Hubbry Logo
Enlightenment NowEnlightenment NowMain
Open search
Enlightenment Now
Community hub
Enlightenment Now
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Enlightenment Now
Enlightenment Now
Enlightenment Now
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress is a 2018 book written by Canadian-American cognitive scientist Steven Pinker. It argues that the Enlightenment values of reason, science, and humanism have brought progress, and that health, prosperity, safety, peace, and happiness have tended to rise worldwide. It is a follow-up to Pinker's 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature.

Key Information

Thesis

[edit]

A commonly held lay public perception holds that the world is in terrible shape; for some, 2016 was the "worst year ever"[citation needed] and the year that liberalism died. In contrast, Pinker argues that life has been getting better for most people. He sets out 15 different measures of human wellbeing to support this argument, with the most obvious being the uncontroversial fact that, statistically, people live longer and healthier lives on average than ever before. As another example, while fears of terrorism are often voiced in U.S. opinion polls, Pinker shows that an American is 3,000 times more likely to die in an accident than in a terrorist attack.[1] As in Pinker's previous The Better Angels of Our Nature, Pinker ascribes modern improvements to trends of liberal humanism and scientific rationality that first took root in Europe around the 17th and 18th centuries.[2]

Pinker argues that economic inequality "is not itself a dimension of human wellbeing" and cites a study that finds inequality is not linked to unhappiness, at least in poorer societies. He also points out that the world as a whole is becoming more equal, and states that even within increasingly unequal areas, the poor are still getting wealth and benefit from technological innovations. For example, it is clear to Pinker that an innovation that makes the poor slightly richer and the rich massively richer is a positive rather than a negative achievement. In contrast, critics hold that enhancing social mobility and combating "inequality as a result of unfairness" are important legitimate ends in and of themselves, beyond any effects of reducing poverty.[2][1][3]

On topics such as nuclear weaponry, Pinker places the blame on anti-Enlightenment forces. Scientists working on the Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear weapons did so because they needed to beat Hitler; Pinker states "Quite possibly, had there been no Nazis, there would be no nukes." In contrast, critics point out that science lacks any ethical logic of its own. They argue that scientific progress is liberating but also threatening, and can present dangers precisely because of how hugely it expands human power.[2] Pinker expresses concerns about potential human extinction from nuclear weapons or from global warming, but categorizes existential risks overall as a "useless category", stating that "Sowing fear about hypothetical disasters, far from safeguarding the future of humanity, can endanger it". In particular, Pinker departs from scholars such as Nick Bostrom regarding the possibility of accidental existential risk from artificial general intelligence, and makes a controversial[citation needed] argument that self-driving cars provide evidence that artificial general intelligence will pose no accidental existential risk.[4][5]

The book concludes with three chapters defending what Pinker sees as Enlightenment values: reason, science, and humanism.[6] Pinker argues that these values are under threat from modern trends such as religious fundamentalism, political correctness, and postmodernism.[7] In an interview about the book published in Scientific American, Pinker has clarified that his book is not merely an expression of hope—it is a documentation of how much we have gained as a result of Enlightenment values, and how much we have to lose if those values are abandoned.[8]

Marketing

[edit]

In January 2018 Bill Gates tweeted praise for Enlightenment Now, calling it "my new favorite book". Gates stated he agreed overall with the techno-optimism of the book, but cautioned that Pinker is too "quick to dismiss" the idea that artificial superintelligence could someday lead to human extinction. Citing reader interest due to Gates' endorsement, Viking Press moved the publication date from 27 February 2018 to 13 February 2018.[9][10]

Reception

[edit]

Positive

[edit]

Publishers Weekly gave the book a glowing review, concluding that "In an era of increasingly 'dystopian rhetoric,' Pinker’s sober, lucid, and meticulously researched vision of human progress is heartening and important."[11] The Times also gave the book a positive review, stating that Pinker's arguments and evidence are "as entertaining as they are important", and expressing hope that Pinker's defense of the forces that have produced progress will be successful.[12]

The New York Times described the book as "an excellent book, lucidly written, timely, rich in data and eloquent in its championing of a rational humanism that is — it turns out — really quite cool."[13] The Economist agreed with Pinker that "barring a cataclysmic asteroid strike or nuclear war, it is likely that (the world) will continue to get better".[14] Timothy Sandefur, writing for The Objective Standard, praised the book, noting, "Pinker's catalog of improvements is enjoyable, largely thanks to his witty style and skill at examining progress in unexpected ways."[15]

In Skeptical Inquirer Kendrick Frazier concurs that Pinker "argues [his] case eloquently and ... effectively, drawing on both the demographic data and our improved understanding of human biases that get in our way of seeing the truth."[16] In Nature, Ian Goldin wrote that Pinker should have focused more on future risks, although Pinker did devote a chapter to existential threats, and concludes with "But for the many overwhelmed by gloom, it is a welcome antidote."[17] A review in the London Evening Standard agrees with Pinker's summary of how rationality has improved the world, and states "On Islamism, where his optimism falters, we have the interesting phenomenon of Muslim youth — not least in countries like Afghanistan — becoming less liberal than their parents"[18] although they do not provide a source for this claim.

John P. Tang, writing in The Journal of Economic History, stated that Pinker demonstrates that "humanity has never had it so good, things until recently were much worse, and life will likely continue to improve." He stated the book provides an "empirical and quantitative approach to the topic, perhaps to the chagrin of humanities scholars, but consistent with current scholarship in the social sciences and economic history." He critiqued the book for its reliance on utilitarianism due to its practical difficulties, and for not convincingly demonstrating that it was the Enlightenment that caused the trends Pinker identifies.[19]

Negative

[edit]

Kirkus Reviews called it "overstuffed", and noted though Pinker is progressive, "the academically orthodox will find him an apostate".[7] The Guardian and The Financial Times dismissed Pinker's contention that the left is partly to blame for anti-reason rhetoric and objected to Pinker's criticism of groups such as postmodernists, de-growth environmentalists, and people whom Pinker deems to be "social justice warriors".[1][2] British philosopher John Gray criticized Pinker as promoting scientism and discussed historical examples of strong desire for human progress leading to the misuse of science for immoral policies. Gray also argued that Pinker had misunderstood Friedrich Nietzsche.[20]

Some reviewers disagreed with Pinker's quantitative approach to assessing progress. Booklist stated that "(Pinker's) seemingly casual dismissal of ethics concerns surrounding the Tuskegee experiment is troubling to say the least."[21] Pinker had written that the Tuskegee experiment "was patently unethical by today’s standards, though it’s often misreported to pile up the indictment," and when properly reported, "when the study began, it may even have been defensible by the standards of the day."

