Enlightenment Now or Things Fall Apart?

[Altherion]

This thread is inspired by this New York Magazine article by Andrew Sullivan which is mostly in response to Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Sullivan went to listen to Pinker's lecture and, in a nutshell,

Quote

I sat there for an hour slowly being buried in a fast-accumulating snowdrift of irrefutable statistics showing human progress: the decline of violence and war, the rise and rise of democracy, the astonishing gains against poverty of the last couple of decades, the rise of tolerance and erosion of cruelty, lengthening lifespans, revolutions in health, huge increases in safety, and on and on. It was one emphatic graph after another that bludgeoned my current depression into a kind of forced rational cheeriness.

Pinker is a reputable scholar and I have no doubt that the statistics he has collected are accurate (at least enough so that his overall point is not undermined). However, like Sullivan and many others have pointed out, happy people do not vote for populists and there is a long list of other symptoms indicating that all is far from well. Thus, it could be that Pinker is simply measuring quantities which, while superficially beneficial, are ultimately irrelevant.

What do people think? Is Pinker right in that the world is better than it ever was? Or, as the article suggests, has something crucial been lost along the way and the path we're on is a dead end?

[ThinkerX]

I tell people:

'these are the good old days.' 

[Rippounet]

This is an excellent question.
The first answer that comes to mind is that we are more demanding than ever, which puts a strain on ourselves first and foremost. Most of us want love (a loving partner with whom to create a family), a rewarding career, and gratifying friendships, while at the same time pursuing an incredible amount of material wealth (a house, a car, various technological devices... ), all that in a world that moves at breathtaking speed. The stress it puts on individuals is enormous. It may be an unpopular opinion, but modern life is incredibly stresful and complicated, as we require incredible quantities of knowledge, information and skill to achieve all that.

And at the same time:

Quote

As we have slowly and surely attained more progress, we have lost something that undergirds all of it: meaning, cohesion, and a different, deeper kind of happiness than the satiation of all our earthly needs. We’ve forgotten the human flourishing that comes from a common idea of virtue, and a concept of virtue that is based on our nature. This is the core of Deneen’s argument, and it rests on a different, classical, pre-liberal understanding of freedom. For most of the Ancients, freedom was freedom from our natural desires and material needs. It rested on a mastery of these deep, natural urges in favor of self-control, restraint, and education into virtue. It placed the community — the polis — ahead of the individual, and indeed could not conceive of the individual apart from the community into which he or she was born. They’d look at our freedom and see licentiousness, chaos, and slavery to desire. They’d predict misery not happiness to be the result.

I mostly agree with this statement. Modern life, the consumer society, and the dominant ideologies would have us believe that individual success is what makes people happy. But I very much doubt this is true. Humans are social animals, and they can't easily set aside their empathy, desire for justice and quest for greater purposes. While it is true that humans seek individual success, I also believe that they need to feel part of something greater than themselves. Ironically, modern life does not in itself make people feel part of a community. This is achieved through different means, by committing oneself to various ideals. Which is why nationalisms or religions remain incredibly popular, and why the most liberal-minded individuals tend to view humanity as a single great community with enormous issues to be solved. In a nutshell, while modern life has dismissed many of the principles that were once central to human life, it has yet to replace them with something as meaningful ; that is now for individuals to find.

[Yukle]

It's worth noting that in my lifetime the number of people living in poverty has more than halved. That's wonderful news.

But it's hard to say how the current moment is going because humans can see the future looming. So far, our progress is based on unsustainable plunder of the planet's finite resources. We can see the effects in our present environment.

The most recent trends have all been better. However, the costs of land, food, water and energy have all risen. Similarly, the bedrocks of social progress are now being undercut and we can see this.

Strong labour unions, universal healthcare, unrestricted ballot access, freedom of expression, welfare, vaccinations, antibiotics, equitable money policy - all of these things have been the underpinnings of improved human development. But we're not foolish - we can tell that these things are now slipping away.

[Seli]

Per Rosling (gapminder) and his great data collection the gist seems fine, per Wilkinson (the spirit level) the mere inequality we are facing these days (within nations/societies) causes many of the issues and unrest we are still facing. So on the one had there is improvement, on the other there are problems, on the gripping hand we know how to solve the latter.

[Jo498]

Sullivan is right to point out the surprisingly naive "whiggishness" of Pinker.

A simple thought experiment: If a late victorian scholar would have done a similar project to Pinker's in 1900 he very probably would have been as justified as Pinker in his optimism (maybe even more so) by looking at similar statistics. Less than 20 years later this world had collapsed. The most scientifically and culturally advanced culture of human history had butchered millions in the worst war in history (whereas many scholars had claimed a few years earlier that the world had become too complex and too advanced for extended wars to be possible). Another 25 years later this was topped by an even worse war, together with atrocities commited by the totalitarian regimes, at least some of which were as certain as Pinker (or the imagined Sir Reginald, Esq., DPhil Oxon. with his history of human progress until 1900) to be "on the right side of history". Now Pinker has 100 years more of and better data but the general point stands. The victorian would have been catastrophically wrong with his extrapolation, so we should be more wary not exactly as whiggish as they were.

