4 ms·

> One of the recurring criticisms of your ideas on progress is that our having an awareness of how much better the situation is for the impoverished today compa

by bko 5y ago

> One of the recurring criticisms of your ideas on progress is that our having an awareness of how much better the situation is for the impoverished today compared with the impoverished of the past doesn’t actually make anybody’s life better and, in fact, minimizes contemporary suffering. Is there a moral gap there? > Pinker: I think that’s a fallacy. It can be true both that there are fewer poor people, fewer oppressed people, fewer victims of violence and that there are still poor people, oppressed people and victims of violence. We want to reduce that suffering as much as possible. The fact that there has been progress helps us identify what drives down poverty and violence and illness. But there’s also a moral component, and that is: What actually dislodges us from fatalism? What gives us the gumption to try to reduce war further? Maybe you can eliminate it, or poverty? I think the bigger point of recognizing the progress that has been made is giving at least partial credit to the system of values and institutions that got us there. Many people want to burn it all to the ground. They think the natural order of things is progress and prosperity, when in fact the opposite is true.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
> recognizing the progress that has been made is giving at least partial credit to the system of values and institutions that got us there. Many people want to burn it all to the ground. Yes! An absurdly large proportion of people on the left and right believe that "the system" (capitalism, industry, democracy, power, whathaveyou) is broken and only radical or revolutionary change can make the world better. But, as a radical centrist, social-capitalist and believer in visionary incrementalism — I totally disagree. I'm super glad to live in this timeline.
- nivenkos 5y ago
  > An absurdly large proportion But this is _because_ the system has failed them. For example, I have a lower quality of life than my father despite going to university and being a senior engineer in some huge companies - just because the cost of housing has increased astronomically and we now have to pay back student loans too. He had a house, family and car at 25. I'm over 30 and can't afford even a car (mainly due to the lack of parking and high fuel prices make it not worthwhile). And I know lots of people who far worse off than I am, those who have been able to progress mostly inherited property from their family. When people see that working hard gets them nowhere, and those who inherit wealth and prestige are far better off, they lose faith in the system and support radical change.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    I suppose the point is that a revolution is unlikely to improve anyone's prospects of affording a car. I don't deny that people have real reasons for wanting radical change. But they should know that the overwhelming likelihood is that overthrowing the system is going to lead to a system that is much less just and far more corrupt.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > I don't deny that people have real reasons for wanting radical change. But they should know that the overwhelming likelihood is that overthrowing the system is going to lead to a system that is much less just and far more corrupt. The problem is that the centrist impulse to avoid breaking anything that "works" has been successfully exploited to prevent effective action to address a large number of real problems. At some point, people sense the bullshit and it starts to be rational to pick revolution to escape the trap. A big thing revolution has going for it is that it's a way to break out of local maxima and eliminate path dependent problems (by backtracking and picking a different path).
      - dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Yes, the entropy of revolution could conceivably help society reach a greater maxima. But the statistical likelihood is extremely small. Keep in mind, you aren't starting from scratch in a simulation. You'd have all the baggage from the civil war you triggered and the shocking loss of faith from corrupted revolutionary leadership, etc etc. Plus, this is all in the context of frustration that democratic progress doesn't happen fast enough. Sensing bullshit doesn't imply that it is rational to start a revolution.
