Why would you? He was put in an extremely irritating position of conducting a debate with a couple of morons and an audience that claps to empty arguments like "what are you talking about?". That's quite an extreme situation to be in
Mica Pingaro, “morons”? Let’s be magnanimous, because Pinker is a person who cares about humanity and has done more for the world in his writings along with the finest scientists and philosophers. “What are you talking about?” Wasn’t mean’t as an argument, and to represent it as such is to quote him not only limitedly but also to quote him in bad faith. I can say it is quite an “extreme situation” to be in is the same catastrophizing Pinker was pointing out.
Mica Pingaro Thanks for giving me a laugh. Please give me one salient argument in support of their positions that cannot be refuted by a 13yr old. Never have I heard such juvenile and trivial arguments championed by those two ideologues on stage. It essentially can be boiled down to this: Pinker- the world is getting better by any measure of well being. Alan- The world is not perfect. Pinker- I never said it was perfect, I said it was getting better. Alan- Oh! Now you’re shifting the goal post! What about literature and the deep problems of the human psyche? Please tell me how this is not laughable and a disgrace to civil and fruitful debate.
They are looking at two different problems from different perspectives. Pinker is looking at the objective factors that affect happiness. Whereas, de Botton is looking at the subjective factors. Subjectivity includes relativity therefore no matter how well you perform on objective measures such as wealth and health you will always have the relative problem of your own minds hedonic treadmill. Poverty will be eradicated but qualitative experience will not. This means we do need new ideas and art to make this impressionist life one that's bearable and beautiful. Instead of Aristotles "happiness" we need Confucian "harmony".
Children are conditioned to think of happiness as the goal of life. Happiness is a temporary surge, but purpose and meaning is the key to a life worth living. This is why wealthy people also tend to act unhappy - research shows that happiness is the logarithm of wealth - beyond 75000$ a year the returns are diminishing. Seeking happiness should be curtailed in lieu of seeking a purpose, a calling - it can be art, sport, service, science, even a profession or even religion Ikigai...
They are both right, the miscommunication happening here is that they have different priorities. Alain makes good and valid points, it didn't seem to me that Steven was dismissing them, but rather argued they should first focus on immediate problems like childdeath, hunger etc. I agree with Steven, people who are vulnerable to depression will become depressed wherever they are and on whatever scale of wealth they will be, so first focus on eliminating the worst of the evils, then eventually work upwards from there. First world problems aren't less serious than third world problems, but they are less immediate. If you can't grasp that I highly recommend visiting a third world country.
Depression is widely accepted to be dependent on both biological factors as you state as well as environmental factors. So despite someone being vulnerable to depression having access to good healthcare can help individuals immensely. Another example could be growing up in a more peaceful country with more compassionate and loving care takers. So I don’t agree with your statement that if you’re vulnerable to depression you’re going to get it regardless. Now this is contrary to data that shows high levels of mental illness in highly developed countries like Switzerland. This is because Switzerland ranks highly in economic competitiveness and human development. Economic and even human development comes at a cost. No one becomes a highly developed individual by sitting on their ass. It takes work to be at the top and emotional overwhelm is inevitable. The issue comes down to the urgency and manner in which we develop. Society places great significance on “being the best” and rewards people with the opportunity to gain assets to measure success. This is the problem that developed countries face. Japan is another prime example of this.
They basically debated different things. I think they can all agree poverty is a great source of tragedy in life,yet Alain is more interested in what still make us suffer after poverty is not an issue. As he said himself, first world problem in a serious sense. And Steven really cared about the living condition of the third world.
It’s true, Steven’s analysis includes everyone by averaging the entire world, instead of privileging his perspective by exclusively focusing on those at the top, as Alain does
@@richardgamrat1944 That's because we keep redefining poverty upwards. In rural America, where I live, a couple making minimum wage can buy a house. Imagine the life they could build if they decided to acquire marketable skills á la Mike and "Dirty Jobs"!
In Alains defence, a relatively wealthy middleclass person who has never experienced something akin to a true depression to the point that they were willing to take their own life, would probably agree with what the likes of Pinker bring to the table with data and comparisons with absolute poverty. But such an individual is willing to dismiss that a wealthy person might hate their own life more than a person of absolute poverty. Our society nourishes this view that relatively wealthy people are not *entitled* to be in need or to suffer, it's very much a sort of hyperbolic marxist notion that living in a wealthy country must be so enjoyable. Not at all, wealthy countries can be devoid of sanity, compassion and love. I'd say I've lived in such a country for a long time and I have envied poor people who had strong bonds with familiy and friends instead of a bankaccount the size of mine.