This is the obvious reason why in the middle third of the 20th century scholars like Adorno spoke of the dialectics of enlightenment. Apparently some people have through live to certain epochs to get to certain positions, it is not enough to look at stats. (Of course Pinker would claim that his disengaged view is more objective.)

Now we all can be happy that we, including Pinker, are too young to have suffered from the wars and atrocities of the early 20th century. But I am old (almost 20 years younger than Pinker) enough to have lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation (including the danger from civil use of nuclear power after Chernobyl) in my teenage years. I have witnessed that something hardly anyone had believed would ever happen in our lifetimes, did in fact happen, namely the fall of the Wall and the end of the Eastern Bloc. But while I had no opinion on either Fukuyama's or Huntington's ideas in the wake of these changes I certainly did not expect that we would be in another version of a cold war with Russia less than 30 years later.

I don't want to get into the environmental issues, the stagnation in many fields of technology, the growing economic polarization in the Western countries (these people don't care about hundreds of millions of Chinese having risen from poverty in the last decades if they themselves are worse off than their parents or younger selves) etc.

More generally, there is no exponential growth in a finite world. Every exponential turns at best into a sigmoid curve, or into a decaying one or into some oscillation cycle.

All this is of course largely independent of the "spiritual" or philosophical side pointed out by Sullivan and Deneen. They are also right. Many of the Ancients lived very comfortable lives (because of slaves), they did not mainly practice stoicism or similar philosophies because they had to cope with horrible fates. The most famous modern parable for the poverty and decadence of a consumerist world is of course Huxley's Brave New World. A year or so ago I realized in a tangential discussion on this very forum that many people don't understand anymore that BNW is a *dystopia* and why.

Again, I think the point is not mainly if Pinker is wrong or right but that he seems unable to even seriously consider the aspects Sullivan and Deneen point out. (Sullivan: "But Pinker seems immune to the idea of paradox, irony, or unintended consequences.") He does not see them or does not see how important they are.

 

 

[Seli]

2 hours ago, Jo498 said:

Sullivan is right to point out the surprisingly naive "whiggishness" of Pinker.

A simple thought experiment: If a late victorian scholar would have done a similar project to Pinker's in 1900 he very probably would have been as justified as Pinker in his optimism (maybe even more so) by looking at similar statistics. Less than 20 years later this world had collapsed. The most scientifically and culturally advanced culture of human history had butchered millions in the worst war in history (whereas many scholars had claimed a few years earlier that the world had become too complex and too advanced for extended wars to be possible). Another 25 years later this was topped by an even worse war, together with atrocities commited by the totalitarian regimes, at least some of which were as certain as Pinker (or the imagined Sir Reginald, Esq., DPhil Oxon. with his history of human progress until 1900) to be "on the right side of history". Now Pinker has 100 years more of and better data but the general point stands. The victorian would have been catastrophically wrong with his extrapolation, so we should be more wary not exactly as whiggish as they were.

...

 

 

That victorian scholar would still have been right though. Even the world-wars have only been blips in the general statistical progress to a less violent humanity.

And the great war was far from the worst war in human history, even at that point. Only in the general region the 30 years war and the Roman conquest of Gaul were already a lot worse in the widespread destruction and impact on population.

[GAROVORKIN]

The fact that all of us are able to converse with one another is in many ways, the biggest plus of the current age . 

[Jo498]

52 minutes ago, Seli said:

That victorian scholar would still have been right though. Even the world-wars have only been blips in the general statistical progress to a less violent humanity.

And the great war was far from the worst war in human history, even at that point. Only in the general region the 30 years war and the Roman conquest of Gaul were already a lot worse in the widespread destruction and impact on population.

Yeah, we have become so peaceful. This was another book of Pinker's. The stats there have been disputed as well. I don't know if they are correct. I actually don't care. The problem with Pinker and similar shallow thinkers is that they can be completely correct in their facts and still miss almost everything that is actually important. (These seem to be Sullivan's main points as well.)

It is irrelevant for the civilizational impact and for how catastrophically WW 1 was perceived by virtually all people who lived through the time how the death toll ratio with the population density figured in or whatever compared to the conquest of Gaul or of Babylon or of some Chinese civil war. The relevant comparison are wars, events and the "state of civilization" in the decades prior to that World war because for people experiencing stuff this is the proper measure, not the An Lushan death toll. I don't know if the ancient Gauls thought of themselves as the pinnacle of civilization, if so, pace Asterix and friends, they were wrong. But the victorians and their contemporaries were not so wrong in their self-assessment. They had the greatest civilization in most respects the planet had ever seen, many thought that wars other than smallish colonial struggles would be a thing of the past. But they were horribly wrong.