        tablespoon 5y ago
        >> The problem is that the centrist impulse to avoid breaking anything that "works" has been successfully exploited to prevent effective action to address a large number of real problems. At some point, people sense the bullshit and it starts to be rational to pick revolution to escape the trap. > But the statistical likelihood is extremely small. My point is the "statistical likelihood" could be even smaller under the status quo. > You'd have all the baggage from the civil war you triggered and the shocking loss of faith from corrupted revolutionary leadership, etc etc. Also what "revolution" is has a tendency to be redefined downward, but rebutted based on the most hyperbolic versions. > Sensing bullshit doesn't imply that it is rational to start a revolution. The second cleverest kind of trap is the kind that convinces you it's best not escape.
- imtringued 5y ago
  The current system is broken no question. What people overstate is how broken it is. The gold standard was a bad idea but the next step wasn't a moneyless system. It was just a slightly better money system. Whatever follows next will simply continue that trend. My personal bet is negative interest rates on cash and therefore a 0% inflation target. [0] The alternative to the USD as global reserve currency isn't the yuan, it's a bancor style system [1]. What we might see in the future is the growing importance of IMF special drawing rights [2]. None of these ideas involve adopting a completely foreign system. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit... "capitalist production could not be an everlasting form of production since in the end the profit principle itself would suffer a breakdown." has no significance if capitalism can represent negative profit [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights
n4r9 5y ago
I agree, but I get the sense that Pinker is desperate to avoid having to tackle the difference between mental (subjective?) suffering, and physical suffering. Whilst I appreciate physical suffering such as hunger is easier to measure, mental suffering somehow seems more important; one can easily imagine being slightly hungrier but much happier if you practise a certain attitude.
- bko 5y ago
  That's in a large part cultural. I don't know what you can say about it apart from don't consume so much social media and stay away from the news cycle. For some reason its fashionable to be doom and gloom. You see it pretty much everywhere. People think the world is going to end and everything is corrupt. I can't imagine growing up as a child today doing active shooter drills despite the fact that US schools are one of the safest places to be in the world. Unfortunately with raising children you have less options since most Americans are confined to public schools in their immediate geography.
  - peakaboo 5y ago
    I don't think fashionable is the right word since doomers really don't care about what's popular. For me personally, I just watch society and i think we are on our last chapter as a species.
    - prepend 5y ago
      I think they do care about what’s popular and are so doomy, in part, because it’s fashionable. It’s easier to destroy than to create beauty. And easy things seem to me to be popular. It’s much easier to shit on an idea than work on something and I think there’s an aspect of selfishness that it just so happens to be easy to be part of a pointless and helpless system than to get out of bed, etc.
  - KorematsuFredt 5y ago
    Humans have survived this long because of that constant paranoid behaviour. I think we are programmed to love doom and gloom predictions. But more importantly, it is an excellent tool in the hands of academicians and politicians to demand more of other people's money. It is like when you go to a Car mechanic he will find 100 faults with the car.
beepbooptheory 5y ago
I take a moment of each day to reflect on all the good things that the system of values and institutions of the modern world have given me, as well as the bright and beautiful future it has certainly enabled. There may be few hiccups here and there, but overall the trajectory of humanity is rational, egalitarian, and premised on individual freedom. What can you really complain about?

