Scan barcode
ratrug's review against another edition
3.5
I expected this debate to centre more on human nature - mankind’s tendency to operate selfishly as an individual versus selfishly as a species
I think the emphasis on data from the ‘pro’ team disregarded how we use that data. Everyone acknowledged and accepted we had the means to improve things, but whether we will seize that means (that is, whether it is a politically and financially desirable choice for the people whose opinions matter) feels a more significant question.
The question of whether progress needs to be eternally positive (I.e.. mankind’s best days need to lie ahead and then keep on lying ahead) for the statement to be true is interesting, and I don’t feel the definitions of the statement were unpacked that nicely.
Enjoyable read but the debate itself wasn’t that good.
I think the emphasis on data from the ‘pro’ team disregarded how we use that data. Everyone acknowledged and accepted we had the means to improve things, but whether we will seize that means (that is, whether it is a politically and financially desirable choice for the people whose opinions matter) feels a more significant question.
The question of whether progress needs to be eternally positive (I.e.. mankind’s best days need to lie ahead and then keep on lying ahead) for the statement to be true is interesting, and I don’t feel the definitions of the statement were unpacked that nicely.
Enjoyable read but the debate itself wasn’t that good.
bucketoffish's review against another edition
1.0
This book consists of a debate transcript between Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, Alain de Botton, and Malcolm Gladwell, as well as pre-debate interviews with each of the speakers and a post-debate analysis. The topic was "Do humankind's best days lie ahead?".
Overall, I thought the debate was terrible. Both Botton and Gladwell made good points in their pre-debate interviews, but were unable to bring them up clearly in the actual debate. Botton in particular seemed like he was rambling, and it was difficult to tell during the debate what he was talking about. All parties involved constantly talked past and over each other, and very few points were actually addressed. I think you can see this in the pre and post-debate polls of the audience, which showed that very few people changed their minds. Makes sense when there was barely any actual discussion. The points made by Pinker were already accepted by all four speakers before the debate began, and the actual points where they differed were not given due attention.
In order to have an effective debate, everybody needs to start on the same page. I think it would have helped if one of the pro debaters tried to clarify the opposing position. Imagine if Pinker had said, "Botton, I think you're saying that material progress can't really be the only judge of whether or not it's pleasant to be a human being. There's things like loneliness, anxiety, depression, and loss of agency that are elevated in the present day, correct? Well, my response to that is to look at how social attitudes have changed towards mental health. Therapy is more available these days, and more people are aware and thinking about these problems. Data also shows that we're kinder to each other. Instances of bullying in schools, for example, have been on a downward trend... [etc.]". If we had more of this kind of discussion instead of the endless crosstalk, the debate could have been interesting and ended up changing some people's minds.
The debate format has problems too. The free-for-all section needs to go. Absolutely nothing useful was said there. Additionally, each speaker needs more time. It's not sensical to invite four people on stage and to give them a combined hour of speaking time. I think two people, two hours is a better format, and if there is a free-for-all section, the moderator needs to make sure that people don't interrupt each other.
At the very least, it was nice to hear a summary of Pinker's ideas. I feel like it's less necessary now to read The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Overall, I thought the debate was terrible. Both Botton and Gladwell made good points in their pre-debate interviews, but were unable to bring them up clearly in the actual debate. Botton in particular seemed like he was rambling, and it was difficult to tell during the debate what he was talking about. All parties involved constantly talked past and over each other, and very few points were actually addressed. I think you can see this in the pre and post-debate polls of the audience, which showed that very few people changed their minds. Makes sense when there was barely any actual discussion. The points made by Pinker were already accepted by all four speakers before the debate began, and the actual points where they differed were not given due attention.
In order to have an effective debate, everybody needs to start on the same page. I think it would have helped if one of the pro debaters tried to clarify the opposing position. Imagine if Pinker had said, "Botton, I think you're saying that material progress can't really be the only judge of whether or not it's pleasant to be a human being. There's things like loneliness, anxiety, depression, and loss of agency that are elevated in the present day, correct? Well, my response to that is to look at how social attitudes have changed towards mental health. Therapy is more available these days, and more people are aware and thinking about these problems. Data also shows that we're kinder to each other. Instances of bullying in schools, for example, have been on a downward trend... [etc.]". If we had more of this kind of discussion instead of the endless crosstalk, the debate could have been interesting and ended up changing some people's minds.