yes, problems build character and give you depth, not to mention appreciation of your relationships. But problems can also result in pure resentment, selfishness and fear; which is why you get Boko Harams, or even people stealing from stores during natural disasters in first world countries. In fact when instability, poverty and sickness proliferate, there's more of this. The data is clear, if you're rich your happier on average. Average doesn't mean everyone is happier, it means more people are percentage-wise. Pinker's point is not that rich people aren't entitled to be depressed, he is also not saying that if you're rich and depressed you shouldn't exist according to the data. He's point is that we've measured this and the results show you're less likely to be depressed in a rich country. He also compares problems so as to give us perspective of the absolutely unfair comparisons Alain is making. Not being satisfied in your life in a first world country, or filling empty inside doesn't equate to having malaria, losing your on year old child, escaping a war, etc. The trauma that comes from these things is much worse than being safe, but unsatisfied. I agree with Alain in that we often are untrained in our emotions and that's part of what humans are, but when we talk about poor people, it is -they- who aren't entitled to some emotions because they're to busy trying to survive. They're also not entitle to mental health services. The comparison is way out of place.
Alain delves into the issue of depression in developed countries in his latest publish book entitled as ''An Emotional Education''. He ironically writes in opposition to the idea of Pinker's on the potential issue of ''not having wine of greater quality'', so to speak, in developed countries - making this idea seem entirely absurd and trying put Alain's main and core concern aside as if money was the primary reason for happiness. It make me realise how deeply uninformed and neglectful Pinker really is towards an issue of utmost importance. Alain wrote the following: ''But there is (sadly) nothing especially laughable about the problems unfolding in the world's richest countries. People may not starve, life expectancy is high and child mortality almost eradicated, but populations remain beleaguered. The issues are not the sob stories of the well-to-do, begging for sympathy on account of an incorrectly chilled wine, but comprise extremes of loneliness, anxiety, relationship breakdown, rage, humiliation and depression - problems that culminate in the greatest indictment of advanced societies: their exceptionally high suicide rates''. He adds ''The priority of modern politics is economic growth. But humanity's struggle towards material security will only be worthwhile if we understand and find ways to attenuate the psychological afflictions that appear to continue into, and are sometimes directly fostered by, conditions of abundance. The problems of the thirty or so rich countries described as First World are the ones that the whole of our species will, according to current trajectories, be facing in 300 years time''. What he does is summarising and foreseeing the litany of psychological consequences people will experience if nobody intervenes in the notion that money equals happiness. Alain's intent goes in line with the epicurean notion, in which one must have an analysed life, and by having it, then being able to trace the origins of emotions, unpack the anxieties and calm our minds. This is where ''The School of Life'' is doing an incredibly good job, by allowing people to attend the unattended depths of the human condition and stop making a taboo from it. In my judgement, one common trait amongst a variety of wealthy people is that they have not got a sufficiently analysed life. That one can replace analysis with material goods. This idea is unfortunately vacuous and pervasive and will lead to the deterioration and decadence of modern society in the future.
This Steven Pinker guy is very annoying. I've been debating for years and this is definitely not the way to do it. The moment you start trying to humiliate your opponent by changing their words, you've already lost the debate. The idea of a debate is to discuss an issue from various points of view, not to try to start a fight on the spot.
I am usually completely on the data, scientific & quantitative side but I agree with Alain here. There is a danger of becoming so obsessed with the data that you forget the human beings behind it. I really like the perspectives Alain used in this debate to illustrate his argument; historical beliefs, humanities (such as Anna Karenina) and culture also have a (very large) impact on 'happiness' and 'progress.' Yes, it's great that the lines on the graph are going up, less people are poor, more people have food etc. But that is just one part of progress (of course, a very important part). But there is more to human progress and 'happiness' than this, and it takes a non-scientific, broader and more curious mind to look at humanity from a different level altogether. Like I said, I am a scientist and am all for science, but I think in our society we are beginning to see what happens when people feel they aren't being listened to and despite the 'progress' of their society, they do not feel 'happy' e.g. Brexit.
The new "authority" is Dataism. Humanism is beginning to be eclipsed by data as the determiner of who's right in this debate. Pinker citing data that proves things are getting better. Alain counters with humanistic arguments. Yuval Harari nailed this distinction and points out that first God(s) were the authority, then humans and humanism, now data/information (i.e. Google) is becoming the new "go to" decider of who and what is right. This is a new culture war. :)
We should make more of an effort to quantify exactly what we mean by 'happiness', otherwise it will always be this amorphous blob and we won't really know what to do about it.
DeBotton had the harder case to make, and I think he did a decent job with the little empirical proof that his argument has. Hard to prove a negative after all.
... by interrupting, speaking when Pinker was specifically given the space, raising his voice in righteous indignation, straw-manning his opposition's claims (we live in a perfect world 4:15 ). I still have a lot of respect for de Botton, but maybe a little less after this debacle.
