would hamper economic growth and cost jobs/profits.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      All the various rules under the EPA cost money, yet people passed it as there was a clear need to do so. The unwarranted doubt placed on global warming research is being used to mask the clear need. The economic implications aren't as clear as you make them. Companies may make less profit right away, but assuming the amount of work needed is the same, that gap would need to be filled by innovation or manual labor.
PeterStuer 9y ago
Well this time is different. There is just one planet. Inevitably someone will pipe up that we need planet scale 'Geo-engineering' and faced with a system so far out of control already inevitably someone is going to fund some 'academics' to do something drastic to "save the planet". Problem is in science 99% of the time in complex systems the experiments turn out something unexpected. Odds we'll accelerate doom instead of postponing it are pretty significant. And all that just because we refuse to reign-in a socio-economic system in which the safe and assured solution, abstinence, is impossible to achieve as there is no single party making 'a profit' on it.
gameswithgo 9y ago
Perhaps the reason things keep getting better is because a lot of people are always panicking and furiously working to undo the damage of people who aren't? =)

lisper 9y ago

You must not have been reading the news lately. It is not the "liberal elite" that is burying their heads in the sand about threats to the ecosystem. It is the political right that is doing that by calling anthropogenic climate change a "hoax" and chanting "drill baby, drill."

bobthechef 9y ago
Neoliberalism is not partisan. You're letting the "liberal" in "neoliberal" throw you off.
- lisper 9y ago
  The "neo" part was in parentheses. But whatever was meant, there is very little overlap between those who cite Pinker favorably and those who don't care about the environment.