4 ms·

> And isn't Pinker's larger point that people have been preaching the upcoming "CATASTROPHE" for the past three hundred years and yet largely things keep gettin

by bodas 8y ago

> And isn't Pinker's larger point that people have been preaching the upcoming "CATASTROPHE" for the past three hundred years and yet largely things keep getting better? That is such a terrible argument because, for one, it ignores all the catastrophes that did happen in the last 300 years to various peoples.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
I can't remember any events that led to total ruin. Steps back, but not total ruin.
- watwut 8y ago
  WWII was total ruin, quite literally. Calling it step back would be sever understatement. Calling WWI "step back" is understatement too. Stalin purge - same thing. 300 years time span still catches French Revolution and American Civil War. For affected population they were large large catastrophes that happened to affected people. Historically, catastrophes can happen, do happen, cause a lot of suffering and death. It is actually good idea to take that possibility seriously, warn where you seen them becoming more likely and take steps to prevent them.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >Calling WWI "step back" is understatement too. Really? It had such little impact, they were ready to do it again in twenty years. All your examples are similar in that regard. They were certainly horrible for the people involved, but not a catastrophe that was impossible to recover from. You're using a less extreme use of the word "catastrophe" than what Pinker is describing. No one doubts that there are problems now that could get worse. More that we shouldn't romanticise some past age, and we shouldn't abandon the enlightenment values that got us here.
    - watwut 8y ago
      The meaning of catastrophe is not "only extinction level counts". That would be meaningless, obviously humanity is still here. WWII was extinction level for large parts of population - notably civilian populations. Including non Jewish civilians. Not just horrible for people involved, they ceased to exist afterwards. Also, WWI having little impact is quite novel interpretation. Even if we ignore the impact on Russia, it's impact on French and German societies was notable. Lastly, Pinker is not historian nor has peer reviewed articles/books on topic of history. Where historians reviewed his historical work (even those who share his ideological opinions), they complain about methodology, cherry picking, wrong data and so on. That goes about medieval parts, prehistoric parts and last century parts. That had nothing to do with romantization of history and a lot to do with not so great science driven by authors opinions (whether you agree or disagree with them it is possible to criticize his historical theories and approaches). Enlightenment is large period spanning many contradictory thinkers. It has to do with both good and bad of that and later period. You can't pick just one and ignore the other.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >The meaning of catastrophe is not "only extinction level counts". That would be meaningless, obviously humanity is still here. It's being used here to mean total ruin, the word can be used other ways but I've been fairly clear with what I mean by it. That said, I would probably consider something like the bronze age collapse a catastrophe in addition to extinction events. I'm not trying to say that those events weren't completely tragic or that they didn't lead to changes. And I'm only saying WWI had little impact compared to a catastrophe. Pinker is not a historian, he is a scientist. I'm not claiming he's perfect, more that much of this criticism is ignoring the context provided. The age of the enlightenment is a long period with many ideas. Enlightenment values are a relatively distinct thing, mostly empiricism and classic liberalism.
        watwut 8y ago
        Well as long as we don't nuke each other and kill every single person, there is no catastrophe, so the whole debate is pointless. Nazi could have won WWII (and they very much could) and it still would be cool by this definition. Communists could have won WWII and it still would be cool by this definition. If WWI and subsequent WWII (which had a lot to do with world WWI created) are little impact, then "no catastrophe" is incredibly low bar. It means nothing, because "no catastrophe" still means we are all death or about to die in slavery. > Pinker is not a historian, he is a scientist. I'm not claiming he's perfect, more that much of this criticism is ignoring the context provided. Meaning, he studied something completely different. He is very good at that different thing. That knowledge and experience does not translate to other areas. That is general statement valid for all scientists in all areas in the world. Enlightenment brought a lot more then just that. It was way more complicated (and interesting) then simplified easy "all the good things" framing would suggest. It also generated scientific explanation and defense of slavery which required scientific theory of racism. (Meaning the two ceased to be merely "I am more powerful or god wants me" and started to have harder to break theories behind them.) That is not to blame enlightenment, slavery existed before obviously, just to show that its own definition of freedom was not entirely like I would define it - and should be open to criticism and reflexion just like anything else.