Pinker rightly pokes into de Botton's strange point of holding up Switzerland as a not yet perfect country. de Botton has not lived in extreme poverty and has grown up on the sunny side of life. I grew up in Switzerland and spent the last 20 years in Southamerica. You get quickly unhappy if you have nothing to eat. Eating is a good start for happiness.
Alain delves into the issue of depression in developed countries in his latest published book entitled as ''An Emotional Education''. He ironically writes in opposition to the idea of Pinker's on the potential issue of ''not having wine of greater quality'', so to speak, in developed countries - making this idea seem entirely absurd and trying put Alain's main and core concern aside as if money was the primary reason for happiness. It makes me realise how deeply uninformed and neglectful Pinker really is towards an issue of utmost importance. Alain wrote the following: ''But there is (sadly) nothing especially laughable about the problems unfolding in the world's richest countries. People may not starve, life expectancy is high and child mortality almost eradicated, but populations remain beleaguered. The issues are not the sob stories of the well-to-do, begging for sympathy on account of an incorrectly chilled wine, but comprise extremes of loneliness, anxiety, relationship breakdown, rage, humiliation and depression - problems that culminate in the greatest indictment of advanced societies: their exceptionally high suicide rates''. He adds ''The priority of modern politics is economic growth. But humanity's struggle towards material security will only be worthwhile if we understand and find ways to attenuate the psychological afflictions that appear to continue into, and are sometimes directly fostered by, conditions of abundance. The problems of the thirty or so rich countries described as First World are the ones that the whole of our species will, according to current trajectories, be facing in 300 years time''. What he does is summarising and foreseeing the litany of psychological consequences people will experience if nobody intervenes in the notion that money equals happiness. Alain's intent goes in line with the epicurean notion, in which one must have an analysed life, and by having it, then being able to trace the origins of emotions, unpack the anxieties and calm our minds. This is where ''The School of Life'' is doing an incredibly good job, by allowing people to attend the unattended depths of the human condition and stop making a taboo from it. In my judgement, one common trait amongst a variety of wealthy people is that they have not got a sufficiently analysed life. That one can replace analysis with material goods. This idea is unfortunately vacuous and pervasive and will lead to the deterioration and decadence of modern society in the future.
>He ironically writes in opposition to the idea of Pinker's on the potential issue of ''not having wine of greater quality'' That's funny. Does he mention this debate in the book at all or is it just a subtle nod? Nice comment BTW.
@@thedefectivedetectiv Many thanks! He does not address the debate itself in the book. The particular reference to wine, I believe, was extracted from the debate.
Look at the population pyramids of most developed countries, come back in, say, a decade, and redo this debate and let's see what the Pinker's camp will have to say.
Realism is linked to gratitude. Gratitude is linked to happiness and to further effort for dealing with the remaining problems. Looking at the success in the past encourages for trying further with the hope that we may succeed. We understand that both parties in the video are concerned with further progress, but through different perspectives. Optimistic realism does not trivialize the problems, but focuses on the worth of the progress which tends to be neglected often enough.
Thanks for this comment. Very interesting. Let me probe further, specifically on the topic of nationally and culturally fostering gratitude. Gratitude can’t be weaponised but pride can, as we have seen in some cases of national pride. When we think about the enlightenment values adopted by the west, we could look at it with appreciation, gratitude and pride: appreciation at the mechanics of our enlightenment society as compared to an unenlightened one; gratitude for the sacrifices and efforts that our ancestors gave in harnessing their angels over their demons; and pride about this achievement of theirs. It’s this last one, however, that poses problems and I wonder if cultural gratitude could largely replace cultural pride. One problem is that it excludes those who don’t identify with the west and feel threatened by westerners flexing their pride, and also may become more closed to the enlightenment ideals as a result. A second problem is about how accurate it is to be prideful about someone else’s efforts. Maybe you’re proud of your winning football team but is your background support really proportionate to your level of pride? Possibly so. But pride seems like the currency of tribalism, and enlightenment values are humanistic at root. Anyway, that’s more than enough to say, I wonder about your thoughts on this
The debate seemed so stacked against Alain and Malcolm...There is No Point in debating a subject where nearly all factors are to the pro side's advantage. It would have been much better to avoid the debate format and INSTEAD have an open panel discussion to make the audience more open to the points Alain and Malcolm brought up. Not to mention remove the pointless need to have the audience vote on who 'won'. Because of the format their negativity appears petty and weak in comparison to the socially acceptable optimism of Steven and Matt. Btw, the audience voted in favor of pro...no surprise as to why. "Oh, but debates are SOOO much more entertaining..." SMH
Steven believes he's being clever by just spitting out the most redundant replies. While Alain is attempting to invite him into a more in depth discussion on a niche subject unexplored. And to say that science it the only thing that will give us answers is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard and is just so terribly sad to see. The arts, fiction, literature, are all places our brains find answers to the world's biggest problems through brainstorming and so much more complex issues. Without books and art we would not be an advanced civilization. And Anna Kerinana has impacted billions of people's lives since its existence. Saying that it's not important is so ignorant it probably saved more lives than many scientific studies that have been published. And someone should remind Steven that science is not the center of the universe. It is a well known and accepted fact that plumbers have saved more lives than doctors for instance (because of hygiene).
