Noam Chomsky on Steven Pinker
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Edward S. Herman’s review of “The Better Angels of Our Nature”: isreview.org/i...
Visit/support Current Affairs here: www.currentaff...
Sources: • Nathan J. Robinson int... & • Chomsky & Krauss: An O...
I've never seen a Chomsky interview with good audio. Never
😂
Yes. And I'm starting to think that maybe his voice is like that. 😂
This one is great ruclips.net/video/b3E1M6mmK-g/видео.html
This audio is too atrocious to listen to, unfortunately. Even with headphones. Why spend the time to interview a luminary figure if we can’t hear it properly?
In this case, it was in person, so that’s the fault of the interviewers. Though, most recent interviews were remote and he doesn’t have good audio setup, so it’s impossible right now.
However, the interview with Lawrence Krauss sounded good.
so many Chomsky interviews
so much bad audio lmao
And yet observe that honking microphone in front of him. Is he just a champion mumbler?
So true, but it has more to do with the Chomsky mumble....lol
@@sammyslam1 or your inability to listen
about 50% of the time i have to use an external speaker so i can actually hear the conversations.
It's his voice! The other guy isn't muffled
Barbarity isn't the opposite of civilization; it's civilization's alter-ego.
oooh
True indeed.
Fax!
Aw, everyone's always picking on the Barbarians just because they don't speak the same babble
nice one!
But Professor, ain't it wrong to say just because 'e might be able to speak two languages, that him'll be into ladies and also into boys?
Parachute.
LOL
Ali g interview for those who are confused by this comment
Booyakasha
John Reid laplella and lafeena
Nathan J Robinson was super nervous in this interview, and I don't blame him for being so, Chomsky is kind of his hero afterall
Great interview!
Agreed although Noam would never accept the hero title, being true to his anarchist leanings
I suggest you watch it again. I'm pretty sure it's Woody Allen on coke.
Wayne Brinker lol I suggest you look into individualist anarchism. Those people wouldn’t bat an eye at unique behavior.
robbinson is a bright dude
He wasn’t nervous, he was arrogant and smug. Can’t even look him in The Eye. Robinson is a weak dishonest self loathing egotist.
Why is Woody Allen conducting this interview?😂
Nicely observed. :-)
Because, if you're going to interview Chomsky, you need someone who knows the difference between 'heuristic' and 'hermeneutic'.
No.
Because he needs the eggs.
2:46 - woody allen mannerism right there
Being Neoliberal isn’t Centrism - it’s Right Wing deregulatory Capitalism, dismantlement of social programs, Corporate welfare, and worship of markets.
I would add to that made-up wars to open up markets and territory for transnational corps that have killed millions in the so called, "Drug Wars."
You're making neo liberalism sound good
@@WayoftheDave Are you a psychopath?
Joe Rogan needs to have on Chomsky
Rogan doesn’t invite leftists on his show.
@@bjarczyk he has had on abby Martin, Kyle kulinski, Jimmy dore, Andrew yang, the Weinstein brothers, and many other guests with a wide range of beliefs.
@@bjarczyk outright lie
@@marcgodfrey331 Yang isn't a leftist.
You really think Joe could stay awake and pay attention to Chomsky? For a linguist, he’s not so much an interesting speaker.
This kid interviewing Chomsky is sort of cringe, but I love Noam, I’m hurt that his voice is ever gravely and weak.
You be nice to my boy Nathan!
3:27 "iphone hasa dubious effect on your life"
spot on
Would you add social media to that too?
Impressive hand movements
I like how when Noam Chomsky says he has one thing right he's just being honest.
unlike Chomsky the Charlatan King
@@NuanceOverDogma Unlike Sowell the farcical Demi-god.
Unlike Harry CallahanX, the judgemental nobody.
Unlike picachu
At last, someone not calling Chomsky the wisest person evvvvaaaaaaaa! He's an idiot who needs lobotimising right now, after his Piers Morgan interview where he claims Chris Ruffo invented (the term?) Critical Race Theory, it's the most hilariously cringe thing I've ever heard, so clearly obviously untrue, the copium is strong with that one.
I like how Chomsky subtly contrasts Pinker's work with the "serious" examinations others have made. I hadn't heard of Gordon's book before this; think I'll give it a read.
