5 refutations of Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now

1 - An unsustainable ecological footprint and ecocide (countless other species made prematurely extinct).

2 - A reduction in long-term survival prospects for humanity due to said ecological footprint/ecocide.
3 - An increase in the potential for imminently catastrophic violence in the form of nuclear weapons.
4 - Greater number of years spent in poor health due to increases in lifespan that include disease and infirmity into old age.
5 - The loss of religious meaning that to some extent compensated for pre-industrial & primitive life’s hardships- generally providing a stronger anxiety buffer and fostering a stronger sense of purpose and community than secular meaning today.

[@BlogofTheW3st]

All good points!

[@donthesitatebegin9283]

The horror. The ... horror.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

Well said. Btw, do you really think that past societies were that immune to meaninglessness and loneliness? We can still read accounts of thinkers who have a crisis of faith from times past. Maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration to say they were secure in their faithfulness?

[@qingbusiness6713]

Kindly if you can, change the name of the channel, it's hard to remember

[@anonymity11]

Fair enough. I think his work on human nature is more valuable and bears more fruit (ie refuting that humans are blank slates).

[@macrubit]

None of thee are refutations of his main thesis. They are simply complementary points to make or new challenges that were not present before humanity had progressed to the current degree. That is to say, I do not think one can make a strong case against Enlightenment based on these arguments.

[@mr1001nights]

Sure they are. The 5 points I raise- especially the first 2, clearly entail that there has been no *overall* progress at all but simply progress in certain areas at the expense of incomparably greater regress and devastation in others (far greater value subtracted than added).