As a professor of psychology at Harvard and formerly M.I.T., Pinker is not ignorant of the societal and mental health issues facing the West, as emphasized by the PHILOSOPHER Alain de Botton. He politely and concisely points out how we have come a long way from the days before Anna Karenina, reminding the audience that, though we face serious issues and tragedies, we have progressed and are continuing to progress. If his substantiated answers are "the most ridiculous thing" you've ever heard, then you've never been good at paying attention.
I love both Alain and Steven and have read most their books. But unfortunately, Alain did not come across the intelligent communicator he normally is. Steven is right; Alain showed up to the wrong debate or didn't frame his arguments cogently or concisely enough to make his point valid. Obviously, Alain does has a valid argument that while proxies for unhappiness may have decreased over the past millennia, happiness itself has not increased across the populations in a substantial way. I wish he framed this argument this way rather than dive into the classics and talking about Anna Karina, etc. He could have argued for the loss of spirituality, the rise of materialism, and other setbacks on the modern man's self conceptualization being the modern equivalents of the tangible problems off food and shelter; but he didn't. While being killed by cholera sucks death by suicide is no day at the camp either. IMHO, a better argument would have been to say that progress is an illusion and much like many addictions, it's only a substitution. You give up one addiction to pick up another. Yes, many traditional measures of unhappiness have abated; but new ones have replaced them. Sources of unhappiness are like weeds, the more you cut them the more the sprout. But they evolve into different forms. Therefore, unhappiness is a function of the human brain and it's interpretation of the world.... maybe it's due to its confusion between the the two terms happiness and satisfaction; which is the same difference between the word progress and what the Amish decided, which is adequate progress (satisfaction). These would have been better conversations rather than talking over each other and making fun of each other.
As I said in my own comment, the 1st world is rife w/ serious problems, one of which is declining birthrate, which is a direct result of the classical liberalism we cherish so much. This dilemma can't be dismissed with Pinker's data.
@@sicklygreyfoot I'm not sure if declining birthrates is a bad thing. Yes, maybe relative increase in birthrate in the developing world can be a bad thing geopolitically; but in general, less people can improve the quality of life and the environment for everyone. Any secular person of any belief system can understand this argument. We don't need more people on this earth, we need less. Maybe we need more quality people who can innovate and produce rather than mere consumers. This is not an argument limited to Classical Liberals.
@@AANasseh This is a short-sighted view. Fewer babies means fewer future doctors, engineers, philosophers, teachers, and legions of workers to apply all that the above create. A declining birthrate means a deficit of human infrastructure. Services, of which we ALL require, don't just happen by themselves. Fewer people might be more convenient for your immediate needs, but what about the future? And this is in fact all a result of classical liberalism, which touts individuality and personal choice. I happen to tout those things myself, but we can't deny it's created a crisis. Hence why I mentioned the dilemma. How DO we address birthrates w/out infringing on civil liberties? So I completely disagree that it's not a bad thing. It certainly is bad if one is thinking more than five minutes ahead.
@@sicklygreyfoot While I'm a classical Liberal as well I don't see this argument the same way you're posing it. It's a long argument for a RU-vid post but like bacteria growing in a petri dish humans can over populate and cause environmental problems. Less children means less carbon foot print and less social environmental burden. This is why many in developing countries, once rising out of poverty choose to have less kids too. It's because instead of a shotgun approach they invest more into each kid. That's better for everyone. It's in fact this way that we will increase the ratio of doctors, engineers, etc. to drug dealers and gang members. If we can have more active guidance and parenting. We should focus on quality rather than quantity. Automation will force us do that by reducing the need for lower skill workforce anyway. In the process, there will be turmoil until we settle the population issue. A confined system alway finds its own equilibrium. In case of bacteria in a petri dish, a long log phase is followed by a rapid death phase. Let's hope we can avoid that by better planning.
@@AANasseh I disagree. Mitigating the carbon footprint will come with innovation, not absence. Extinction happens all the time unless a species can hold it off. People are choosing not to have children, and that results in a future of very few people. That's not better for anyone, since it decreases the chances of the above-mentioned innovation. We'll find ourselves with a small number of idiots who don't have different perspectives that help give insight and generate new ideas. Then there won't be any planning at all. Granted, in the cosmos, that doesn't mean anything. But it does mean something to US. All lifeforms seek to perpetuate themselves through some form of reproduction. We're no different.