Political scientist Nicolas Guilhot sharply criticizes the book for what he sees as "finessed statistics" marshaled in service of preconceived conclusions, and for being "one inch deep". He concludes: "Much of what Pinker writes about the humanities would be a comical caricature if it did not represent a coherent ideological offensive that is reshaping higher education and research."[22]

In the Los Angeles Review of Books, Stanford University historian Jessica Riskin summarizes the book as "a knot of Orwellian contradictions". She states that Pinker believes that skepticism is a negative influence on society, and objects that the very Enlightenment heroes Pinker praises, such as Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Denis Diderot and Adam Smith, were all advocates of skepticism. She concludes, "What we need in this time of political, environmental, and cultural crisis is precisely the value Pinker rejects but that his Enlightenment heroes embraced, whatever their differences of opinion on other matters: skepticism, and an attendant spirit of informed criticism."[23]

Anthropologist and archeologist David Graeber and David Wengrow, respectively, criticized Pinker as a "modern psychologist making it up as he goes along," citing archeological evidence that falsify his claims, as well as criticizing his statistical analysis as wrongheaded.[24]

Enlightenment historian David Bell claimed that Pinker's characterization of the Enlightenment was problematic and oversimplified. Bell criticized his monolithic characterization of the historical movement, as well as his lack of engagement with Rousseau. Bell also notes Pinker's citation of sources he believes are unreliable, such as his extensive references to The Idea of Decline in Western History by Arthur Herman, whom he describes as a far-right author.[25]

Susan D. Healy criticizes Steven Pinker's assertion that enlightenment have made humans today much more intelligent than our ancestors with the same biological hardwiring on evolutionary grounds, arguing that it would have been a waste of nutrients which evolution would have selected against for our ancestors to have capacity for vastly more intelligence than they could use in their environment. It is cited by Healy that the brain capacity of different animals is predicted by the food that was available to their ancestors when their biological hardwiring evolved, not by changes of living standards too recent to have shaped them through natural selection. The apparent rise in IQ scores is explained by Healy as an artifact of forced rules that demand that IQ tests have normally distributed outcomes and systematically leave out tests that give outcomes that are not normally distributed, a bias that is argued to be a purely negative influence on the scientific usefulness of the results comparable to introducing a noise generator and leaving out signal bands.[26]

Deborah Deliyannis, Hendrik Dey and Paolo Squatriti argue that Steven Pinker's claims that people today are better at inventing than people were in the past and that today's society is better at helping potential inventors ignore the increase in population, citing that there were so many inventions made in antiquity and medieval times despite the much lower population that invention rates per capita were actually at least as high as they are today, if not higher. This is cited as an argument not only against the claim that education have increased people's ability to invent, but also against the claim that creative people who would be diagnosed with various neuropsychiatric diagnoses today get better help that helps them invent today and were mistreated so badly it prevented them from inventing in the past when they were not diagnosed. The claim that free enterprise promoted invention that was suppressed by feudal guilds, slavery and serfdom is criticized on the same grounds.[27]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Enlightenment Now

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
is a 2018 by cognitive scientist , published by Viking, an imprint of , that advocates for the core Enlightenment principles of reason, , , and as drivers of measurable human advancement. The book systematically marshals empirical data from diverse fields—including , , , and —to demonstrate long-term progress in key indicators of well-being, such as rising , declining rates, reduced , expanded , and improvements in ecosystem services despite . Pinker attributes these trends to institutional applications of Enlightenment values, including market economies, democratic , and scientific , while cautioning against counter-Enlightenment ideologies like , , and that he argues impede further gains. Upon release, Enlightenment Now achieved commercial success as a New York Times bestseller and garnered acclaim from figures in science and for its rigorous use of to counter pessimistic narratives prevalent in media and academia. However, it provoked controversy among critics, particularly those aligned with progressive or postmodern viewpoints, who contended that its focus on aggregate progress overlooks rising inequality, cultural disruptions from , and existential threats like , though Pinker rebuts such claims as selective or empirically unsubstantiated, often stemming from ideologically driven sources resistant to quantifying improvement. The work has since influenced public discourse on optimism and , reinforcing Pinker's role as a proponent of evidence-based amid debates over societal decline.

Publication and Context

Publication Details

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, , , and was first published in hardcover on February 13, 2018, by Viking, an imprint of . The initial edition measures 6.44 x 1.66 x 9.54 inches and carries ISBN-10 0525427570 and ISBN-13 978-0525427575. A paperback edition appeared on January 15, 2019, from , with ISBN-13 978-0143111382, 576 pages, and dimensions of 5.40 x 8.20 x 1.40 inches. An unabridged audiobook, narrated by Arthur Morey, was issued by Penguin Random House Audio in 2018, spanning 16 audio CDs. The book has seen international releases, including a Portuguese translation by Companhia das Letras on September 6, 2018, in format with 664 pages. A edition was published by (Penguin) with ISBN-13 978-0141979090.

Author's Background and Motivations

Steven Pinker, born on September 18, 1954, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, to Jewish parents who were engineers, grew up in a secular household that emphasized intellectual curiosity and skepticism toward dogma. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in psychology from McGill University in 1976 and a PhD in experimental psychology from Harvard University in 1979, focusing initially on visual cognition and psycholinguistics. Early in his career, Pinker served as an assistant professor at Harvard from 1980 to 1981, followed by positions at Stanford University (1981–1982) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he advanced to full professor in 1989. He returned to Harvard in 2003 as the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology, a role he continues to hold, conducting research on language acquisition, the modularity of mind, and evolutionary influences on human behavior. Pinker's academic output includes over a dozen books, such as The Language Instinct (1994), which popularized computational theories of language, and The Blank Slate (2002), which critiqued nurture-over-nature dogmas in social sciences using evidence from genetics and cognitive science. Pinker’s scholarly work has consistently emphasized and rational inquiry, often challenging prevailing ideological narratives in and , such as extreme or , by drawing on cross-disciplinary from , , and statistics. His 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature argued, through historical analysis, that has declined globally due to institutional and cultural shifts favoring reason and self-control, laying groundwork for his later defenses of progress. This empirical focus stems from Pinker’s training in experimental methods and his advocacy for , which posits that evolved adaptive mechanisms testable via and modeling, rather than unverified assumptions. Pinker wrote Enlightenment Now (published February 13, 2018, by Viking) to systematically demonstrate, using metrics like , rates, , and statistics, that human conditions have improved dramatically since the 18th-century Enlightenment, attributing this to principles of reason, , and . Motivated by widespread in media and circles—despite showing reductions in from 43% in 1800 to under 4% by 2015, and global falling from 90% in 1820 to 10% in 2015—he sought to counter declinist views from both populist right-wing sources decrying moral decay and left-leaning critics emphasizing inequality or environmental risks without acknowledging baseline gains. In the book’s preface and interviews, Pinker expressed frustration with "progress denial," arguing that rejecting evidence of advancement undermines solutions to remaining challenges, as it erodes commitment to the very tools—scientific innovation and institutional reform—that drove verifiable improvements like the eradication of in 1980 and a 95% drop in battle deaths since 1945. He positioned the work as an extension of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Condorcet, urging renewed adherence to these ideals amid rising anti-rationalist trends, while acknowledging critics' points on issues like but insisting on data-calibrated responses over .