By serious he means, academic/scholarly work. Pinker is more like pop-science
@@nicholas6870 Ah, exactly
@@nicholas6870 Yeah...anyone whose work might mean that anarchists are wrong is a pop-science.
@@amulyamishra5745 Steven Pinker is a pop science
@@collbair and you're sir?
The “radical centrist” between the center right and right lol
define right. Many of his right wing viewers think he's too far left as he said nothing to the twitter ceo who banned many conservatives for no reason.
@@johnnonamegibbon3580 Everyone is right-wing compared to Chomsky and his audience
@@danlamprich4874 I actually love Noam. He was a big influence on my thinking on a deep level. I'm not just saying that's a platitude. His philosophy is gorgeous and understanding of Science and human instincts. However, many of his fans don't really "Get" him. He's not as far left as they think. He likely believes men and women are different and that even different races are, as that's what the science suggests, for example.
He does believe some foolish stuff, like that women were "oppressed". I don't agree.
@@johnnonamegibbon3580 While I agree with you for the most part, my point was that one must have a really warped ideological perspective to consider Pinker even remotely right-wing. If Pinker is right-wing, then the majority of people must be right-wing extremists and the label loses all meaning.
@@danlamprich4874 Exactly. I agree. I went off topic. Opps.
brian ferguson anthropologist is the man!!!!
in short: Chomsky doesn't like pinker because pinkers facts clash with chomskys grievance studies.
4:29 Chomsky: "One thing that [Steven Pinker] says is correct. I think that's about it. [audience laugher] Since the Enlightenment, there has been moral progress; in our own lifetimes, there has been moral progress. So, consider, for example, the status of women's rights today and in 1950 -- very different. The status of civil rights -- very different. Gay rights -- very different. That's progress, and it's been going on slowly since the Enlightenment. But that's a pretty brief period of human history. In fact, right at this same time have been the most murderous, destructive wars ever, and even seventy years ago, the creation by some of the smartest people in the world, of a device that may destroy us all.".
@@kenfresno5218 he doesnt ignore them, because he mentions Bryan Ferguson, who has refuted them. Those numbers are a bunch of crap.
@@kenfresno5218 www.researchgate.net/publication/273371719_Pinker%27s_List_Exaggerating_Prehistoric_War_Mortality
you're welcome...my dumbass friend.
@@kenfresno5218 these are the crap we are talking about. We you are mentioning the same source?
@@kenfresno5218 "Given all this, the current global population trends aren’t encouraging. Countries and cities are getting bigger, which should, theoretically, lead to larger overall war losses (even if the percentages are smaller). But even more worrisome is the fact that population growth is soaring, particularly in areas with historically unstable politics. Given the math-and the daily news about the tense relationship between the U.S. and North Korea (as just one example), along with the unfettered combativeness of Trump and Kim Jong-un-a third World War seems plausible"
This seems to accept the Pinker's thesis but for different reasons. It's higly critical, thanks for the source.
@@kenfresno5218 this is critical also , but out of the topic.
Now that's six minutes well worth listening.
Related to Chomsky's last mention: Science is wonderful. The whole point of it is for the advancement and betterment of humanity. Science could be used to create a thriving healthy oasis of this planet or misused to kill each other if the goals of science are twisted by the influence of a power structured system as we have. I think we know the goals are twisted. And I think we know which direction we should be taking.
What direction should we be taking?
unfortunately, like almost everything, science has practically become coopted by systems of power. Science is just a tool, that's all. Science has given us a method for how to approach seeing the world and trying to figure it out but it is rather limited. It can only speak to things it can measure and even that is up to interpretation. The communities of scientists are imperfect humans. There is no surprise that the rise of science coincides with the rise of more brutal, more organized, larger, and more powerful systems of death and destruction in the same way that the rise of high tech in the US coincides with the rise of superfund sites where unconscious high tech manufacturing firms dumped their incredibly toxic waste. There is always a cost to so-called progress.
There is also the very strong tendency for the educated class of people to worship science to the point that science is the new religion for many so that now many people not only do not need to know anything about the science but they also don't care to understand the science beyond the point of believing the science because marketing and advertising uses "science" as a stamp of approval on products and ideas. Reality and existence are incredible. Nature is incredible. Science is a pretty good attempt of humans to better know things...and all useful things get swallowed by the political economic structures to be twisted and used to keep us even more deeply entrenched in our cubical indoctrination, in cyberspace so we have less influence on real politics.
