Name: Do Humankind's Best Days Lie Ahead?
ISBN: 9781786070777

Steven Pinker

Alain de Botton

Matt Ridley

Malcolm Gladwell

‘It’s just a brute fact that we don’t throw virgins into volcanoes any more. We don’t execute people for shoplifting a cabbage. And we used to.’ –Steven Pinker ‘The idea that because things have gotten better in the past they will continue to do so in the future is a fallacy I would have thought confined to the lower reaches of Wall Street.’ –Malcolm Gladwell In a world driven by technology and globalization, is humanity approaching a Golden Age or is the notion of progress a Western delusion? Four of the world’s most renowned thinkers take on one of the biggest debates of the modern era…

Do Humankind's Best Days Lie Ahead?

Progress. It is one of the animating concepts of the modern era. From the Enlightenment onwards, the West has had an enduring belief that through the evolution of institutions, innovations, and ideas, the human condition is improving. This process is supposedly accelerating as new technologies, individual freedoms, and the spread of global norms empower individuals and societies around the world. But is progress inevitable? Its critics argue that human civilization has become different, not better, over the last two and a half centuries. What is seen as a breakthrough or innovation in one period becomes a setback or limitation in another. In short, progress is an ideology not a fact; a way of thinking about the world as opposed to a description of reality. In the seventeenth semi-annual Munk Debates, which was held in Toronto on November 6, 2015, pioneering cognitive scientist Steven Pinker and best-selling author Matt Ridley squared off against noted philosopher Alain de Botton and best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell to debate whether humankind s best days lie ahead."

The Munk Debates

lala

I have never heard of the Munk Debates before reading this book. Had I known about it I probably would've watched the debate instead of reading the transcript. In the Pro team we have Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley, which I suppose, are scientists, and in the Con team we have Alain de Botton, modern philosopher and Malcolm Gladwell, a renowned author. I do have to say that the debate is slightly skewed, I'd say that the debate would be more interesting if we have a scientist on the con team and vice versa. Some part of the debate also have ad hominem fallacy which is easily spotted when you're reading the transcript and maybe not so much if you watch the debate live. The topic is interesting, the notion each speaker brings is also interesting, but I don't think it should be read, it's better to watch the debate.

Do Humankind's Best Days Lie Ahead?

Reviews

Highlights