Quote:
In order to back up your claim about the 20th century being particurarly terrible, you need to compare it to other centuries. Pointing out terrible things that happened in the 20th century doesn't mean anything.
As for democracy, oppression is generally linked to things such as human rights and rights to take part in ruling the country.
Maybe you should explain what you mean with it, and what things you think got worse during the 20th century in comparison to the 19th or 18th centuries for example.
|
I'm familiar with both the Hobbesian claims made by Pinker and yourself. I also know that for the most part, violence has declined proportionally, although Pinker himself makes it clear that this is not a linear process, and violence tends to spike periodically out of the norm. He is probably right to say that WWI, WW2, the Tsarist pograms, dekulakization, Cultural Revolution, the Purges, and the Holocaust are statistical outliers in 4 centuries of gradual pacification bracketed by his so-called Humanist Revolution and the Long Peace.
I find no real issue here. His statistical analysis appears to pass the grade from expert reviewers. But the body counts do increase, and are only dwarfed by a correlating explosion in demographics brought about by Western technology.
His discussions regarding moral psychology, political systems, and human existential questions are lacking.
This has been brought up by many reviewers. He does not have much to say for instance of the increased stakes brought by violence being concentrated in the hands of state players armed with nuclear weapons or the ability of a mass society to wage violence on a particular group - the Jews in Poland are brought to mind (See Tyler Cowen).
He also ignores the contributions of Christianity to Enlightenment morality (see David Bentley Hart).
The waters are further muddied by Pinker's arrogance, a character trait that has attracted criticism in the past.