To study and understand science, truly, is to respect it as a double-edge sword. Ultimately, an argument can be made that science (for example industrial revolution and other advanced stages) has accelerated our destruction of the planet, the population explosion, mass global exponential consumption. I would argue that overall, it is difficult to claim we've experienced moral progress as we systematically exterminate what remains of earth's indigenous cultures. Science as an enterprise is doing very little to actually solve problems of humanity. Science and engineering are, however, focused on solving problems of getting products to the market and working hard to assist people (called consumers) to purchase more stuff that is designed to become immediately obsolete and dumped in landfills.
What are the goals?
Science is done for fun, not the betterment of humanity lol.
The disconnect between the working left and the intellectual left is one of its core weaknesses. I cannot believe someone as smart as Chomsky considers smartphones “frills”. The ability for skilled workers to use their phones anywhere and have the internet everywhere practically a superpower. I’m not upset that the great man has apparently never had a job that produces but he should know what the realities of production are if his economic theories should be taken seriously.
"Smartphones are a superpower". Lol. You and I both know that 99% of people use their phones to look at meaningless drivel to keep themselves entertained
The difference is still small compared to electricity, basic phone, indoor plumbing, etc.
@G P I hope I'm wrong or missing something but, couple that consistent mass media gaslighting/manipulation with its progenitor in absurd corporate power effectively enforcing mass worker alienation resulting in substantial individual isolation, mass depression and a prioritization of individual indulgence and vulgar displays of power as the core motivating force that rewards material survival, and you get potent revolutionary anger without any solidarity or concrete direction to bring such a societal transformation about. Or in other words, basically massive, and I would say justified, indignation misdirected/sublimated into individual isolated acts of aggression against one's self or one of the hundreds of millions in the same boat rather than the handful of people that jammed us all in the boat in the first place and consistently refuse to let the majority of people off of it. It's quite sad and any conscious direction of such social forces is honestly pretty descriptive of "evil" in my opinion, but I think for the most part these underlying considerations or really any desire to look at a bigger picture are offloaded psychologically through various ideological justifications akin to a modern 'divine right of kings' so it remains hidden in plain sight for many but definitely intuited at some level by most if not all.
Anyway, back to porn. It's on the phone now! Superpower indeed.
@@Bisquick I need this on my wall
The smart phone? LOL….You mean that device that millions of people use to disengage from real discourse with another real human being? Are you are referring to that device that people use to purchase meaningless junk off the internet, or to engage in sophomoric social media exchanges? Of all the things you could mention…a ‘smart’ phone is what stands out? LOL
He referred to it as a 'frill', has your attention span been destroyed by TikTok?
@@Richard_Straker I don’t watch TikTok, smart ass. And I was not referring to Noam.
*HELPFUL EXTRACT* from: *Lexicography of the Utterances of Noam Chomksy*
1. adjective: se·ri·ous /ˈsɪərɪəs/ (as in, "serious scholarship") definition. academic work agreeing with Chomsky's own views.
2. adjective: un·se·ri·ous/ˈsɪərɪəs/ (as in, "unserious scholarship") definition. academic work disagreeing with Chomsky's own views.
Speaking from personal experience, Professor Chomsky isn’t easily impressed. I’m grateful he doesn’t have a mean streak
Greta Of The Corn - Reactionaries say the cleverest things...
@S W He is indeed food
You know, I heard tell that he's a Zionist gatekeeper and he's bad. Quite frankly, I dunno what him working a toll booth at a national park has to do with him being bad. Actually sounds quite nice.
HalfBakeDestruction - A “Zionist Gatekeeper”? That sounds marvellous! Does it pay more than $12.50/hr.? I’m an out-of-work professor of archaeology - how do I get a job like that?
I worry that his negativity turns as many people off to social action as the opposite. Endless bitching does no one any good.
Well said Noam Chomsky thankyou and totally agree!!
I'm so glad Chomsky countered this corporate/colonial apologist.
>White people are so terrible. Muh colonialism.