The debate format has problems too. The free-for-all section needs to go. Absolutely nothing useful was said there. Additionally, each speaker needs more time. It's not sensical to invite four people on stage and to give them a combined hour of speaking time. I think two people, two hours is a better format, and if there is a free-for-all section, the moderator needs to make sure that people don't interrupt each other.
At the very least, it was nice to hear a summary of Pinker's ideas. I feel like it's less necessary now to read The Better Angels of Our Nature.
josephinininie's review against another edition
challenging
informative
fast-paced
2.5
Not that relevant anymore. Perhaps interesting context of the time of writing. Mostly 4 white men bickering...
linalilo97's review against another edition
4.0
4,5 it was phenomenal for a moment I felt like I was there in the debate in Toronto an intersting ,eye opening reading
hugh_williams's review against another edition
3.0
I could very well have over thought the philosophical intrigue this book would have. Do humankind's best days lie ahead, is a meaty quest and one that cannot be adequately solved or even scratched at in an hour and a half televised debate turned in to a 59-page transcript.
Do not be mistaken, the ideas that are presented as part of this debate are incredibly interesting: is the relieving famine worth, through interconnectedness and risk pooling, worth the possibility of a catastrophic virus destroying the whole of humanity? However, without one question being tackled, this debate boils down to four old men sitting in a room, calling each other names, and not responding to the points others have made; answering questions with questions. And, whilst such is part of philosophy, I hoped for so much more from this.
Worth a read, but it will only pose more questions for the reader to think about.
Do not be mistaken, the ideas that are presented as part of this debate are incredibly interesting: is the relieving famine worth, through interconnectedness and risk pooling, worth the possibility of a catastrophic virus destroying the whole of humanity? However, without one question being tackled, this debate boils down to four old men sitting in a room, calling each other names, and not responding to the points others have made; answering questions with questions. And, whilst such is part of philosophy, I hoped for so much more from this.
Worth a read, but it will only pose more questions for the reader to think about.
borumi's review
2.0
I could see what Alain de Botton was driving at, but his argument did seem a bit out of place and he doesn't seem to be listening to the opposing argument. Personally, I think the problem of whether humankind's best days lie ahead or not is not as important as what kind of attitude we should have despite the good or bad prospects. Whether you're a Cassandra or a Pollyanna, neither should you throw up your hands and not strive for the better, nor should you be overconfident and take all precautions (Malcolm Gladwell has a good point: all previous upward looking trends does not completely guarantee a disaster proof future.) I'm also sorry that the debate didn't go any deeper than the pre-debate interviews.
maheshmj's review against another edition
3.0
It's a collection of a transcript of the Munk debate and pre-interview conducted on the topic " Do humankind best days lie ahead?".
Expected at least either rationale or reasonable answer since bright minds involved in the debate but ended up with utter disappointment when the entire debate was carried away by the childish behavior of the panelist.
The invited panelists are sailors of different seas so debate became disastrous. A war between the scientific approach and the humanist approach corrupted the objective and lead to a defensive and offensive tantrum. Both sides have shared mindboggling views which have nothing to do with the topic.
The answer is still unclear. Maybe because there is no definitive answer to a simple question tackled by the complex minds of humans.
Expected at least either rationale or reasonable answer since bright minds involved in the debate but ended up with utter disappointment when the entire debate was carried away by the childish behavior of the panelist.
The invited panelists are sailors of different seas so debate became disastrous. A war between the scientific approach and the humanist approach corrupted the objective and lead to a defensive and offensive tantrum. Both sides have shared mindboggling views which have nothing to do with the topic.
The answer is still unclear. Maybe because there is no definitive answer to a simple question tackled by the complex minds of humans.