What Alain is not understanding, probably because he does not have a background in statistics, is that data gives us a good picture of how things are going on. Having data is not conclusive evidence, but it gives us a better picture than our intuition. I can surely say with confidence that given the right data, I can know with ~75-85 accuracy, how the world is moving forward. Now, that obviously leaves some margin of error. Steven is trying to say that there is a very small chance that he might be bludgeoned to death, and also that chance has decreased a lot since the last century. I can keep saying that - 'but it is not exactly zero.' It will never be exactly zero. No amount of reform can prevent a mad man from bludgeoning me to death. Reforms do decrease the chances of that happening. But I repeat, that chance will never be exactly zero.
Data can be driving to point whatever you want. Correlation does not mean causes. In the 70s the crime rate was high in the US and expected to go even more based on what you call it “Data” but it dropped down heavily and one factor that very little ppl would notice was the approval of abortion so no teenager moms who wanted no kid have to raise unwanted children in the streets. Data are just plain and meaningless if it will be looked into alone.
Alain is right. People in Switzerland Don't compare themselves with people in poor countries. They compare with their neighbors, colleagues and so on, happiness is related to expectations, if you expect big house and have it then you are happy, if you expect less then having big house is not an essue. Pinker has narrow view of happiness
I would love to see the studys saying that happiness correlates with happyness. How the fck are economists going to figure out what happiness means. Some people say warm showers make them happy, others say cold showers make them happy. Some people love to cry, some people hate to cry. Some people gain meaning out of their poverty and life happy, simple lifes. Others live with wealth and live complex, difficult lifes full of stress.
Pinker has never, not once had or expressed any interest, or knowledge in working with folks with serious mental health or distressing psychological issues. Allain my respect of you has increased so much for this....well done! Stephen Pinker needs a conversation with Professor Stephen Hayes.
The professor of psychology with decades of experience at M.I.T. and Harvard has never expressed interest in addressing serious mental health or distressing psychological issues? And your respect goes to a philosopher? Your relationship with reality on par with any episode of Star Trek, sans Spock. P.S., a university professor of psychology is the guy who teaches clinical psychologists what to do.
@@EzerEben No, my respect is for Allain's mere useful counter balance. The originator of The School of Life... seems to be more aware of what human beings subjectively experience. If progress is so beneficial, why is the suicide rates high in Sweden, and South Korea which consistently has very high educational achievements, but high suicide rates. Pinker is sceptical of Mindfulness, might be flummoxed like Dawkins..when Sam Harris might discuss "Having no head" as but a small part of his Waking Up course. I do think Steven has had little actual experience in working with the issues described. Both are very skilled, but missing each others main assertions?
@@tonyburton419 , your original statement is baseless and extremely unlikely to apply to any psychologist in the world, let alone one with Pinker's credentials, experience and writing. Just say you fell for de Botton's emotional appeals, and leave it there without falsely besmudging the career of a person you don't know. Additionally, find out the subject of the debate and see who was more on point and relevant.
I think that the happiness of the developed world is the one they measure when people evaluate their lives. The happiness of the moment is more difficult to measure, and it is the one that de Botton is talking. For this kind of happiness, blind and paraplegic people are as happy as normal people, and the rich are as happy as the middle class. Material wealth just make us happy for a few months. It is the hedonic treadmill. Social bonds have a lasting happiness, and this is where the developed world sucks.
LOL! Alain accuses Steven of "shifting" off each topic, when it is he (Alain) who is doing this throughout the debate and projecting this behavior onto Steven!
What an ability of Pinker to take out of context what Alain said and distort it entirely. Happens in conversations many times, sadly. Its natural. We understand the way we desire to understand. Logic is vanished and instead you make a "funny" joke without any link to what Alain said originally. Sigh...
are you serious Pinker "the best day are just ahead" grow up. this quote is good maybe till for max 25-30 years old. What about the setbacks of life? Your solution "Maybe a pill can help" can erase problems. When somebody feels discomfort just go to pharmacists .. or take drug the future will be bright. "the best day are just ahead" is a cynnical view.
Fiction stems from real life stories and events. It is the most ridiculous thing I have every heard. Fiction is our subconscious speaking. In fact someone should remind this Steven guy (whoever he is I don't care to know after this circus act) that there has never been a science without a science fiction preceding it. Since he claims to know so much he should know that you don't preform science experiments without a hypothesis. A few hundred years ago people thought it was fiction that we could fly or that the earth was round or that there could ever be such a thing as a 'computer'. That was extreme fiction and it never would have taken place if human beings never had an artistic platform to DREAM it.