Core Thesis and Arguments

Definition of Enlightenment Ideals

In Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (2018), identifies the core Enlightenment ideals as reason, , and , arguing that their systematic application has yielded measurable advancements in human welfare since the . These principles emerged from thinkers like , , and , who emphasized empirical inquiry over religious dogma and monarchical authority, fostering institutions such as markets, universities, and constitutional governments that prioritize evidence-based governance. Reason refers to the disciplined use of logic, evidence, and probabilistic thinking to navigate reality, countering innate cognitive biases such as and , as detailed in Daniel Kahneman's (2011). Pinker contends that reason enables individuals and societies to make predictions, test hypotheses, and depoliticize disputes, as evidenced by its role in reducing fallacies in policy debates from to ; for instance, rational analysis contributed to the decline of pseudoscientific practices like by the mid-19th century through adherence to controlled trials. Science embodies the Enlightenment commitment to discovering the universe's causal laws via falsifiable experimentation and cumulative knowledge-building, distinguishing it from anecdotal or ideological assertions. Pinker highlights its achievements, including the eradication of smallpox in 1980 through vaccination campaigns grounded in Edward Jenner's 1796 empirical methods, and defends it against critiques linking technological progress to ethical lapses, insisting that science's integration with humanistic values amplifies benefits while mitigating harms. Humanism constitutes a non-theistic moral framework centered on maximizing sentient well-being—encompassing longevity, health, prosperity, knowledge, safety, peace, freedom, and meaningful experience—without reliance on supernatural justification or sacrificial ideologies. Pinker describes it as deriving value from empirical improvements in human lives, exemplified by the global literacy rate rising from 12% in 1820 to 86% by 2015, and articulates its credo: "Abundance is better than poverty. Peace is better than war. Safety is better than danger. Freedom is better than tyranny. Equal rights are better than bigotry and privilege." These ideals interconnect, with reason and science providing tools for progress and humanism directing their ethical orientation against countervailing forces like tribalism and authoritarianism.

Causal Mechanisms of Progress

Steven Pinker attributes the observed improvements in human well-being to the Enlightenment triad of reason, science, and humanism, which together form a causal engine for progress by enabling problem-solving, empirical discovery, and a focus on individual flourishing. Reason counters cognitive biases and tribalism through critical thinking and institutional design, such as markets that harness self-interest for collective gain via the extended order of trade and specialization. Science provides the evidentiary foundation, yielding innovations like the Haber-Bosch process for synthetic fertilizer, which averted famines and supported population growth from 1.6 billion in 1900 to over 7 billion today without proportional increases in starvation. Humanism, emphasizing human welfare over supernatural or authoritarian dictates, prioritizes metrics like longevity and prosperity, fostering norms against violence and discrimination that have expanded rights and reduced practices such as slavery and dueling. These mechanisms operate through interlocking institutions and processes. Free markets and property rights, informed by reason, have driven exponential economic growth, with global GDP per capita rising approximately 20-fold since 1820 due to innovation incentives and trade liberalization. Democratic governance, embodying humanistic equality and rational deliberation, correlates with peace by institutionalizing the monopoly on legitimate violence (the Leviathan state) and promoting cosmopolitan ties that deter war, as evidenced by the absence of great-power conflicts since 1945. Scientific feedback loops—measuring outcomes, testing hypotheses, and iterating solutions—underpin advances in health, such as vaccines eradicating smallpox in 1980 and reducing child mortality from 43% in 1800 to under 4% globally by 2020. Pinker describes progress as a virtuous cycle sustained by these elements: data collection reveals problems, reason critiques failed policies, science innovates remedies, and humanism evaluates against welfare standards, preventing backsliding. For instance, the Green Revolution's high-yield crops, developed through scientific breeding and distributed via market mechanisms, lifted over a billion from between 1960 and 2000. This contrasts with stagnant or regressive eras dominated by or , underscoring the causal role of open inquiry over . While acknowledging risks like technological misuse, Pinker maintains that doubling down on these mechanisms—via education in and —offers the best path to continued gains, rather than nostalgia for pre-modern conditions.

Empirical Evidence of Progress

Metrics in Health and Longevity

Global at birth has increased substantially over the past century, rising from approximately 31 years in 1900 to 73.3 years in 2024, reflecting advancements in , , and medical interventions. This progress accelerated post-1950, with global averages climbing from 46.5 years in 1950 to 66.8 years by , before further gains to 73.1 years in 2019, though temporarily reversed by 1.8 years during the peak in 2020-2021 due to . Healthy , which measures years lived in good health, followed a similar trajectory, advancing from 58.1 years in to 61.9 years by recent estimates. Child mortality rates have plummeted, with the global under-5 declining by 59% from 93 deaths per 1,000 live births in to 37 in 2023, averting an estimated 55 million child deaths over the past two decades through expanded , , and antipoverty measures. Neonatal mortality, concentrated in the first month of life, fell from 5.0 million deaths in to 2.3 million in 2022, though it accounts for nearly half of under-5 deaths and remains highest in low-income regions. These reductions are corroborated by World Bank data tracking per 1,000 live births, which show consistent global drops tied to interventions like and insecticide-treated nets against . Infectious disease control exemplifies causal progress, with smallpox—the only human disease eradicated—eliminated worldwide by 1980 after a WHO-led campaign that prevented over 300 million deaths in the alone. coverage has since expanded, reducing measles deaths by 73% from 2000 to 2018 before setbacks, while polio cases dropped 99% since 1988 through global efforts. Maternal mortality ratios have decreased globally by about 40% since , from higher baselines to 223 deaths per 100,000 live births by 2020, with total annual deaths falling to 260,000 in 2023, primarily through better obstetric care, , and management in low-resource settings. Progress stalled in some regions post-2015 due to conflicts and pandemics, but long-term trends link declines to and healthcare access.
Metric1990/2000 ValueRecent Value (2022/2023)Decline
Under-5 Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births)93 (1990)37 (2023)59%
Neonatal Deaths (millions)5.0 (1990)2.3 (2022)54%
Maternal Deaths (annual, thousands)~546 (1990 est.)260 (2023)~52%
Global Undernourishment Prevalence15% (2000-2002)8.2% (2024)~45%
Nutritional indicators further underscore gains, with child stunting rates dropping by one-third (55 million fewer cases) over the last two decades via fortified foods and agricultural yields, though undernourishment persists at 8.2% globally in 2024, affecting 733 million people amid recent and conflict disruptions. These metrics collectively demonstrate empirical improvements attributable to Enlightenment-era emphases on reason, , and , countering narratives of stagnation by quantifying lives saved through verifiable interventions.