>Begs to live around White people in the current year.
josef k how dare you use a dispicable term like that!
@Mustafa White people aren't rich simply because of colonialism. In fact there's some evidence it can hurt growth. Whites actually were always wealthier even before colonialism. There's an IQ difference between populations.
Last time I checked colonialism was in the past and abolished by the West as a result of pressure from within. That's precisely what Pinker is saying.
@ThisIsMyRealName White people can't be "Racist™" in our own White created nation.
Now get off our White created internet.
The end of the tribal life was highly likely the main source of the discomfort and unhappiness of urbanite populations.
I suspect Noam did not read pinkers book. He seems to to use the exact criticism that pinker anticipated and discussed in his book. Noam still thinks he’s the only one that does not have his head up his….. he never grew up.
Aw de little neoliberals upset over his mouthpiece getting called out
@@Jack-e5t hello, what’s the intent of your comment? I’m a little dense sometimes! Haha
@@Jack-e5t I just started reading the blank slate and I’m confused af what is this man’s affiliations
geezus, you think you could've made the sound quality any worse?
I hate to say this, but Chomsky's comments on Better Angels of Our Nature make it clear that he hasn't read the book. Pinker anticipates and addresses each of those objections rather thoroughly.
I agree with him. Great mind. Pinker is an extreme optimist. I'm not sure many thinkers agree with him.
has XLR mic, doesnt use it
Hmmm - I read Better Angels. I just don't think Chomsky counters Pinker's arguments and *data*. As one example, the 20th century war comment reveals he did not read or understand Pinker's arguments, which are laid out in some detail.
I'm glad you still have your sanity.
I quite like the interviewer, lol.
Nathan J Robinson
Around the time of the Assyrian Empire was most violent period imo. 1 in every 400 humans on the planet was in their military.
Yes, Dr. Chomsky, let's all go back to the blissful live of the cave.
The irony is that Chomsky's non-linguistic works are far more nonesensical and lacking in serious scholarship than anything pinker has put out.
Did anyone here actually read the correspondence between Sam Harris and Chomsky? Chomsky simply refused to have a reasonable discussion. At Harris's suggestion that the US may have acted out of ignorance and not malevolence, Chomsky just folded his arms and said no, that's impossible. And that was the end of it. Not very intellectual of him...
Chomsky gives important insights into media and foreign policy, but he's so steeped in bias it's difficult to parse what's being said in good faith. Every book he writes on foreign policy has lines like "the capitalist monsters were at it again, torturing the civilian population for fun." I know the US has done some pretty horrific things, but when you demonize only one of the actors, you sully the issue.
raharu000 Sam Harris is intellectually a bug next to Chomsky.
@@tonybanks1035 No offense, but you need to pull your head out of your ass, fanboy... It wasn't a dick wagging contest, it was a discussion. And Chomsky couldn't even grant Harris the possibility that the US may have acted out of ignorance, even for discussion's sake... Think about that. That's not reasonable discourse. That's the intellectual equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting I'm right, you're wrong.
I'm going to go ahead and guess you've actually never read a book by Chomsky but just watched RUclips clips. If you have read a book, it's one of his newer books intended for teenagers or low-information citizens, like 'How the World Works''. If you read his books from the late 80s and 90s, you find hundreds and hundreds of citations, dense arguments, stylish writing, wide-ranging familiarity with world events, and multi-disciplinary approaches.
So I just read it after seeing this. It seems to me that it was Harris who just folded their arms and stopped engaging. Harris couldn't help but continually comment on Chomsky's impatient tone, rather than actually engage his mountain of points and questions. Harris effectively ends the conversation with "I don't like your tone, so I'm not going to engage you". Possibly the most anti-intellectual out you could ever pull.
Personally, I understand Chomsky's lack of patience here. Harris' inability to differentiate between real and professed intentions, and unwillingness to engage with Chomsky's career of differentiating between them, would annoy anyone.
He's a turd. Read his exchange with George Monbiot, mind-blowing.
It would be better to see Steven Pinker talking about Noam Chomsky. Thomas Sowell talks about Noam Chomsky and he’s correct.
I AGREE. Always take into account the growth of homelessness since the late 70s. Tell Pinker to stay a month on the street in LA. Or Detroit. OR stay a month in a tent in GAZA….
