Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

“A humanistic sensibility impelled the Enlightenment thinkers to condemn not just religious violence but also the secular cruelties of their age, including slavery, despotism, executions for frivolous offenses such as shoplifting and poaching, and sadistic punishments such as flogging, amputation, impalement, disembowelment, breaking on the wheel, and burning at the stake.”

The author credits Enlightenment thinkers’ humanism with helping enact a “Humanitarian Revolution” because their arguments emphasized individuals’ sentience and capacity to think and feel. Without this perspective, Pinker feels, society would still endorse violent practices like torture and slavery. This quote paints a brutal picture of the past and underscores the importance of Enlightenment thinking in making such practices unimaginable to modern society.

“The Law of Entropy is widely acknowledged in everyday life in sayings such as ‘Things fall apart,’ ‘Rust never sleeps,’ ‘Shit happens,’ ‘Whatever can go wrong will go wrong,’ and (from the Texas lawmaker Sam Rayburn) ‘Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.’ Scientists appreciate that the Second Law is far more than an explanation of everyday nuisances. It is a foundation of our understanding of the universe and our place in it.”

Pinker references various sayings to show how people experience the Law of Entropy, also known as the Second Law, which states that disorder constantly threatens order. The author describes this law as one of the major forces of the universe, and notes that human society is always trying to make progress in spite of it.

“The Axial Age was when agricultural and economic advances provided a burst of energy: upwards of 20,000 calories per person per day in food, fodder, fuel and raw materials. This surge allowed civilizations to afford larger cities, a scholarly and priestly class, and a reorientation of their priorities from short-term survival to long-term harmony.”

The author examines the connection between humans’ ability to acquire nourishment and energy and expanding their civilizations. This passage helps Pinker convey the relationship between civilizations and societies’ intellectual and philosophical advancement, as he argues that excess energy allowed these societies to focus more on spiritual and intellectual pursuits, therefore expanding their ability to communicate complex ideas.

“The nature of news is likely to distort people’s view of the world because of a mental bug the psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman called the Availability Heuristic: people estimate the probability of an event or the frequency of a kind of thing by the ease with which instances come to mind.”

Pinker attributes some pessimism to our brain’s wiring since we’re more likely to expect events we can think of many examples of, even if they’re statistically unlikely. The media exacerbates this problem because it tends to focus on rare and unfortunate events, such as crimes and fatal accidents, causing people to view these events as common or even increasing. The author uses this discussion to emphasize that while cynicism about the world is common, many pessimistic beliefs are unfounded.

“It’s easy to extoll transcendent values in the abstract, but most people prioritize life, health, safety, literacy, sustenance, and stimulation for the obvious reason that these goods are a prerequisite to everything else. If you’re reading this, you are not dead, starving, destitute, moribund, terrified, enslaved, or illiterate, which means that you’re in no position to turn up your nose at these values—or deny that other people should share your good fortune.”

Contrasting his measures of freedom and quality of life, such as safety and literacy, with more “transcendent values,” such as heroism, salvation, and authenticity, Pinker urges consideration of how these values shape lives—and acknowledgment of their importance as a “prerequisite” to other aspects of living well. This passage is particularly confronting and persuasive because it’s written in direct address to encourage agreement with the prime importance of these ideals.

“The economist Steven Radelet has pointed out that ‘the improvements in health among the global poor in the last few decades are so large and widespread that they rank among the great achievements in human history. Rarely has the basic well-being of so many people around the world improved so substantially, so quickly. Yet few people are even aware it is happening.’”

Pinker enumerates the many measurable ways that human health has dramatically improved in the last couple centuries, such as lifespan, maternal mortality, and more. The data reveals that advances in healthcare and nutrition have enabled people around the world to live decades longer, a feat that Pinker notes isn’t well recognized. This information highlights the significant gap between reality and people’s perception of it, which the author considers central to understanding the prevalence of a pessimistic worldview.

“Ever-creative Homo sapiens had long fought back against disease with quackery such as prayer, sacrifice, bloodletting, cupping, toxic metals, homeopathy, and squeezing a hen to death against an infected body part. But starting in the late 18th century with the invention of vaccination, and accelerating in the 19th with acceptance of the germ theory of disease the tide of battle began to turn.”

The author reiterates the unscientific approach, or “quackery,” involved in diagnosing and treating illness before the development of science and modern medicine. By contrasting these two different approaches—one ineffective or harmful, the other demonstrably effective—Pinker strengthens his argument for respecting science and investing in research and knowledge.

“The fruits of science are not just high-tech pharmaceuticals such as vaccines, antibiotics, retrovirals, and deworming pills. They also comprise ideas—ideas that may seem cheap to implement and obvious in retrospect, but which save millions of lives.”