Metrics in Prosperity and Knowledge

The share of the global population living in , defined by the World Bank as less than $2.15 per day in 2017 terms, declined from 42.2% in 1981 to 8.5% in 2023, reflecting a reduction of over 1.1 billion people in absolute terms despite . This trend accelerated post-1990, with the number of people in halving by 2015, driven primarily by in , particularly and , though recent revisions to lines have slightly moderated the reported declines for earlier decades. Global GDP , adjusted for and , rose from approximately $6,500 in 1990 to over $18,000 in 2023 (in 2017 international dollars), representing an average annual growth rate of about 2%, with accelerations in emerging markets contributing to broader income convergence.
YearExtreme Poverty Rate (%)Global GDP per Capita (2017 intl. $)
198142.2~7,500
200028.8~9,000
201510.1~13,000
20238.5~18,000
Data compiled from World Bank and Maddison Project sources; poverty at $2.15/day line. Global adult literacy rates, measured as the percentage of people aged 15 and older able to read and write a short simple statement, increased from around 12% in 1820 to 87% by 2023, with the most rapid gains occurring after 1950 due to expanded in developing regions. The average years of schooling for adults aged 25 and older rose from fewer than 2 years in 1900 to approximately 8.7 years globally by 2020, with and showing the steepest climbs from low bases, though quality variations persist as measured by learning-adjusted metrics. Scientific output, proxied by peer-reviewed articles indexed in databases like , expanded from under 1 million annually in the to 3.3 million in , with an average annual growth rate of about 5.6% over the prior half-century, fueled by increased research funding and collaboration in . applications worldwide reached a record 3.55 million in 2023, up 2.7% from and reflecting a exceeding 3% since 2000, concentrated in fields like digital communication and , indicating heightened diffusion. These metrics underscore causal links between market-oriented policies, technological adoption, and institutional reforms in fostering knowledge accumulation, though disparities in access and regional unevenness remain.

Metrics in Safety, Peace, and Happiness

Global rates have declined substantially over the long term, particularly in , where rates fell from peaks exceeding 30 per 100,000 people in the to under 1 per 100,000 by the , reflecting improvements in , law enforcement, and social norms. In many countries, such as , rates dropped by 80% from around 3 per 100,000 in the early 1990s to lower levels by the 2020s. Globally, while rates remain higher in some regions like , the trend shows a net reduction when accounting for and historical baselines from judicial and vital statistics data. Deaths from accidents and natural disasters have also decreased per capita due to technological advancements, early warning systems, and infrastructure improvements. death rates have fallen sharply worldwide, from averages of several dozen per million in the mid-20th century to under 1 per million in recent decades, even as the frequency of reported events rises due to better detection. Road traffic fatalities, a major accident category, have declined in high-income countries through safety regulations and vehicle design, with global rates dropping from 18 per 100,000 in 1990 to around 15 by 2021 per estimates integrated in burden-of-disease analyses. In terms of peace, battle-related deaths per capita have plummeted over centuries, from rates exceeding 100 per 100,000 during frequent pre-modern conflicts to less than 1 per 100,000 globally in recent years, driven by the decline of interstate wars and the establishment of international norms post-World War II. Data from historical records indicate that violent political conflicts caused around 1 in 700 deaths worldwide as of 2019, a fraction of 20th-century peaks during world wars. Terrorism deaths, while fluctuating, have shown a downward trend in many regions; in , they declined over recent decades, and globally, annual fatalities peaked in the but fell to around 20,000 by 2019 before partial rebounds, remaining low relative to population size. Self-reported life satisfaction has risen in tandem with economic and health gains, with global averages increasing from around 4.5 on a 0-10 scale in the to over 5 by the in surveys covering diverse countries. Richer nations consistently report higher satisfaction levels, correlating positively with GDP per capita, as evidenced by longitudinal data from sources like the , where improvements in developing regions mirror development trajectories. Despite media focus on negatives, these metrics indicate broad progress in , substantiated by repeated cross-national polls showing stability or gains amid overall human advancement.

Methodological Approach

Data-Driven Analysis

Steven Pinker employs a quantitative centered on longitudinal empirical to demonstrate measurable advancements in human conditions, emphasizing trends over centuries rather than short-term fluctuations. This approach involves aggregating statistics from international databases and historical records to track indicators such as , which increased from under 30 years in the mid-18th century to over 70 years globally by the , and rates, which declined from approximately 90% of the in 1820 to around 10% by recent decades. Data selection prioritizes verifiable, peer-reviewed or officially compiled metrics, often sourced from aggregators like , which compile figures from organizations including the , , and economic historians such as for GDP estimates. Central to the analysis is the use of visual representations, with 75 graphs illustrating upward trajectories in domains like , , , and ; these leverage human visual cognition to convey complex trends more effectively than narrative alone, countering intuitive overreliance on recent events or . Pinker applies statistical adjustments for , measures, and global coverage to avoid misleading aggregates, such as normalizing rates by population rather than absolute numbers, revealing declines in and war deaths despite rising totals. This method incorporates by correlating improvements with institutional adoption of reason-based policies, scientific innovation, and humanistic reforms, while acknowledging data limitations like incomplete historical records through sensitivity analyses and multiple source cross-verification. The framework addresses common interpretive errors, such as media amplification of negative outliers, by focusing on probabilistic trends and Bayesian updating of priors based on accumulating evidence. For instance, environmental metrics are analyzed using decadal projections from models like those of the , balanced against historical emission reductions per unit of GDP via technological efficiency gains. Pinker's aggregation method favors comprehensive indices over cherry-picked snapshots, drawing on meta-analyses to quantify progress, though he notes potential underreporting in authoritarian regimes as a caveat requiring cautious . This data-centric rigor aims to substantiate Enlightenment-derived mechanisms—scientific and rational —as drivers of sustained improvement, distinct from ideological assertions.

Countering Pessimism and Ideological Biases

Pinker identifies pessimism as arising from cognitive distortions, particularly the negativity bias, whereby individuals allocate greater mental resources to adverse outcomes than to equivalent positive ones, such as dreading losses more acutely than enjoying gains or reacting more strongly to criticism than to praise. This bias interacts with the availability heuristic, documented by psychologists and , which leads people to overestimate the prevalence of dramatic negative events—such as airplane crashes or —due to their memorability, while underappreciating more common risks like car accidents or -related deaths (e.g., 50 annual U.S. tornado fatalities versus 4,000 from asthma). Media institutions exacerbate these tendencies through a structural emphasis on negativity, as evidenced by sentiment analyses revealing a progressive tilt toward dismal coverage: algorithmic reviews of from 1945 to 2005 and global news outlets from 1979 to 2010 indicate escalating negativity, peaking in the 2000s, with headlines prioritizing crises over incremental gains like rising . This distortion fosters public miscalibration, such as the 2016 perception among 77% of Americans that posed an existential threat to the , despite broader metrics showing reduced global violence. To counteract such pessimism methodologically, Pinker advocates a data-centric perspective that privileges long-term empirical trends over anecdotal immediacy, demonstrating declines in , illiteracy, , , and accidents through aggregated indicators rather than isolated headlines. Ideological biases compound these psychological pitfalls by promoting narratives that resist evidence-based assessment, including , , of outgroups, and reliance on magical thinking, which demagogues exploit to undermine cooperative progress. Pinker counters them by applying Enlightenment principles—reason, scientific , and —as corrective mechanisms, insisting that hypotheses be tested against worldly outcomes rather than insulated by doctrinal commitment: "You have to let the world weigh in on whether you’re right or wrong." This approach manifests in his compilation of seventy-five graphs tracking metrics of , which override ideologically driven by quantifying absolute improvements, such as reduced rates of , , homophobia, and , thereby privileging causal evidence over romanticized or nostalgic interpretations of history. Such methodological rigor aims to inoculate against , where media-amplified negativity erodes confidence in institutions and incremental reforms.