Alain de Botton's argument is rhetorical, if not obscurantist: he calls everything that is data-based or factual a 'shifting of grounds.' Well, I can see where De Botton is coming from; I am coming from the same place -- a sort of neoexistential hysteria; a tendency to gloomily exaggerate the imaginary maladies of modernity. Well, good-bye to all that! (Aside to fellow-novelists: having rid myself of 'all that' hasn't impoverished my writing either.)
I am British and emigrated to a third world country when I was 38 having lived in relative poverty most of my life. I am still poor now, but I prefer my poor country to the rich one.
For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? Time is running out, find the Lord while you may For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I would submit that @alaindebotton is right, as the number of suicides is higher in the countries @stevenpinker claims to have "solved" their existential issues
A big ps; I LOVE debates and that really was Malcolm Gladwell adjudicating!!!!!!!! Love the Munk debates. I was vr disappointed that Justin Trudeau declined this forum, but of course am so glad that this is a kind of Canadian ritual passage to hone one's ideas and think more widely.
Can Alain only understand black or white thinking? The debate was about if things are getting better, not wearther they are perfect, why is this so hard to comprehend for him?
Science and technology can also be the devil’s workshop like what’s happening in the present.We say we are getting technologically advance but the world’s situation is getting worst.I am for Alain as he is for the general welfare and the other two are as Alain says are shifting and therefore very narrow if not self centered.
Many people are saying that they are talking about different things. I think: No, they just have different scale of time and perception on which their statements are targeted. It's great that world has been able to alleviate extreme poverty, however it should not stop us from reflecting on how did it come to happen, and what if continues in the same way. My personal favourite thought about this is "did things got solved because of our intention? Was it conscious?" I think not, extreme poverty got solved only(I accept not in all cases though) because somebody wanted to earn more than their peers, not because they were concerned by sufferings of poor.
I have to admit, I love living United States, the Land of plenty, but we have a high depression, suicide and opiate crisis here.. I've heard many people say that living on the edge of survival can give you a deep appreciation for everyday you find yourself alive. I'm not so sure that quality can be quantitatively measured with the scientific method.
Let's remember that statistics are taken from samples of people. I might take 10people of which 9 are rich and happy. I might also say 90% of people are happy because they are rich and that would NOT be true. Therefore, we cannot talk about studies favouring the idea of money equals happiness. Allain is very eloquent and logical in this video as in all his videos. They are indeed addressing this issue from different perspectives yet we cannot ignore how first world problems are increasing. I know that poverty might be a huge issue but it is seen in many ways not only in material ones. People suffer because they don't have food but once they have it they will suffer from not having love once they get that they will probably suffer from lack of confidence. You might want to look at Maslow's pyramid of needs. All of these needs are the same. Poverty does not only include physical need it also concerns emotional and mental health.
Very well said!As a rule man will always want what is not.where ever one is there will be issues the degree would not even be comparable as we seem to experience same pain hurt happiness whoever, where ever we are in the world. That's equity divided naturally.
What the Pro side fails to realize is the progress they champion has to a significant degree been paid for through colonization, and in fact some of the problems of the third world were caused, in part, by this very notion. What de Botton could’ve brought up, with regard to his Switzerland point, is does the progress achieved through industrialization create problems specific to itself? If it breeds alienation to even a slight degree many writers have suggested, some “first world problems” should certainly be taken as seriously as others.
Suicide is indeed at a tragic level in the West. The current suicide rate of African-Americans is around 6 per 100,000. With suicide victims included, the average life expectancy of African-Americans in 1850 was 21.4 years of age (!!!!!) compared to over 75 years of age today. Now tell Steven how we've truly made no measurable progress in the last 200 years. I personally believe we have progressed as a society... through technology, medicine, nutrition and especially social change.
@@EzerEben Our Hysterical response to Covid says the opposite to me 🤷♂️ Nutrition- Obesity levels are sky high ! Social Change - as in what Ps there didn’t seem much soul in your answer.
@@seanmoran6510 Your hysterical comment did ZERO to refute the evidence Steven or I provided for progress. Of course our covid response is a huge setback. But it didn't set us back to medieval times, i.e., the Golden Age of Christianity. We're not hunting witches, killing gays or enslaving Blacks, among other areas of progress.
I'm glad that i bumped into this.A RU-vid recommendation.I will check out the full debate on vimeo too.What's interesting to me is that i have admired the work both Alain De Botton and Steven Pinker,and until now,had no knowledge of this debate.Thanks for posting.
The problem with many debates is that people simply think very differently. Pinker sees the world through a hyper-rational, statistically-driven magnifying glass that, whilst impressive and the basis of valid arguments, is blind to the nuances of human experience that the more philosophically inclined are more likely to pick up on. These two men - Pinker and De Botton - will never see eye to eye because they see the world through totally different lenses.
Exactly, although an excess of rationality can be very limiting and a defense mechanism. Is it true that we live better than ever? In a way, it is. In another way, modern life brings new and unknown problems which are mainly psychological and far far more difficult to see.