The fictional BNW society has abolished hunger and want and let's suppose it is also peaceful and low crime (don't remember how much Huxley says about this but because of the conditioning crime is bound to be almost nonexistent). Let's grant all this. Brave New World would be paradise for Pinker because he lacks the means to express what would be wrong with it because all the "vital stats" would be so great.

[Seli]

35 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

... But the victorians and their contemporaries were not so wrong in their self-assessment. They had the greatest civilization in most respects the planet had ever seen, many thought that wars other than smallish colonial struggles would be a thing of the past. But they were horribly wrong.

...

Victorians would have been wrong, since their pinnacle was clearly a false one. One built on the suffering and oppression of multitudes for every single person that could enjoy the fruits of civilization. It was still moving to equality and more for everyone though, if not in the way they imagined.

Which of course in an issue with our current civilization as well. Which is why our current situation can't do anything but change. Either by the slow processes we see now, or by near unimaginable levels of violence.

So going back to the first post it seems very likely that on average the situation is likely better than ever before, but the current distribution to get at that average is unsustainable in the long run. There is no contradiction in that.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Hard to take Sullivan seriously; surely if there is a long list of things symptoms indicating all is not well it should be easy to create a graph of that as well. Until then its just some half formed/half baked idea I cant give credence to.

State what these symptoms are, track them over time, and then we can compare to Pinker's data.

[GAROVORKIN]

20 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I tell people:

'these are the good old days.' 

  The good old days is a myth that people in every generation re-creates  because they cant't stand the era they live in and long for simpler times .  In truth, the past is never all that it's cracked up to be nor is it as simple they might think .   Ironically and not surprisingly,  there will likely be  those in future generations who look back longingly on our era .

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Hard to take Sullivan seriously; surely if there is a long list of things symptoms indicating all is not well it should be easy to create a graph of that as well. Until then its just some half formed/half baked idea I cant give credence to.

State what these symptoms are, track them over time, and then we can compare to Pinker's data.

There's little data on alienation within modern societies and even less in developing societies.

So while it's easy to look at the consumption of anxiolytics and anti-depressants as well as the suicide rates in modern societies it's pretty much impossible to compare the numbers to anything.

[Altherion]

22 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Which is why nationalisms or religions remain incredibly popular, and why the most liberal-minded individuals tend to view humanity as a single great community with enormous issues to be solved. In a nutshell, while modern life has dismissed many of the principles that were once central to human life, it has yet to replace them with something as meaningful ; that is now for individuals to find.

I'm not sure that it is something that can be found by oneself, at least not for everyone. Part of the power of religion or communism or national movements is that one is part of something greater than a single human existence.

11 hours ago, Seli said:

That victorian scholar would still have been right though. Even the world-wars have only been blips in the general statistical progress to a less violent humanity.

It is extremely difficult to argue that humanity has become any less violent. I know Pinker has made such arguments, but three quarters of a century is very little on historical time scales and the main thing keeping the peace is not some newly found pacifism, but a quirk of technology that causes full-scale conflict between major powers to result in mutually assured destruction. We got lucky in that nukes were introduced at the very end of the war and have stayed lucky in that nobody has used them yet. The problem with luck is that it eventually runs out...

9 hours ago, Seli said:

Victorians would have been wrong, since their pinnacle was clearly a false one.

Well yes, it's rather obvious in hindsight. The question is to which extent this also applies to our society -- it may very well be that a century from now, people look at democracy and human rights in the same way we currently see the class system of the Victorian era.

9 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Hard to take Sullivan seriously; surely if there is a long list of things symptoms indicating all is not well it should be easy to create a graph of that as well. Until then its just some half formed/half baked idea I cant give credence to.

State what these symptoms are, track them over time, and then we can compare to Pinker's data.

The ones that are quantified are rising distrust in public institutions (e.g. mass media or the government) as well as increasing disbelief in the idea that the next generation will be better off. As Rippounet says, there's a bunch of others though.

[DMC]

On 3/12/2018 at 9:29 PM, Rippounet said:

This is an excellent question.

Actually, I think it's an exceedingly unproductive question.  Here's why:

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

The ones that are quantified are rising distrust in public institutions (e.g. mass media or the government) as well as increasing disbelief in the idea that the next generation will be better off.