Criticisms and Rebuttals

Critiques on Data Selection and Omissions

Critics, including anthropologist , have challenged Pinker's portrayal of global by arguing that his reliance on the World Bank's $1.90 per day threshold masks persistent deprivation, as it equates to subsistence levels far below historical standards in industrialized nations. Hickel calculates that applying a more comparable poverty line of around $7.40 per day in 2011 terms reveals over 4 billion people—more than half the global population—in as of recent estimates, with absolute numbers rising from 3.2 billion in 1981 to 4.2 billion today according to adjusted World Bank data. This critique extends to historical extrapolations, where Hickel and co-author Dylan Sullivan's analysis of , , and mortality rates since the suggests pre-industrial rates were lower than Pinker's 90-94% figure for 1820, implying less dramatic progress from Enlightenment-era baselines. On environmental metrics, reviewers contend that Pinker selectively emphasizes decoupling of from —such as declining emissions and improved local air quality in developed regions—while omitting broader ecological declines like accelerating and freshwater scarcity. For example, species extinction rates are estimated at 100 to 1,000 times background levels due to , a trend not graphed in the book despite its relevance to long-term human welfare. accuses Pinker of downplaying these "inconvenient truths," arguing that cherry-picked indicators ignore systemic pressures like projected sea-level rise and soil degradation, which could reverse gains in and health. Critics from environmentalist perspectives, often aligned with institutions exhibiting ideological biases toward , highlight Pinker's failure to integrate projections from reports like the IPCC's, which forecast potential GDP contractions of 2-10% or more by 2100 under high-emissions scenarios absent aggressive mitigation. Regarding well-being, detractors argue that Pinker's use of self-reported surveys to claim stable or rising overlooks objective indicators of deterioration, such as a 25% increase in U.S. rates from 1999 to 2017 and surging diagnoses of anxiety and depression among youth, with emergency visits for crises up 119% for children aged 5-11 from 2007 to 2016. These trends, documented in CDC data, suggest omissions in addressing how material progress may exacerbate existential dissatisfaction or , trends Pinker attributes to better reporting rather than genuine increases. Similarly, rising deaths—over 100,000 annually in the U.S. by 2021—represent ungraphed reversals in safety metrics for affluent societies, challenging the narrative of unqualified advancement. Additional charges of cherry-picking include underweighting inequality within nations, where Pinker prioritizes global Gini declines over domestic spikes, such as the U.S. top 1% share rising from 10% in 1980 to 20% by 2016 per Piketty-Saez data, potentially fueling social instability not captured in aggregate prosperity charts. has criticized Pinker's statistical handling of violence trends, alleging misuse of long-term averages that ignore fat-tailed risks and recent escalations, like urban homicide upticks in some cities post-2015. These omissions, critics assert, stem from a commitment to Enlightenment that filters out data inconsistent with upward trajectories, though Pinker counters that comprehensive metrics still affirm net progress when weighted by humanistic values.

Ideological Objections from Left and Right

Critics from the political left have objected to Enlightenment Now for allegedly defending liberal capitalism at the expense of addressing structural inequalities and exploitation. In a review published in Jacobin, a socialist magazine, reviewer Matt McManus argues that Pinker's endorsement of market-driven progress dismisses Marxist analyses of inequality as arising from production processes, instead portraying inequality as a natural outcome akin to , which the reviewer contends justifies neoliberal policies rather than challenging root causes like capitalist exploitation. Left-leaning environmentalists have similarly faulted Pinker for underemphasizing ecological limits, claiming his optimism about technological solutions ignores rising global carbon emissions—reaching 37.4 billion metric tons in 2023—and , which they attribute to unchecked industrial growth enabled by Enlightenment . These critiques often frame Pinker's as technocratic and insufficiently radical, stripping the Enlightenment of its egalitarian impulses in favor of status-quo preservation, though Pinker counters that absolute equality would stifle innovation and that global reduction—from 42% of the world population in 1980 to under 10% by 2015—demonstrates systemic benefits. From the political right, objections center on Enlightenment Now's secular framework, which conservatives argue erodes traditional religious and communal foundations of society. Nick Spencer, in a review for the Christian think tank Theos, contends that Pinker misattributes Western progress—such as the and —to secular Enlightenment innovations, overlooking their origins in , including canon law's influence on and the Magna Carta's 1215 emphasis on liberty under divine order. Critics like philosopher John Gray, writing in , portray Pinker's progress narrative as hubristic that denies the cyclical, unchanging nature of human conflict and suffering, evidenced by persistent ethnic violence and state failures despite technological advances, such as the 1994 claiming 800,000 lives amid global "enlightened" institutions. Religious conservatives further object that Pinker's metric of human flourishing—quantified via health, wealth, and safety—reduces dignity to material metrics, ignoring spiritual voids like declining marriage rates (from 72% of U.S. adults in 1960 to 50% in 2020) and fertility below replacement levels in developed nations, which they link to Enlightenment individualism fostering atomization over and faith-based . These perspectives, often rooted in traditionalist sources, maintain that reason alone cannot sustain moral order without transcendent values, potentially leading to relativism and cultural decay, as seen in rising non-religious identification (29% of U.S. adults in 2021).