Pinker emphasizes the role of scientific knowledge, planning, and policies in successful health outcomes. He acknowledges that medical ideas—such as vaccine programs—can seem “obvious” once we’re accustomed to them but notes that each began with scientific research and carefully planned policies. This quote underscores the conscious effort that progress requires from scientists and political leaders; Pinker highlights that progress is never an accident but results from intentional research and planning based on reason.

“In addition to beating back hunger, the ability to grow more food from less land has been, on the whole, good for the planet. Despite their bucolic charm, farms are biological deserts which sprawl over the landscape at the expense of forests and grasslands […] The environmental scientist Jesse Ausubel has estimated that the world has reached Peak Farmland: we may never again need as much as we use today.”

The author’s defense of industrial agriculture is partly based on the fact that advances in plant breeding and technology have helped societies increase crop yields without using more land. This point helps him explain how the world has managed to sustain a ballooning population without expanding farmland at a rate equal to population growth. By describing farms as “biological deserts,” however, Pinker lumps all types of farms into one and doesn’t offer much nuance in how different approaches to agriculture—such as pesticides, herbicides, or organic methods—influence the landscape and human and animal health.

“Market economies, in addition to reaping benefits of specialization and providing incentives for people to produce things that other people want, solve the problem of coordinating the efforts of hundreds of millions of people by using prices to propagate information about need and availability far and wide, a computational problem that no planner is brilliant enough to solve from a central bureau.”

Pinker identifies market economies as a major factor in increasing people’s overall wealth during the 20th century. Communist governments greatly restricted business and opportunities, and when they changed their policies—or fell altogether—nations such as Russia, China, South Korea, and Eastern European countries enjoyed economic benefits. This quotation helps clarify Pinker’s position on the relationship between economic policy and wealth generation.

“Though it’s easy to sneer at national income as a shallow and materialistic measure, it correlates with every indicator of human flourishing […] Most obviously, GDP per capita correlates with longevity, health, and nutrition. Less obviously, it correlates with higher ethical values like peace, freedom, human rights, and tolerance.”

In this passage, Pinker anticipates criticism of his use of the GDP as a measure of prosperity and responds by referring to studies that show how nations’ income correlates with important quality-of-life issues, such as nutrition and lifespan. This persuasive quote helps establish that the data Pinker uses to support his argument is meaningful.

“People are content with inequality as long as they feel that the country is meritocratic, and they get angry when they feel that it isn’t. Narratives about the causes of inequality loom larger in people’s minds than the existence of inequality. This creates an opening for politicians to rouse the rabble by singling out cheaters who take more than their fair share: welfare queens, immigrants, foreign countries, bankers, or the rich, sometimes identified with ethnic minorities.”

Pinker cites the article “Why People Prefer Unequal Societies” by Sharmans, Sheskin, and Bloom to support his argument that inequality doesn’t have a causal effect on social ills such as poor health or homicide. Instead, this study shows that people enjoy living in unequal societies if they consider the distribution of wealth “meritocratic” and deserved. This helps Pinker debunk the arguments put forth by the authors of “The Spirit Level,” who blame inequality for causing anxiety and competition and thus for creating various social problems.

“In another example of progress, sometimes called the Egalitarian Revolution, modern societies now devote a substantial chunk of their wealth to health, education, pensions and income support […] The explosion of social spending has redefined the mission of government: from warring and policing to also nurturing.”

The author argues that the welfare state is a sign of progress because increased social spending correlates with better quality of life. By shifting the role of government to include “nurturing,” people have benefited from improved education, health care, and savings plans. Pinker claims that this approach is so effective that as countries gain wealth, they’ll almost inevitably spend more of their GDP on social programs. In this passage, Pinker defends the rise of the welfare state and thus reveals more about his political leanings.

“Income inequality, in sum, is not a counterexample to human progress, and we are not living in a dystopia of falling incomes that has reversed the centuries-long rise in prosperity […] Inequality is not the same as poverty, and it is not a fundamental dimension of human flourishing.”

In reiterating the difference between inequality and poverty, Pinker notes that all incomes can increase across a society while still producing growing inequality depending on the differences in people’s total wealth. This passage emphasizes Pinker’s argument that recent concerns about inequality in the US are alarmist and ignore statistics showing that poverty rates are decreasing and that the poor today have a better quality of life than the poor of previous generations.

“Beginning in the 1960s, the environmental movement grew out of scientific knowledge (from ecology, public health, and earth and atmospheric sciences) and a Romantic reverence for nature. The movement made the health of the planet a permanent priority on humanity’s agenda, and as we shall see, it deserves credit for substantial achievements—another form of human progress.”

Pinker credits the environmental movement with spurring important changes in how we use and relate to nature. He argues that, while some environmentalists may feel that things have only gotten worse, the movement has made important progress, and we should feel optimistic about the future. He promises to debunk ideas that he attributes to “the traditional environmental movement” and that don’t acknowledge environmental progress.

