Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> Pinker wants to claim things are getting better but it seems blind to how we can use our "progress" to bring forth previously unimaginable horror

In The Better Angels of Our Nature [1], Pinker posits a single measure of progress: the population-adjusted frequency of violence. He then proceeds to argue, on very long time horizons (e.g. thousands of years), that this metric has almost monotonically declined. The horrors of the twentieth century, in his eyes, are balanced by the larger population. (There is disagreement regarding his pre-historic data [2].)

TL; DR If population keeps rising with technological ability, ceteris paribus, the average person will be better off tomorrow than today. Even if ever-more terrible things happen from time to time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...

[2] https://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/sites/fasn/files/Pinker's%20Lis...

View on HN

I think that Better Angels makes a stronger case from a qualitative point of view than it does from the quantitative point of view. Taleb and others have criticized Pinker’s statistical analysis quite convincingly, but the historical narrative still stands: looking at the human cruelty throughout history, it’s hard to deny that there are many violent practices that are now taboo, and that we seem to have broken out of the hobbesian trap.

The overall historical narrative that he presents, about specific factors like capital punishment and infant mortality, is generally valid. But Pinker's use of historical evidence is at least as flawed as the issues with his statistics. Better Angels literally appears to be based on a group of research assistants, without archival training, being let loose in a library and tasked with cataloguing all examples of violence and mortality throughout history.

This leads to an obvious sample bias and to Pinker basing the bulk of his argument on some truly questionable, non-peer reviewed secondary sources. It is frankly the kind of approach that would get called out if done by an undergraduate history major.

And I say that as someone who thinks Pinker is a fantastic writer, and who is sympathetic to much of the argument of Better Angels. But it's hard for me not to see some level of condescension in Pinker's approach to doing historical analysis. What he does in that book is akin to me (if you couldn't already guess, an historian) trying to write a pop linguistics book by reading a bunch of library books on the subject and chatting with the linguistics professors who have offices down the hall from me.

I stand corrected, and appreciate hearing your perspective. It does have a different structural feel to it compared to works I’ve read by respected modern day historians (which isn’t that many), so I think I can see what you’re getting at.

Another related development is that you don't need to have a successful military career to distinguish oneself. Also, compulsory military drafts aren't nearly as widespread.

> If population keeps rising with technological ability, ceteris paribus, the average person will be better off tomorrow than today. Even if ever-more terrible things happen from time to time.

I think that's a pretty big assumption... population has an upper bound to how large it can grow without causing terrible things to happen (destruction of all non-human supporting ecosystems, for instance), whereas there are no similar limits to the terrible effects of misused technology.

Also, if population were to drop, say from a new plague or the loss of resources from a cataclysm, the terrible capabilities of technology are still available and thus have a larger impact relative to the new population level.

It's to hard to argue with his data over those long periods, but the acceleration of new technological capabilities since WWII is quite unique in their power. It seems to me that much of the recent increases in prosperity and peace are based on the political and economic systems that have remained relatively stable throughout this unique time period. Should this situation destabilize this very new technology could be unleashed with uniquely terrible consequences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com