Pinker's Responses to Key Critics

Steven has addressed criticisms of Enlightenment Now primarily through essays, interviews, and direct rebuttals, emphasizing empirical data over ideological narratives and arguing that detractors often engage in selective rather than engaging with the book's metrics. In a 2019 Quillette reflection marking the book's first anniversary, characterized much opposition as stemming from a cultural aversion to acknowledging , which he attributes to both left-wing and right-wing , noting that "the screeds against Enlightenment Now are exemplars of the infantilization of our culture." He countered claims of data cherry-picking by highlighting the use of long-term, global datasets from sources like the and World Bank, which show consistent improvements in (from 30 years in 1800 to over 70 today), rates (from 12% to 86% globally since 1800), and (over 1 billion people lifted from in the past 25 years). Regarding accusations of promoting complacency, Pinker clarified that recognizing historical progress does not imply inevitability or halt to efforts, stating it instead motivates continued application of reason, , and to address remaining challenges like inequality and . He rebutted left-leaning critics, such as those in Jacobin who portrayed the book as a defense of technocratic detached from radical Enlightenment roots, by insisting that the data-driven case for aligns with Enlightenment ideals of universal human welfare, not partisan ideology, and that such critiques prioritize narrative over verifiable trends like declining (from 43% in 1800 to under 4% today). Pinker specifically refuted philosopher John Gray's dismissal of Enlightenment humanism as illusory, arguing that Gray's invocation of Nietzschean critiques misaligns with the book's focus on egalitarian humanism, which Gray himself opposes, and that empirical gains in peace and prosperity (e.g., battle deaths falling from 15% in indigenous societies to 0.02% in the 20th century) contradict Gray's cyclical view of history. On objections from figures like , Pinker pointed to decoupling of from emissions in developed nations and improvements in the for 178 of 180 countries since 2002, while acknowledging risks but rejecting fatalistic interpretations that ignore technological adaptations like expansion. In response to Phil Torres' 2019 Salon article accusing Pinker of misleading claims on AI risks and quote inaccuracies, Pinker argued that Torres offered no substantive challenge to the core data, instead fixating on hypothetical existential threats dismissed by most AI researchers (per surveys cited in the book) and minor editorial errors already corrected, characterizing the piece as rhetorically driven rather than evidence-based. He similarly addressed anthropologist David Graeber's skepticism of metrics as politically motivated, reaffirming the robustness of non-partisan sources like , which track verifiable indicators such as global happiness rising alongside GDP per capita. Pinker maintained that such responses underscore a broader pattern where critics, often from ideologically aligned outlets, evade the book's quantitative foundation in favor of unsubstantiated assertions.

Reception and Impact

Positive Endorsements

, co-founder of and a leading philanthropist, described Enlightenment Now as "not only the best book Pinker’s ever written" but also "my new favorite book of all time," commending its data-driven demonstration of global advances in , , , , , and . Gates emphasized the book's holistic integration of metrics, likening it to an enhanced version of Pinker's prior work The Better Angels of Our Nature, and noted specific trends such as declining rates from 90% of the global population in 1820 to under 10% by 2015. The Economist lauded the volume as "magnificent" for its rigorous use of quantitative evidence to counter pessimism, arguing that Pinker's numerical analysis reveals sustained improvements across human well-being indicators despite prevailing narratives of decline. The review highlighted the book's success in deploying data on metrics like rising from 30 years in 1800 to over 70 by the and literacy rates increasing from 12% to nearly 85% globally. A Wall Street Journal review affirmed Pinker's thesis that "the world has improved by every measure of human flourishing over the past two centuries," praising the empirical foundation for attributing these gains to Enlightenment principles of reason, , and , with ongoing progress evident in reduced violence and expanded opportunities as of 2018. endorsed the core argument for an "historically unprecedented 'ratchet of progress'" driven by Enlightenment values, defending Pinker's statistical methods against critics and noting the book's value in updating the case for amid ideological challenges. Aaronson, while critiquing certain interpretations of risk and inequality, agreed with the overall evidence of measurable advancements, such as sharp declines in battle deaths since 1945.

Negative Reviews and Controversies

Philosopher John Gray, in a review for , described Enlightenment Now as an "embarrassing" work that promotes a Whig interpretation of history, portraying as an inevitable outcome of reason while ignoring historical cycles of regression and the non-linear trajectory of human affairs. Gray argued that Pinker's metrics overlook contemporary ills such as the mass incarceration of millions in the U.S. prison system and the scale of factory farming, which inflict widespread suffering excluded from progress tallies. He further contended that Pinker's rigid rationalism misaligns with Enlightenment thinkers like , who viewed reason as subordinate to human passions, and that the Enlightenment itself engendered illiberal ideologies, from Auguste Comte's to , contradicting Pinker's liberal narrative. Critics also targeted Pinker's data selection and omissions, accusing him of cherry-picking metrics that emphasize aggregate improvements while downplaying inequality, , and non-quantifiable declines. In an analysis, eight counter-graphs were presented: rising CO2 emissions and ocean dead zones indicating ecological overshoot; a 58% drop in vertebrate populations since 1970 per the WWF Living Planet Report; U.S. incarceration disparities where one in three African American men faces lifetime ; income growth favoring the top 1% by a factor of 65 over the bottom 50%; a peaking in 1978 and declining thereafter despite GDP rises; stronger correlations between and than GDP; shortfalls in essentials like amid ecological boundary breaches in doughnut economics models; and questioned declines in prejudices based on web search data. A Vox critique echoed these concerns, noting Pinker's neglect of rising inequality within nations, Anthropocene environmental threats, and historical Enlightenment links to scientific , arguing that his approach simplifies complex historical debates among figures like Rousseau, who critiqued unchecked progress. From a leftist perspective, Jacobin magazine faulted Pinker for diluting the Enlightenment's radical egalitarian core into technocratic neoliberalism, equating critiques of capitalism with societal stagnation and dismissing Marxism or socialism as paths to "heat-death." The review claimed Pinker blunts thinkers like Spinoza to endorse market-driven individualism, aligns with figures like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk against class-based politics, and rejects systemic analyses of exploitation in favor of managing symptoms, thereby defending elite hierarchies under the guise of humanism. Similarly, a Los Angeles Review of Books essay labeled Pinker's philosophy "pollyannish," criticizing his selective invocation of Kant and Hume—ignoring their skepticism toward pure reason—for promoting uncritical faith in data from sources like the CIA-linked Political Instability Task Force, while omitting trends such as police violence against Black Americans and rising sea levels. These reviews sparked controversies, including a 2019 Salon article by Phil Torres accusing Pinker of fabricating an idealized Enlightenment to justify the , prompting rebuttals that highlighted Torres's reliance on unverified claims about pre-Enlightenment violence. Detractors from religious perspectives, such as in Theos Think Tank, argued that Pinker's secular progress narrative overlooks Christianity's foundational role in linear history and moral frameworks, rendering his derivative and incomplete.

