Books do Furnish a Life: An electrifying celebration of science writing
By Richard Dawkins
III: Inside the Survival Machine: Exploring Humanity
In conversation with Steven Pinker
In conversation with Steven Pinker
In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
I also recall him making that point: that our perception of the degree of violence is influenced largely by what we're able to learn of violent acts, even in distant places. In fact, having access to news from around the world, is there any way we would not form a judgment of an increasingly violent world? It doesn't take many incidents reported to put this idea in our heads. I admit I don't know what to make of Pinkers's meliorism. Should we have a good, rather than bad, feeling about future trends, because contrary to our faulty senses humans are getting more civilized? What stares me in the face is that even if our behavior toward each other is better, our abuse of the earth is in a sense a type of violence, and that violence is without doubt ever increasing. So an overall optimism toward the future is really hard to arrive at.Mr. P wrote:If I remember, Pinker also mentioned that we have more and more immediate access to news about violence, which can make it seem as if there is more violence than in the past.
Also, looking at the type of violence and the scope...less wholesale pillage and invasion and such, compared to random acts of minor violence, that also contributes to the notion of less violent times.
But my memory is foggy on the book.
I'm not necessarily arguing for his thesis, but the access to news at the speed with which it is available is an interesting point. Would we have heard of <or been immersed in) a school shooting story in Colorado in the early 20th century to the extent we are today? Would every police incident be fed to us instantly back in 1860?
I may need to re read that book now. I stopped halfway through back when it first came out.
It's impressive and I hope sustainable. I wonder whether access to electricity is part of the living standard to which this 20 to 40 percent has been raised (why such a vague estimate?). Bill Gates, in his climate change book, makes much of the need to bring electricity to poor people, obviously adding to the challenge of reaching net zero. Electricity and the many ways that it's used means that economic growth is a mandate, though people like me want to believe that zero or negative growth is necessary to save the planet.Harry Marks wrote:I tend to put more emphasis on the overcoming of poverty than the overcoming of violence, though granted the two are closely related.
I seem not to have mastered the copying of images into BT, but Wikipedia has some good perspective on world poverty rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty
We have reached a point of diminishing returns, at which the rate will not fall as fast as it did between 1990 and 2010, but the lifting of 20 to 40 percent of humanity out of extreme poverty is an impressive accomplishment.
The estimate is that vague for several interacting reasons.DWill wrote:It's impressive and I hope sustainable. I wonder whether access to electricity is part of the living standard to which this 20 to 40 percent has been raised (why such a vague estimate?).
I have seen solar projects in rural West Africa that made a real difference in people's lives and were much appreciated, but still were not transformational by themselves. Easier to refrigerate medicines, easier to get entertainment, etc., but the crops still needed to be tilled and harvested. The transformation needed to bring a healthy standard of living in Africa south of the Sahara is mainly about improving the productivity of workers. Its impact on GHG emissions could easily be offset by more attention to insulation in the richer countries. Its delay mainly prolongs the problem of high population growth, which in turn increases the challenge of overcoming poverty without destroying the environment.DWill wrote:Bill Gates, in his climate change book, makes much of the need to bring electricity to poor people, obviously adding to the challenge of reaching net zero. Electricity and the many ways that it's used means that economic growth is a mandate, though people like me want to believe that zero or negative growth is necessary to save the planet.