by bodas 8y ago

boomboomsubban 8y ago

I can't remember any events that led to total ruin. Steps back, but not total ruin.

watwut 8y ago
WWII was total ruin, quite literally. Calling it step back would be sever understatement. Calling WWI "step back" is understatement too. Stalin purge - same thing. 300 years time span still catches French Revolution and American Civil War. For affected population they were large large catastrophes that happened to affected people. Historically, catastrophes can happen, do happen, cause a lot of suffering and death. It is actually good idea to take that possibility seriously, warn where you seen them becoming more likely and take steps to prevent them.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >Calling WWI "step back" is understatement too. Really? It had such little impact, they were ready to do it again in twenty years. All your examples are similar in that regard. They were certainly horrible for the people involved, but not a catastrophe that was impossible to recover from. You're using a less extreme use of the word "catastrophe" than what Pinker is describing. No one doubts that there are problems now that could get worse. More that we shouldn't romanticise some past age, and we shouldn't abandon the enlightenment values that got us here.
  - watwut 8y ago
    The meaning of catastrophe is not "only extinction level counts". That would be meaningless, obviously humanity is still here. WWII was extinction level for large parts of population - notably civilian populations. Including non Jewish civilians. Not just horrible for people involved, they ceased to exist afterwards. Also, WWI having little impact is quite novel interpretation. Even if we ignore the impact on Russia, it's impact on French and German societies was notable. Lastly, Pinker is not historian nor has peer reviewed articles/books on topic of history. Where historians reviewed his historical work (even those who share his ideological opinions), they complain about methodology, cherry picking, wrong data and so on. That goes about medieval parts, prehistoric parts and last century parts. That had nothing to do with romantization of history and a lot to do with not so great science driven by authors opinions (whether you agree or disagree with them it is possible to criticize his historical theories and approaches). Enlightenment is large period spanning many contradictory thinkers. It has to do with both good and bad of that and later period. You can't pick just one and ignore the other.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      >The meaning of catastrophe is not "only extinction level counts". That would be meaningless, obviously humanity is still here. It's being used here to mean total ruin, the word can be used other ways but I've been fairly clear with what I mean by it. That said, I would probably consider something like the bronze age collapse a catastrophe in addition to extinction events. I'm not trying to say that those events weren't completely tragic or that they didn't lead to changes. And I'm only saying WWI had little impact compared to a catastrophe. Pinker is not a historian, he is a scientist. I'm not claiming he's perfect, more that much of this criticism is ignoring the context provided. The age of the enlightenment is a long period with many ideas. Enlightenment values are a relatively distinct thing, mostly empiricism and classic liberalism.
      - watwut 8y ago
        Well as long as we don't nuke each other and kill every single person, there is no catastrophe, so the whole debate is pointless. Nazi could have won WWII (and they very much could) and it still would be cool by this definition. Communists could have won WWII and it still would be cool by this definition. If WWI and subsequent WWII (which had a lot to do with world WWI created) are little impact, then "no catastrophe" is incredibly low bar. It means nothing, because "no catastrophe" still means we are all death or about to die in slavery. > Pinker is not a historian, he is a scientist. I'm not claiming he's perfect, more that much of this criticism is ignoring the context provided. Meaning, he studied something completely different. He is very good at that different thing. That knowledge and experience does not translate to other areas. That is general statement valid for all scientists in all areas in the world. Enlightenment brought a lot more then just that. It was way more complicated (and interesting) then simplified easy "all the good things" framing would suggest. It also generated scientific explanation and defense of slavery which required scientific theory of racism. (Meaning the two ceased to be merely "I am more powerful or god wants me" and started to have harder to break theories behind them.) That is not to blame enlightenment, slavery existed before obviously, just to show that its own definition of freedom was not entirely like I would define it - and should be open to criticism and reflexion just like anything else.