Influence on Public Discourse

Bill Gates, a prominent philanthropist influencing global policy discussions on health and development, endorsed Enlightenment Now as his "favorite book of all time" in a January 26, 2018, review on his Gates Notes blog, highlighting its data-driven case for human progress and recommending it to counter widespread pessimism. Gates' amplification extended to public interviews and his annual reading lists, thereby integrating Pinker's arguments into conversations among policymakers, NGOs, and tech leaders focused on metrics like poverty reduction and life expectancy gains. The book provoked extensive debate across ideological lines, as detailed in Pinker's January 14, 2019, article "Enlightenment Wars," which responded to critiques from both progressive outlets questioning its optimism on inequality and climate issues, and conservative voices decrying its . This polarization elevated Enlightenment Now in public forums, including media critiques in Vox and that framed it as overly sanguine amid rising , while libertarian think tanks like the cited it to advocate evidence-based regulation over alarmist narratives. Within rationalist and effective altruism communities, the book reinforced commitments to empirical progress measurement, with a October 21, 2018, Effective Altruism Forum review praising its alignment with data-centric altruism over anecdotal pessimism, influencing discussions on long-termism and . Pinker's public lectures, such as his July 9, 2019, , further disseminated these ideas, challenging media-driven and promoting Enlightenment values in tech and academic discourse. Overall, Enlightenment Now shifted segments of public conversation toward quantifiable improvements in safety, prosperity, and knowledge, though it faced resistance from sources favoring narrative-driven decline stories.

Recent Developments and Debates

Post-Publication Events and Data Updates

The , beginning in 2020, temporarily reversed some long-term progress trends highlighted in Enlightenment Now, including a dip in global from 73.1 years in 2019 to approximately 71 years in 2021 due to exceeding 6.4 million deaths by mid-2022. , developed and deployed at unprecedented speed, averted an estimated 14 to 19.8 million deaths in their first year alone, demonstrating institutional capacity for rapid scientific response. By 2023, global had rebounded to 73 years, with projections reaching 73.49 years by 2025, aligning with pre-pandemic upward trajectories driven by reductions in and infectious diseases. Extreme poverty rates, measured at $2.15 per day (2017 PPP), stood at around 8.6% in 2018 but rose to approximately 9.7% in 2020 amid pandemic-induced economic disruptions, particularly in low-income countries. Recovery has been uneven, with rates stabilizing at 8.5% by 2023 and projected to decline modestly to 8.3% by 2025, supported by resumed economic growth in and targeted aid, though conflicts and inflation have slowed the pace relative to pre-2018 trends. has characterized such setbacks as "lumpy" rather than indicative of trend reversal, noting in 2020 that historical progress often features temporary disruptions followed by adaptation. On violence, global intentional homicide rates continued a secular decline, reaching 5.61 per 100,000 population in 2022 from 6.1 in 2017, per UNODC data, reflecting sustained reductions in most regions outside . Battle-related deaths, however, surged post-2022 due to the Russia-Ukraine war and conflicts, totaling around 129,000 in both 2023 and 2024—the fourth-highest since the —though per capita rates remain far below 20th-century peaks when adjusted for world population growth to over 8 billion. Pinker, in post-2020 analyses, has reaffirmed the long-term decline in per capita , attributing recent spikes to localized geopolitical failures rather than a broad reversal, and emphasizing data over anecdotal headlines. These updates underscore resilience in core Enlightenment metrics, with Pinker arguing in 2021 and later that humanity's problem-solving institutions—, markets, and —have mitigated shocks, preventing permanent derailing of multi-decade improvements in and . No major institutional reforms or new datasets have fundamentally contradicted the book's empirical foundation, though critics cite rising conflicts and pressures as evidence of fragility in global cooperation.

Major Debates (2020-2025)

In 2020, Steven Pinker faced significant backlash from within the linguistics community over his public statements, which critics argued contradicted anti-racist principles and downplayed systemic violence, echoing themes from Enlightenment Now about declining violence and human progress. An open letter signed by over 500 academics urged the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) to remove Pinker from its list of media experts and fellows, citing his tweets on topics like police violence and his association with figures deemed problematic, such as the editors of Quillette. The LSA's advisory committee ultimately rejected the recommendation in July 2020, stating that Pinker's work did not violate professional standards and emphasizing the importance of diverse viewpoints in public discourse. Pinker responded by defending his data-driven optimism as compatible with addressing injustices, arguing that denying progress risks undermining efforts to sustain it, while critics, often from progressive academic circles, contended that such views foster complacency amid persistent inequalities. This episode highlighted tensions between empirical assessments of historical improvements and demands for ideological alignment in scholarly organizations, with subsequent analyses noting the petitioners' reliance on selective interpretations rather than comprehensive review of Pinker's oeuvre. The from 2020 onward tested Enlightenment Now's core claim of ongoing advancements in , , and , prompting debates on whether short-term crises invalidate long-term trends. Pinker maintained that, despite over 7 million global deaths by mid-2022, the pandemic demonstrated the efficacy of Enlightenment-derived institutions like global vaccine development, which achieved unprecedented speed in mRNA technology deployment, averting an estimated 20 million deaths in the first year alone through vaccination. He argued in interviews and writings that metrics such as rebounds and reduced persisted post-peak, underscoring resilience rather than reversal, though he acknowledged failures in as lapses in rational . Critics, including some scholars, countered that the uneven global response—exacerbated by inequality and —exposed limits to technocratic , with excess deaths in vulnerable populations challenging Pinker's aggregate . Pinker rebutted declinist narratives by citing updated data showing no net setback in broader human development indices, positioning the event as a temporary deviation rather than a refutation of secular trends. A prominent 2023 debate between Pinker and political scientist crystallized disagreements over the Enlightenment's legacy in fostering moral and political progress amid rising geopolitical tensions. Hosted by the Institute of Art and Ideas, the exchange questioned whether Enlightenment ideals had exacerbated divisions through liberal universalism, with Mearsheimer asserting that realism—prioritizing power dynamics—better explains stalled advancements, pointing to conflicts like as evidence of inherent over optimistic . Pinker defended the book's thesis with empirical evidence of declining interstate wars and battle deaths since 1945, including Russia's 2022 invasion of , which he quantified as not disrupting the "" when normalized against historical baselines. He attributed perceived regressions to media amplification of negativity rather than causal reversals, while Mearsheimer criticized Enlightenment for naively promoting exportation, which he linked to instability in regions like the . The debate, viewed widely online, underscored a divide between data-centric and structural , with Pinker reiterating that measurable gains in , , and persist despite authoritarian resurgence. By 2024-2025, Pinker's advocacy continued amid discussions on autocracies, climate challenges, and AI risks, where he argued that innovations in —reducing CO2 emissions intensity by 50% since 1990—and reforms sustain progress trajectories outlined in Enlightenment Now. Critics from outlets like Jacobin acknowledged factual improvements but faulted Pinker for overlooking widening wealth gaps, with global Gini coefficients stagnating around 0.65 despite poverty reductions. In responses, Pinker emphasized causal mechanisms like market incentives and scientific collaboration as key to addressing disparities, rejecting zero-sum framings as antithetical to . These exchanges reinforced the book's influence in countering , though they revealed ongoing from both realist and egalitarian perspectives about the universality of Enlightenment gains.

