Pinker pred anđelima bolje prirode

The New Optimists are certainly right on the nostalgia front: nobody in their right mind should wish to have lived in a previous century. In a 2015 survey for YouGov, 65% of British people (and 81% of the French) said they thought the world was getting worse – but judged according to numerous sensible metrics, they’re simply wrong. People are indeed rising out of extreme poverty at an extraordinary rate; child mortality really has plummeted; standards of literacy, sanitation and life expectancy have never been higher. The average European or American enjoys luxuries medieval potentates literally couldn’t have imagined. The essential finding of Steven Pinker’s 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature, a key reference text for the New Optimists, seems also to have been largely accepted: that we are living in history’s most peaceful era, with violence of all kinds – from deaths in war to schoolyard bullying – in steep decline.

But the New Optimists aren’t primarily interested in persuading us that human life involves a lot less suffering than it did a few hundred years ago. (Even if you’re a card-carrying pessimist, you probably didn’t need convincing of that fact.) Nestled inside that essentially indisputable claim, there are several more controversial implications. For example: that since things have so clearly been improving, we have good reason to assume they will continue to improve. And further – though this is a claim only sometimes made explicit in the work of the New Optimists – that whatever we’ve been doing these past decades, it’s clearly working, and so the political and economic arrangements that have brought us here are the ones we ought to stick with. Optimism, after all, means more than just believing that things aren’t as bad as you imagined: it means having justified confidence that they will be getting even better soon. “Rational optimism holds that the world will pull out of the current crisis,” Ridley wrote after the financial crisis of 2007-8, “because of the way that markets in goods, services and ideas allow human beings to exchange and specialise honestly for the betterment of all … I am a rational optimist: rational, because I have arrived at optimism not through temperament or instinct, but by looking at the evidence.”

whatever we’ve been doing these past decades, it’s clearly working, and so the political and economic arrangements that have brought us here are the ones we ought to stick with

Spoiler:

William Murderface wrote:Ne, razumem, hoće Kinder da kaže da to što nešto stvari idu dobro za humakind, ne znači meni ništa ako sam izgubio posao, a moj grad propada jer mi se fabrika preselila u Kinu. Izgradnja "ljudskog društva" je takođe politički projekat, nije datost, a sasvim sigurno nije statistika.

The New Optimists, says David Runciman, think of politics as nothing more than an annoyance, because in their view “the things that drive progress are not political. But the things that drive failure are political.”

At its heart, the New Optimism is an ideological argument: broadly speaking, its proponents are advocates for the power of free markets, and they intend their sunny picture of humanity’s recent past and imminent future to vindicate their politics. This is a perfectly legitimate political argument to make – but it’s still a political argument, not a straightforward, neutral reliance on objective facts. The claim that we are living in a golden age, and that our dominant mood of pessimism is unwarranted, is not an antidote to the Age of the Take, but a Take like any other – and it makes just as much sense to adopt the opposite view. “What I dislike,” Runciman says, “is this assumption that if you push back against their argument, what you’re saying is that all these things are not worth valuing … For people to feel deeply uneasy about the world we inhabit now, despite all these indicators pointing up, seems to me reasonable, given the relative instability of the evidence of this progress, and the [unpredictability] that overhangs it. Everything really is pretty fragile.”

William Murderface wrote:I ovo

At its heart, the New Optimism is an ideological argument: broadly speaking, its proponents are advocates for the power of free markets, and they intend their sunny picture of humanity’s recent past and imminent future to vindicate their politics. This is a perfectly legitimate political argument to make – but it’s still a political argument, not a straightforward, neutral reliance on objective facts. The claim that we are living in a golden age, and that our dominant mood of pessimism is unwarranted, is not an antidote to the Age of the Take, but a Take like any other – and it makes just as much sense to adopt the opposite view. “What I dislike,” Runciman says, “is this assumption that if you push back against their argument, what you’re saying is that all these things are not worth valuing … For people to feel deeply uneasy about the world we inhabit now, despite all these indicators pointing up, seems to me reasonable, given the relative instability of the evidence of this progress, and the [unpredictability] that overhangs it. Everything really is pretty fragile.”

Blind Lime Pie wrote:Šredingerov liberalizam je šou program. Ubeđuje kako je na Islandu more privatizovano i da ne smeš da pecaš bez dozvole vlasnika, tj. ribara. Pokažu mu da to nema veze sa mozgom i da je sportski ribolov slobodan duž cele obale koja je, naravno, u državnom vlasništvu. Odgovor: ti si komunofašista. Kinikovo umobolno dosoljavanje: a ti želiš da ukineš narodu Islanda slobodu da raspolaže svojom obalom.

Ne bih ovo pisao da nisam video na Tržišnom rešenju direktan odjek stupidne rasprave na FB92 o tome treba li ukinuti kontrolu lekova. Argument je: treba to pustiti tržištu da reši, pa će onda oni sa manje novca kupovati lekove koji nisu prošli dugotrajna i nepotrebna ispitivanja od strane državnih tela. U suštini, agituju za povratak u XIX vek, onaj iz knjiga Marka Tvena. Intelektualna slabost cele te fele bukvalno para dušu.

Blind Lime Pie wrote:Šredingerov liberalizam je šou program. Ubeđuje kako je na Islandu more privatizovano i da ne smeš da pecaš bez dozvole vlasnika, tj. ribara. Pokažu mu da to nema veze sa mozgom i da je sportski ribolov slobodan duž cele obale koja je, naravno, u državnom vlasništvu. Odgovor: ti si komunofašista. Kinikovo umobolno dosoljavanje: a ti želiš da ukineš narodu Islanda slobodu da raspolaže svojom obalom.

Ne bih ovo pisao da nisam video na Tržišnom rešenju direktan odjek stupidne rasprave na FB92 o tome treba li ukinuti kontrolu lekova. Argument je: treba to pustiti tržištu da reši, pa će onda oni sa manje novca kupovati lekove koji nisu prošli dugotrajna i nepotrebna ispitivanja od strane državnih tela. U suštini, agituju za povratak u XIX vek, onaj iz knjiga Marka Tvena. Intelektualna slabost cele te fele bukvalno para dušu.