Yep, those are certain metrics one can use.  While I haven't read this new book, Pinker is presumably relying on more material metrics - which is strange for a trained psychologist but makes perfect sense for someone whose made a career extolling the virtues of reason and rationality.  Ultimately, Sullivan's proposed dichotomy between Pinker and Deneen is pointless because they're examining entirely different things.  And this is not just an operationalization problem - as the trust in institution example illustrates - but a theoretical one.  It's such a broad question there's not even consensus on the assumptions. 

Someone mentioned what this argument would like at the turn of the 20th century, or before WWI.  What about looking at how the world looks like ten years after the Great Recession compared to the Great Depression?  Certainly, despite the rise in authoritarianism, things look better under that framework.  Why isn't that an equally valid way to approach the question?  This reminds me of a brief discussion today in the US politics thread in which some were very sure that once a democracy verges on authoritarianism, it's doomed, because there was one book that kinda maybe suggested it.  Well, no, the difference between democracy and autocracy is a continuous variable, not ordinal (and certainly not dichotomous), and there are plenty of states that have ebbed and flowed between the two throughout recent history.  

Anyway, if you cannot agree not only on operationalizing, but even conceptualizing, the specifics of the question, then there's really no productive discussion to be had.  It's food for thought for pundits, academics that can convince publishers to give them book deals, political philosophy seminars, and random message boards.  And it's of the empty calorie sort.

[Jo498]

Sure, one could look also at recovery after the crisis despite (because of?) totalitarianism. Ask Russians why they prefer life under Putin to chaos uner Jeltsin. My fairly trivial point was that 20/20 is easy in hindsight and several other epochs could have pointed out to rising standards and great achievements before their hard fall.

The other problem is that the points Deneen makes are obviously far harder to quantify than some aspects of material well-being.

How does one measure spiritual poverty and the shallowness of a consumerist society? It becomes more complicated because obviously societies can be quite consumerist but not to the extent that this dominates everything else. Sure, as someone pointed out, the amount of psychopharmaca, school shootings etc. can be quantified and so can the stagnating or deteriorating standard of living for the bottom 50% in the richest nations etc.

Again the naiveté and shallowness of Pinker does not lie in the fact that the things he looks at are easier to measure. It's that he thinks they are all important and does not seem to acknowledge the other aspects or wrongly thinks that the measureable stuff must trump these other aspects or that any "rational" person must think so. This is pseudo-rational foolishness. Certainly, science has to be guided by feasible methodology. But all to often it acts like the drunk searching for his keys under the lamppost because that's where the light is. One cannot measure things that one cannot measure but to deny that they exist and can be more important than the (easily) measurable ones is narrowminded and not at all rational.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Yep, those are certain metrics one can use.  While I haven't read this new book, Pinker is presumably relying on more material metrics - which is strange for a trained psychologist but makes perfect sense for someone whose made a career extolling the virtues of reason and rationality.  Ultimately, Sullivan's proposed dichotomy between Pinker and Deneen is pointless because they're examining entirely different things.  And this is not just an operationalization problem - as the trust in institution example illustrates - but a theoretical one.  It's such a broad question there's not even consensus on the assumptions.

I agree that we're basically talking about apples and oranges. I'm not certain that it is completely unproductive though, as there are obvious links between the two. At the very least, it's useful to put the two analyses side by side to remember that material prosperity is not the alpha and omega of human existence.

I remember being struck doing research on ISIS's propaganda at how coherent their vision of the West was, with its criticism of materialism and individualism. It echoed many other comparable criticisms of the "system" we live in. And ISIS is a fringe extremist movement with very few followers. Eventually, the alienation of modern life may produce far more influential movements or even ideologies ; there are already a few that are picking up, though a single over-arching perspective on it has yet to be developed imho.

7 hours ago, Altherion said:

I'm not sure that it is something that can be found by oneself, at least not for everyone. Part of the power of religion or communism or national movements is that one is part of something greater than a single human existence.

Religions, ideologies or national movements are intellectual shortcuts that provide pre-formatted meaning to the masses. They should never be seen as ends in themselves though, they are just means through which to achieve clarity of mind and spirit. Each person should keep enough criticical distance from their own belief system. Easier said than done, of course, and perhaps not everybody can do that (depending on age, education and environment among other things).
For many educated people, even religion or ideology is no longer enough anyway, as history has shown how shallow and dangerous they can be. The way I see it, this is why neo-conservatisms (in the literal sense of the word) will ultimately fail, because they have nothing new to offer and can only fall back to mistakes that have already been made. Also, technological progess will sooner or later make many current issues meaningless, forcing individuals to move forward rather than backward.
I don't know whether this is a good thing. I certainly wish our societies would reconsider human education in order to not put such a burden on individuals (I'm really not a true "liberal" that way). I just don't believe in the alternatives that are presentend today. Neo-conservative communities will not be able to freeze time and should only achieve temporary victories. Ultimately, the way things are evolving, it will be up to individuals, whether we like it or not.