@@Soytu19 Your argument hinges on the assumption that there has been a zero-sum gain in happiness and progress. That is completely false and humanity today is unbelievably better off than ever before. Just because we have unresolved problems today and it isn't a utopia, doesn't mean that we are equal to the past, not by a long shot.
one view is factually correct and the other is based on emotional nitpicking. Life has gotten better for billions of people regardless of the fact that people still suffer today. Saying we are better off today than we were in the past is not the same as saying that we no longer have problems and everybody is happy.
David Carlyon it most certainly hasn’t been debunked. How is he highly selective? Health by longevity, GDP, crime rates, war deaths, poverty..etc are all measures that governments produce or large NGO such as UN and world bank. This isn’t selective.
The best point of the night was made by Ridley, who explained WHY we can expect progress to continue into the future. Progress is based on the discovery and testing of ideas. Communications technology will continue to accelerate the discovery and testing of ideas. Especially scientific and technological ideas. The genetic revolution in health care is just beginning.
Alain de Botton doesn't have much of a leg to stand on on these arguments, and yes correctly pointed out that they are arguing about different things. Huge progress is happening on a global level but in the west progress has somewhat been hindered and now new challenges have emerged, however the new challenges are a damn sight better than those existing in developing countries. Alain attests to the idea that there is still misery and suffering, however I believe that this kind of suffering is more a case of manufactured suffering and not the suffering brought about by challenging circumstances preventing basic needs being met. After all basic needs are met income does not directly correlate with happiness anymore but this is largely attributed to happiness being a manifestation of our desire for material wealth and transactional attainment.
Alan de Botton isn't nearly as smart as he (clearly) thinks he is. His false equivilancy to Pinkers arguments is so silly... how can you even have a debate with someone like that???
9:17 this preachy, data-dismissing point from Alain followed by the logical, data-basing checkmate from Pinker sums up both styles and this debate well
I am suprised how this conversation went so immature. Like two boys in highschool. So many ad personam arguments and mean comments. They are not interested in finding common ground for dicussion :(
If I had been the moderator, I would have turned the debate towards epistemology, a scary word that is in fact not too difficult to understand. It means: what is your definition of fact, truth, reality or evidence? what are the resources you use to assert that something is a fact or evidence? ①Steven Pinker doesn't use a narrow view of the world he uses scientific epistemology, this means he uses a view of evidence which highlights objectivity. ②Alain de Bottom uses humanist epistemology. To him, objectivity is tyrannical, it means the death of philosophical inquiry. To him, perceptions, intuitions and things of the soul in general are as valid matters as scientific facts. Of course you can question both epistemological positions. For example, is objectivity achievable? Certainly not to a 100%. But by taking a given subject, observing all variables you can see, establishing intelligent ways to measure them, actually measuring them, getting the results, analyzing and questioning the results, putting them under scrutiny, replicating the study, studying all available studies on that subject, and even checking if there are any biases in them; the scientific method gives us results that are certainly closer to objective truth than pure philosophical inquiry. Absolute truth is unattainable, yes, but science is closer to it than further from it. You can demonstrate this by how you can operationalize science and things just work. Planes fly because the scientific principles behind flight were not a lie, but true. Hospitals run and save lives because the scientific principles behind medical science are true. If they weren't we would see it and we would know they aren't. Not only that but with science you can constantly predict phenomena and be right. It can also be wrong, and it often is. But it is not humanists who discover this mistakes, but other scientists with better definitions, ways to measure and results. Science is designed not to be right all the time, but to be a method to seek objectivity. As such, it constantly and beautifully refines itself. Alain de Bottom also seems to conflate philosophy with psychology. In deed, they share many of the same concerns. To some people philosophy calms their psique better than psychotherapy. Psychotherapy may be in its infancy, but make no mistake. Psychology is not a humanity it's a science. While the psique might appear as though it belongs to the humanities, it can and is being put through the scientific approach. This will be another triumph to science and will relieve millions of people but not exclusively through drugs, but through advances in psychotherapy. People who deny this, feel as though this is the end of the humanities, but it's not. There will always be value and utility in them, just not in specificly using ancient epistemological resources to solve complex multi-variable problems or crises of the modern world. Actually, to this end, science has already won, because non of the breakthroughs in progress, curing illnesses, ending fathoms, improving education systems, etc. came from that vision of epistemology, but from the scientific one. Even now as we face a pandemic outbreak, one type of epistemology will rule over the other.
