Category: Non-Fiction; Rating: 3 out of 5; Tags: Progress, Civilization, Forecasting
The Munk Debates tackle issues of global public policy, like humanitarian aid, global warming, extreme poverty, and genocide. This book is a transcript of a Munk debate held in Toronto in 2015. Its topic was a bit of a departure from the usual, having a more philosophical focus. The proposition was, Do Humankind’s Best Days Lie Ahead?, with Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley arguing for, and Alain de Botton and Malcolm Gladwell arguing against.
It’s a short book, easily read in a single sitting, so those interested can skip this review and head straight for the full transcript.
Pinker starts things off by pointing out the many areas in which humankind is better off than in the past: lifespans are longer, health is better, people are wealthier, war is less frequent, violent crime is falling, levels of freedom and education are increasing, and human rights have improved. He argues that there is no reason for these trends to change; they are slow, stable, long-term improvements that will most likely continue.
de Botton counters that human frailty and flaws mean that progress is not inevitable; fixing the ills described by Pinker still leaves room for idiocy, angst, pain and death.
Ridley expands on the improvements mentioned by his debating partner, and shows that many forecasts of doom were wrong, from famine to bird flu, the hole in the ozone layer to deforestation. He believes that innovation stimulated by globalization will continue to drive the positive trends of the past.
Malcolm Gladwell’s argument is based on the idea that great change leads to a change in the nature and degree of risk we face. We didn’t used to have to worry that a hacker might shut down the electrical grid, or take control of our cars and drive them off the road. Yes, there has been progress, and that will likely continue for some privileged groups, but humanity as a whole faces potentially devastating new risks.
After that, it’s a series of rebuttals and counter-arguments until the debate wraps up. Before the debate, an audience survey had 71% for and 29% against the resolution; after the debate, it was 73% for and 27% against, giving the win to Pinker and Ridley.
In a debate, the participants are in it to win, not to arrive at consensus, but here the discourse was remarkably civil. I found the arguments for the resolution to be effective, but the case against could have been stronger. For example, yes, medical science has improved dramatically, but the threat of naturally evolved or genetically engineered super-bugs could cause a global pandemic. Poverty has diminished, but high debt and poor regulation could cause another global financial crisis. Famine has all but vanished, but population growth is putting increased pressure on the environment, and we don’t really know where the breaking point is. Humans have a long history of finding somewhere nice, then ruining it through overpopulation and environmental degradation.
The debaters might also have considered the time span to which the resolution applies – it’s easy to believe that improvements will continue for the next ten years, but what about the next thousand?
Books I've Read 