References

  1. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/317051/enlightenment-now-by-steven-pinker/
  2. https://stevenpinker.com/publications/enlightenment-now-case-reason-science-humanism-and-progress
  3. https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Now-Science-Humanism-Progress/dp/0525427570
  4. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35696171-enlightenment-now
  5. https://quillette.com/2019/01/14/enlightenment-wars-some-reflections-on-enlightenment-now-one-year-later/
  6. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/01/24/pinker-responds-to-the-critics-of-enlightenment-now/
  7. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3654
  8. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/enlightenment-now-steven-pinker/1126719468
  9. https://www.abebooks.com/9780141979090/Enlightenment-Now-Pinker-Steven-0141979097/plp
  10. https://stevenpinker.com/biocv
  11. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Steven-Pinker
  12. https://stevenpinker.com/
  13. https://stevenpinker.com/publications
  14. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/harvards-pinker-makes-case-for-human-progress-in-new-book/
  15. https://www.supersummary.com/enlightenment-now/summary/
  16. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/11/reason-is-non-negotiable-steven-pinker-enlightenment-now-extract
  17. https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/enlightenment-now
  18. https://thehumanist.com/magazine/march-april-2018/features/enlightenment-wow-humanist-interview-steven-pinker/
  19. https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/57185511-enlightenment-now-the-case-for-reason-science-humanism-and-progress
  20. https://www.un.org/ht/node/221949
  21. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-life-expectancy-and-healthy-life-expectancy
  22. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2025-who-warns-of-slowing-global-health-gains-in-new-statistics-report
  23. https://data.who.int/indicators/i/48D9B0C/C64284D
  24. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/child-mortality-and-causes-of-death
  25. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/newborn-mortality
  26. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN
  27. https://www.cdc.gov/museum/pdf/cdcm-pha-stem-lesson-smallpox-eradication-lesson.pdf
  28. https://ourworldindata.org/smallpox
  29. https://www.who.int/health-topics/smallpox
  30. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240108462
  31. https://www.unfpa.org/publications/trends-maternal-mortality-2000-2023
  32. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X%2823%2900247-4/fulltext
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3886625/
  34. https://data.unicef.org/resources/trends-in-maternal-mortality-2000-to-2023/
  35. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/
  36. http://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal2
  37. https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stubbornly-high-for-three-consecutive-years-as-global-crises-deepen--un-report
  38. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/nutrition/overview
  39. https://ourworldindata.org/poverty
  40. https://devinit.org/resources/poverty-trends-global-regional-and-national/
  41. https://ourworldindata.org/literacy
  42. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/mean-years-of-schooling-long-run
  43. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-years-of-schooling
  44. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333/publication-output-by-region-country-or-economy-and-by-scientific-field
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2909426/
  46. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/world-intellectual-property-indicators-2024-highlights/en/patents-highlights.html
  47. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-941-2024-en-world-intellectual-property-indicators-2024.pdf
  48. https://ourworldindata.org/global-education
  49. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/homicide-rates-have-declined-dramatically-over-the-centuries
  50. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/homicide-rates-in-italy-have-dropped-by-80-since-1990
  51. https://ourworldindata.org/homicides
  52. https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
  53. https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death
  54. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
  55. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-death-rate-in-violent-political-conflicts-over-the-long-run
  56. https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism
  57. https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction
  58. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/people-in-richer-countries-tend-to-say-they-are-more-satisfied-with-their-lives
  59. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/peoples-self-reported-life-satisfaction-varies-widely-across-countries
  60. https://ourworldindata.org/
  61. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/17/steven-pinker-media-negative-news
  62. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/opinion/steven-pinker-enlightenment-now.html
  63. https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169
  65. https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2018/09/22/enlightenment-now-critical-reflections-critical-reviews-notes/
  66. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/07/environmental-calamity-facts-steven-pinker
  67. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/11/steven-pinker-enlightenment-now-interview-inequality-consumption-environment
  68. https://inthesetimes.com/article/new-optimists-bill-gates-steven-pinker-hans-rosling-world-health
  69. https://preservenet.blogspot.com/2020/10/cherry-picked-data-in-steven-pinkers.html
  70. http://preservenet.blogspot.com/2020/10/cherry-picked-data-in-steven-pinkers.html
  71. https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2019/01/steven-pinker-answers-critics-of-enlightenment-now.html
  72. https://jacobin.com/2018/10/steven-pinker-enlightenment-now-review
  73. https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/02/20/enlightenment-and-progress-or-why-steven-pinker-is-wrong
  74. https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2018/02/enlightenment-now-the-case-for-reason-science-humanism-and-progress-review-steven-pinker
  75. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/01/29/a-response-from-steve-pinker-to-salons-hit-piece-on-enlightenment-now/
  76. https://www.gatesnotes.com/enlightenment-now
  77. https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2018/02/24/steven-pinkers-case-for-optimism
  78. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-enlightenment-is-working-1518191343
  79. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/steven-pinker-s-ideas-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/
  80. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/17/17362548/pinker-enlightenment-now-two-cultures-rationality-war-debate
  81. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/pinkers-pollyannish-philosophy-and-its-perfidious-politics
  82. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/29/bill-gates-new-favorite-book-enlightenment-now-by-steven-pinker.html
  83. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/04/bill-gates-has-a-new-favourite-book-of-all-time/
  84. https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2018/enlightenment-now
  85. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gQvaA9EbvmzQATHt3/book-review-enlightenment-now-by-steven-pinker
  86. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPOHB2rRkc
  87. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
  88. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy
  89. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy
  90. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-prosperity-and-planet
  91. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/september-2025-global-poverty-update-from-the-world-bank--new-da
  92. https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2020/07/steven-pinker-interview-how-does-a-liberal-optimist-handle-a-pandemic
  93. https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims
  94. https://www.prio.org/news/3616
  95. https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/seitz_et_al._2020_pandemic_evo_insights_01.pdf
  96. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/aug/14/despite-climate-war-and-covid-is-everything-actually-getting-better
  97. https://humanprogress.org/the-covid-tonic-episode-6-steven-pinker/
  98. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/us/steven-pinker-harvard.html
  99. https://reason.com/2020/07/10/steven-pinker-beats-cancel-culture-attack/
  100. https://stevenpinker.com/lsa-letter
  101. https://quillette.com/2020/09/16/lessons-of-the-pinker-affair-the-problem-with-the-academy-is-false-beliefs-not-intolerance/
  102. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/tech-happy-life/202003/covid-19-puts-our-resilience-the-test
  103. https://iai.tv/video/the-enlightenment-and-its-alternatives-steven-pinker-john-mearsheimer
  104. https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/mearsheimer-versus-pinker
  105. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA-tCQJEzqk
  106. https://stevenpinker.com/publications?page=1
  107. https://www.weforum.org/podcasts/agenda-dialogues/episodes/steven-pinker-the-arc-of-progress-in-the-21st-century/
  108. https://jacobin.com/2025/03/pinkers-progress
  109. https://www.weforum.org/podcasts/meet-the-leader/episodes/steven-pinker-harvard-humanity-doing-better/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.