Chomsky understands that words like progress and Progressive politics demand definition.
Pinker says that there has been real progress Worldwide in many areas, Chomsky says that's wrong because wages have stagnated in the US. And what does "progress" mean anyway. 2:45 Quite ridiculous.
Why is Noam Chomsky audio always so bad? Weird.
Because humans cannot listen to the voice of God unfiltered.
cia , mosad, mi6 and err microphone
Yes, Amy Goodman is a great interviewer & one of the few who features Noam. She also interviews Dr Cornell West, Ralph Nader, Chris Hedges. Amy is no slacker herself, very smart!
Glad im not the only one to notice that every Chomsky video no RUclips sounds like dog shit
It doesn't seem that Chomsky has actually read Pinker's newer books
verbadum22 You’re so desperate to defend him lol
He did not.
@verbadum22 why aren't they taken seriously , isnt it obvious that pinker is correct on almost everything
Is this the same Chomsky who said the non vaccinated should have been isolated in camps for refusing that jab...?
🎵🤡🎶🤡🎵
Pinker has a clearer perspective then Noam
Chomsky is arrogant, we is afraid to lower himself. To dismiss someone like Pinker with "there is serious work being done" as a way of saying this guy can't be taken seriously, that is arrogant.
@Agnaye Ochani Chomsky gives his own personal perspective (which is valuable no doubt) but he is clearly biased. Anyone who sais living in the Hunter Gatherer times of human kind was more peaceful and pleasant then living in modern first world society is borderline insane. For most of human history it was common for woman to die during child birth and babies died of starvation and/or disease before they were 3. The average life expectancy has tripled since our hunter gatherer times. Thinking we are worse off now then our ancestors (at nearly any point in time) is so out of wack that it's hard to take anything Chomsky sais seriously at all after hearing him say that. And this is coming from someone who generally likes Chomsky. I liked Chomsky more in the past but I have heard him say a few things that are so obviously wrong that it borders on crack pottery.
A true believers mind has little room for doubt.
@Agnaye Ochani nope. Pinker does. Much better. Chomsky doesn't even write anymore, just makes 10 min talks. 2x 600 pg books on the topic by pinker. Also it's not pinker's data. It's just him presenting the data. He isn't making up the data. To disprove pinker provide better data that shows otherwise. Pinker will change his mind if data shows otherwise.
@Agnaye Ochani Are you serious? He makes the claim that we were somehow morally better when we were living in hunter/gatherer societies than when we started to develop into complex societies. I'm sorry, but I can't accept the idea that we were more cognitively developed to handle different people and different opinions, especially when those opinions literally meant life or death since many decisions in those days determined your survival. He's a digressive intellectual and a huge pessimist, which is absolutely dangerous in our time, today.
It reminds me of what the famous psychologist, Viktor Frankl who wrote, "Man's Search for Meaning". He was a Holocaust survivor who said that when people are that close to death, the ones who latch on to hope and meaning are the ones who are the most likely to survive. Steven Pinker is trying to instill hope and optimism for a generation that's tasked to save the World from Climate Change. Noam is telling everyone we're fucked. Of course, we have problems, but it's not gonna help if we feel hopeless. Steven Pinker is showing us that we made significant progress, which means we can overcome these new challenges if we remain hopeful and vigilant. And even if I'm wrong, I'd rather die trying to do something positive for humanity than to die sitting on the sidelines telling all the optimists they're wrong. It's just a dick move, honestly...
would help if that mic was plugged in
The audio is so distorted that I muted it and tried to follow the CCs, but they were not carefully edited and were of no help.
Steven Pinker is a new and shittier version of Herbert Spencer, prove me wrong
one correction, I'd say. Spencer didn't mind suffering or destruction. Pinker at least pretends to care.
Unfortunately Chomsky is not an evolutionary biologist so his old cringe worthy analyses that he still promotes do not hold up in view of all the exciting research being done today. I was a follower of Chomsky during my university days in the 70's. He had something to offer. It's just the same old thing that he talks about now.
if you "followed" him you clearly never comprehended his message. He's also practically a hundred years old. Not sure what you expect of him. Pinker will never reach his level of insight or global influence and honestly I think it peeves him.