“A second realization of the ecomodernist movement is that industrialization has been good for humanity. It has fed billions, doubled life spans, slashed extreme poverty, and, by replacing muscle with machinery, made it easier to end slavery, emancipate women, and educate children. It has allowed people to read at night, live where they want, stay warm in winter, see the world, and multiply human contact.”

The author defends industrialization as a positive “tradeoff” for humanity and emphasizes the positive impacts of industrialization on people’s lives. Pinker positions ecomodernism, or eco-pragmatism, as having a sympathetic view to industrialization and characterizes “traditional” environmentalists as being largely opposed to industrialization and having a dim view of technology. By synthesizing the perspectives of these two groups, Pinker creates tension and intrigue to foster engagement and raise the stakes of his analysis.

“Like other forms of progress, the ascent of safety was led by some heroes, but it was also advanced by a motley of actors who pushed in the same direction inch by inch: grassroots activists, paternalistic legislators, and an unsung cadre of inventors, engineers, policy wonks, and number crunchers.”

Again referring to how society can neglect to celebrate many of the real architects of progress, Pinker acknowledges the “motley of actors” who contributed to the reduction in car accident deaths, crime, and natural disaster fatalities. In doing so, he emphasizes how progress is usually a long-term team effort. This makes it even more important to reflect on how far we’ve come so that we can identify winning strategies and resist a declinist attitude.

“We may never drive the already low numbers of terrorist casualties to zero, but we can remember that terror about terrorism is a sign not of how dangerous our society has become, but of how safe.”

Pinker emphasizes that society shouldn’t view terrorism as a major existential threat to civilization. He notes that the fact that people are shocked and concerned about relatively rare instances of terrorism shows how safe and stable our society has become. This is an important passage because the media often prioritizes coverage of terrorism, which can lend itself to availability bias.

“But it’s in the nature of progress that it erases its tracks, and its champions fixate on the remaining injustices and forget how far we have come. An axiom of progressive opinion, especially in universities, is that we continue to live in a deeply racist, sexist, and homophobic society, which would imply that progressivism is a waste of time, having accomplished nothing after decades of struggle.”

The author takes issue with the perception that society is still “deeply racist, sexist, and homophobic” because he feels that it “erases” the immense progress that we’ve made. His reference to the “remaining injustices” shows that he agrees that some areas have room for more progress. Pinker opens his chapter on equality by trying to introduce some nuance into the discourse and encourages people to celebrate the gains already made.

“The declining proportion of our lives we have to forfeit for light, appliances, and food may be part of a general law […] As the necessities of life get cheaper, we waste fewer of our waking hours obtaining them, and have more time and money left for everything else - and the ‘everything else’ gets cheaper, too, so we can experience more of them.”

In his passage on quality of life, Pinker emphasizes the importance of leisure time to enjoy life—and the fact that the declining cost of goods and invention of household appliances has given us more of that time. This chapter challenges us to imagine how different our everyday life would be in previous decades before the introduction of affordable appliances—and when the responsibility for household work was more gendered.

“The dire warnings about plagues of loneliness, suicide, depression, and anxiety don’t survive fact-checking. And though every generation has worried that the next one is in trouble, as younger generations go, Millennials seem to be in pretty good shape, happier and mentally healthier than their helicoptering parents.”

Pinker debunks the notion that happiness is declining and mental health conditions are rising. He argues that intergenerational tension is very common and that the data suggests that younger people today are actually better off than the older generations. This quotation sums up the author’s passage on happiness and anxiety, emphasizing that while some people have mental health conditions, these rates aren’t increasing.

“A liberal democracy is a precious achievement […] By failing to take note of the gifts of modernity, social critics poison voters against responsible custodians and incremental reformers who can consolidate the tremendous progress we have enjoyed and strengthen the conditions that will bring us more.”

The author condemns the declinism and pessimism of intellectuals and media commentators, which he ties to voter apathy and cynical populist movements. Rather than focus on society’s failings, he argues, we should make pragmatic choices and incremental progress toward reform so that we can preserve the best of our democracies and continue to improve them. This quotation sums up Pinker’s argument that steady, incremental achievements—rather than fiery revolutions or sudden restructuring—are the best way to continue helping society evolve.

“A given belief, depending on how it is framed and who endorses it, can become a touchstone, password, motto, shibboleth, sacred value or oath of allegiance to one of their tribes […] The values that divide people are also defined by which demons are blamed for society’s misfortunes: greedy corporations, out-of-touch elites, meddling bureaucrats, lying politicians, ignorant rednecks or, all too often, ethnic minorities.”

In pondering the role of irrationality in human perspectives and decision-making, Pinker emphasizes the role of political views in reinforcing social bonds. By examining how our values inform our relationships, Pinker highlights how our social lives, and not just our education and ability to reason, impact our attitudes and actions.