by bko 5y ago

dr_dshiv 5y ago

> recognizing the progress that has been made is giving at least partial credit to the system of values and institutions that got us there. Many people want to burn it all to the ground. Yes! An absurdly large proportion of people on the left and right believe that "the system" (capitalism, industry, democracy, power, whathaveyou) is broken and only radical or revolutionary change can make the world better. But, as a radical centrist, social-capitalist and believer in visionary incrementalism — I totally disagree. I'm super glad to live in this timeline.

nivenkos 5y ago
> An absurdly large proportion But this is _because_ the system has failed them. For example, I have a lower quality of life than my father despite going to university and being a senior engineer in some huge companies - just because the cost of housing has increased astronomically and we now have to pay back student loans too. He had a house, family and car at 25. I'm over 30 and can't afford even a car (mainly due to the lack of parking and high fuel prices make it not worthwhile). And I know lots of people who far worse off than I am, those who have been able to progress mostly inherited property from their family. When people see that working hard gets them nowhere, and those who inherit wealth and prestige are far better off, they lose faith in the system and support radical change.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  I suppose the point is that a revolution is unlikely to improve anyone's prospects of affording a car. I don't deny that people have real reasons for wanting radical change. But they should know that the overwhelming likelihood is that overthrowing the system is going to lead to a system that is much less just and far more corrupt.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I don't deny that people have real reasons for wanting radical change. But they should know that the overwhelming likelihood is that overthrowing the system is going to lead to a system that is much less just and far more corrupt. The problem is that the centrist impulse to avoid breaking anything that "works" has been successfully exploited to prevent effective action to address a large number of real problems. At some point, people sense the bullshit and it starts to be rational to pick revolution to escape the trap. A big thing revolution has going for it is that it's a way to break out of local maxima and eliminate path dependent problems (by backtracking and picking a different path).
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      Yes, the entropy of revolution could conceivably help society reach a greater maxima. But the statistical likelihood is extremely small. Keep in mind, you aren't starting from scratch in a simulation. You'd have all the baggage from the civil war you triggered and the shocking loss of faith from corrupted revolutionary leadership, etc etc. Plus, this is all in the context of frustration that democratic progress doesn't happen fast enough. Sensing bullshit doesn't imply that it is rational to start a revolution.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        >> The problem is that the centrist impulse to avoid breaking anything that "works" has been successfully exploited to prevent effective action to address a large number of real problems. At some point, people sense the bullshit and it starts to be rational to pick revolution to escape the trap. > But the statistical likelihood is extremely small. My point is the "statistical likelihood" could be even smaller under the status quo. > You'd have all the baggage from the civil war you triggered and the shocking loss of faith from corrupted revolutionary leadership, etc etc. Also what "revolution" is has a tendency to be redefined downward, but rebutted based on the most hyperbolic versions. > Sensing bullshit doesn't imply that it is rational to start a revolution. The second cleverest kind of trap is the kind that convinces you it's best not escape.
imtringued 5y ago
The current system is broken no question. What people overstate is how broken it is. The gold standard was a bad idea but the next step wasn't a moneyless system. It was just a slightly better money system. Whatever follows next will simply continue that trend. My personal bet is negative interest rates on cash and therefore a 0% inflation target. [0] The alternative to the USD as global reserve currency isn't the yuan, it's a bancor style system [1]. What we might see in the future is the growing importance of IMF special drawing rights [2]. None of these ideas involve adopting a completely foreign system. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit... "capitalist production could not be an everlasting form of production since in the end the profit principle itself would suffer a breakdown." has no significance if capitalism can represent negative profit [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights

n4r9 5y ago

I agree, but I get the sense that Pinker is desperate to avoid having to tackle the difference between mental (subjective?) suffering, and physical suffering. Whilst I appreciate physical suffering such as hunger is easier to measure, mental suffering somehow seems more important; one can easily imagine being slightly hungrier but much happier if you practise a certain attitude.

bko 5y ago
That's in a large part cultural. I don't know what you can say about it apart from don't consume so much social media and stay away from the news cycle. For some reason its fashionable to be doom and gloom. You see it pretty much everywhere. People think the world is going to end and everything is corrupt. I can't imagine growing up as a child today doing active shooter drills despite the fact that US schools are one of the safest places to be in the world. Unfortunately with raising children you have less options since most Americans are confined to public schools in their immediate geography.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  I don't think fashionable is the right word since doomers really don't care about what's popular. For me personally, I just watch society and i think we are on our last chapter as a species.
  - prepend 5y ago
    I think they do care about what’s popular and are so doomy, in part, because it’s fashionable. It’s easier to destroy than to create beauty. And easy things seem to me to be popular. It’s much easier to shit on an idea than work on something and I think there’s an aspect of selfishness that it just so happens to be easy to be part of a pointless and helpless system than to get out of bed, etc.
- KorematsuFredt 5y ago
  Humans have survived this long because of that constant paranoid behaviour. I think we are programmed to love doom and gloom predictions. But more importantly, it is an excellent tool in the hands of academicians and politicians to demand more of other people's money. It is like when you go to a Car mechanic he will find 100 faults with the car.

beepbooptheory 5y ago

I take a moment of each day to reflect on all the good things that the system of values and institutions of the modern world have given me, as well as the bright and beautiful future it has certainly enabled. There may be few hiccups here and there, but overall the trajectory of humanity is rational, egalitarian, and premised on individual freedom. What can you really complain about?