Pinker rightfully states enormous progress has been made over the past decades. There are however several perspectives that put this progress in a critical light. First of all, of course, it's unsustainability; we won't be able to keep this level of well-being up and we know it. Second, the wealth-distribution has become so unequal we start to learn and see it's eating away at the very fabric of social society; it's tearing us apart. Thirdly, through (incredible!) ICT we are dealing/have to deal with so much information and communication, it's driving us all mad. There are more items to add to this list but the basic point is; yes, a lot of good things have been developed and progress has been made and at the same time we are facing several existantial crises, which are of course also caused/made possible by/in the slipstream of that same amazing progress. So both "camps" have a valid perspective on reality, they only shine their light on a different angle.
How much time should I debate the general happiness of Humans who are DETERMINED to be hateful and inflict misery on fellow human beings. It is enough for ME to work out my happiness.
Alain is desperate, his career is at stake. He should not have defended that we don't progress. His point should have been that we aren't happier. Are we happier? that is the debate he should be in.
Although I might be biased, I feel that in this part I saw here, Mr Pinker does an almost unfair job. Instead of understanding what Alan said and recognizing his points, maybe repeating them, asking if he got it right what he was trying to say, he goes directly on to nitpick and to what it seems almost personal attacks. This at least didn't raise my respect for Mr Pinker, which I find to be a pitty, since I feel we can learn from anyone. Being nice and respectful doesn't necessarily mean to share the same view, but it invits to understand each other more, instead of defending and attacking...
de Botton: the world is not perfect (!!). Pinker: No one in their right mind thinks the world is perfect. But it's better than it was 200 years ago. de Botton: Pinker thinks the world is perfect. Pinker: no. de Botton: the world is not perfect. Pinker: What are you talking about? de Botton: Shut up while I interrupt you again, and I will continue to speak even when the moderator says it's your turn, and let me be irate about this because I am the only one with any knowledge of the mental health issues in the world, despite my philosophy degree giving me zero expertise while you are a Harvard and M.I.T. professor of psychology. The world is not perfect! Not even in Switzerland!!
Botton seems to want to throw away the good in pursuit of the perfect. Pinker is arguing that the world is getting better, but Botton is saying that it still isn't good enough
I wish de Botton wouldn't use the word "perfect." That derails his completely valid position. He doesn't even need it. Fact is, the 1st World is rife w/ very serious problems, not the least of which is birthrate decline. And that decline is a direct result of classical liberalism. This is a dead serious dilemma, one that can't be dismissed with Pinker's data.
@finalfantasy8911 No, it's the opposite. It's "overpopulation," or rather the myth of it, that wasn't rational. Birthrate decline most certainly IS a problem for humans.
Alexandru Gheorghe alaines argument was based on a straw man. Progress still happens even if some people still suffer today. Also he cited a fictional story as evidence of his moral view-not very convincing.
I love(d) de Botton. He unfairly straw-manned Pinker (4:15) , constantly interrupted, did not attempt to understand or practice charitable interpretation, behaved irately, and falsely accused Pinker of shifting the goal post without properly citing his original claim to compare it with the any latter claims. He reminded me of Ben Affleck on Bill Mahr's show: An ignorant celebrity displaying righteous indignation while void of substance. Not that de Botton is ignorant by any stretch. He just frequently acted the part in this debate. I was anticipating a much better conversation. Nay, I was expecting camaraderie, albeit with unique perspectives from each person on stage. Was he instructed to oppose Pinker so as not to make Armageddon-preaching politicians look like charlatan insurance salesmen?
Are you kidding me? Botton and Gladwell put on one of the most intellectually dishonest performances I've ever seen. Pinker: The world is getting better in a number of areas and here's the data. Botton and Gladwell: Oh ya, well even utopias like Switzerland aren't perfect. Checkmate, Mrs. Pollyanna.
@@synchronium24 lets leave the words "exposed", destroyed" and "schooled" aside for a second. This is important. What the left side failed to see and what the right maybe failed to explain well enough was: The tools to solve the problems that the left side was praising, are effective in solving one part of the equation, but they also lead to a deadend (Switzerland). At that point onwards they possibly even begin making things worse. The deadend may not be relevant to Butswana, but it is relevant to Switzerland. So the question could be - why use these tools? Why not admit that they have their flaws, that the flaws are legitimate, and that we should be looking for something better? Let's put it this way - when Michael Phelps won its first gold medal in Butterfly, what did he do then? He went back in, swam in a completely different style and won Free Style. These guys there on the left want us to swim only butterfly. Allen wants us to start exploring and evolving beyond what we currently have. And yeah, of course, keep helping economicaly very poor countries.
@@fuberlin1 I agree with you. Using words such as 'exposed' or 'destroyed' is just . . . .lazy. It brings us nowhere nearer to the solution, only serve as a brief 'feel good' feeling by patronizing others without offering real contributions.
@@synchronium24 , Right. Who in the history of the world has ever claimed that the world is perfect. Yet, this is exactly how de Botton is straw-manning Pinker's position. 4:15
