Haven't read the article because it's paywalled and I can't be bothered right now, but after reading Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" and "Enli

Haven't read the article because it's paywalled and I can't be bothered right now, but after reading Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" and "Enlightenment now", I just don't know where I stand on him. On the one hand, his books are definitely worth reading, well researched, very informative. On the other hand, he does seem to look at everything through pink glasses. I don't subscribe to the ideas that we will all literally perish within the next X decades, but it's not really idiotic to think that there are many things which can destroy our rare calmness bubble in history, either slowly, like climate change, or rather quickly, like a world war. I guess what puts me off, especially in "Enlightenment Now" is that he seems to treat these things like they are provably impossible to happen by just looking at the past and all the near misses we've had and how it was all okay in the end. Am I missing something?