@@zachflame123 Stumbled onto your comment so I have to respond so anyone else isn't poisoned by your reductive opinions. You say he's practically a hundred years old and imply that therefore we can't hold him accountable for his bad takes in fields in which he has no clue what he is talking about. Do you think we can reduce any of his marxist or anti-capitalist beliefs to "He's just old, he doesn't know any better."?
You also equate the global influence and "insight" to what is essentially a charade of a popularity contest. No one outside the field of Linguistics or Psychology would know Chomsky's name if it wasn't for his criticisms of the western dogma. In contrast, Steven Pinker knows to stick to the field in which his expertise is most beneficial; instead of parading as a champion of the people, co-signing mass genocides on the count of "the encroachments of the west".
@@lazarus2993 Pinker is a linguist abd cognitive scientist. Just like Chomsky. Your comments are a non sequitor. And my comments by no means were restricted to age. This was a parenthetical comment.
@@lazarus2993 you say "Marxist" as if it's an insult. Pity.
How did it happen that the first interviewer was a toddler?
Noam CHOMSKY , meu herói ,❤️💞💕🌹🌹🌹
flip phone > smart phone
Terrible audio. These fellows don’t know how to properly capture the voice of this living genious, SAD.
I agree with Chomsky over Pinker. But people here take that to mean Pinker is wrong about everything. He isn't. He just thinks that people are violent by nature. lol That's it. I don't.
@@anthonybrett No. He thinks people are warlike by their nature, and I disagree on that. That's different from murder rates, which we suspect are partially genetic.War is murder on a mass scale. I'm skeptical we evolved to do that.
@@johnnonamegibbon3580 I don't mean to insult you, but saying that murder and violence are genetic, by lines of "European" and non "European" is objectively racist. I don't know if you mean to subjugate or patronize people of whom you believe to have worse genes or not. But either way, it's a very blunt way to think.
@@johnnonamegibbon3580 The term racist refers to people with the ideology of racism, which is just another ideology. You can argue that racism is a true ideology and that you are therefore right, but not that is doesn't exist. One of the attributes of racism is to falsely apply Darwins theory of evolution on phenomena which are caused by human society. Also to create a binary of inherently inferior and superior groups of people, especially to legitamize hierachies or violence (like for example capital punishment).
Chomsky is certainly aware that social behaviours such as murder are not influenced by any genetic changes in the last 10,000 years.
@@Nirmav_Nirmav ????
Well, if IQ differs it just does. I've never heard him deny IQ, just say that it isn't everything.
@@johnnonamegibbon3580 I don't see what some test has to do with the supposed murder gene.
Pity this was cut before the nuclear bomb discussion...
Interviewer did a line before this
He is clearly super nervous. Chomsky is his hero!
Don't think Chomsky read Pinker's book.
A couple of things I like to keep in mind that Ive learned.
First present day occupations for the average blue collar are already working more than a third or so than our hunter gatherer ancestors(thats carl Sagan paraphrase because the exact figure i just recall being reputably higher).
Second if you were living in an earlier age chances are HIGH thag uou’d be breathing clean air. A complete acknowledgment there isnt a single oil derrick or fracking sight, wastefund site, or natural gas station near indiscriminately making an “honest buck” .
The closest thing would be the camp fire or outhouse.
No one's keeping you from wandering into the wilderness and living off roots. Go ahead, you ungrateful moron.
Woodsmoke is incredibly toxic. If you were cooking on a fire, you would not be breathing clean air.
worker productivity has risen year by year for decades, yet worker wages have stayed flat or declined. Americans work longer hours than anybody, with little or no paid vacation, no paid sick leave, poorer benefits, weaker retirement, no job security, high costs of living, no affordable child care and student debt. These trends are creeping onto the continent, hiding behind Merkel's pantsuit.
@@MrCmon113 --- so you say SOCIETY offers benefits and values a libertarian sociopath cannot? Hard to argue there. THat wasn't your point but when you deal so often in straw-men, as do you, things are bound to get itchy and tangled up.
It's not the audio it's Chomsky.He alway's sounds like he's half dead.
True, but his content is is always spot on.
there is this 1991 paper by William Eckhardt called "War-related Deaths Since 3000 BC" that contradicts pinker's findings, and i really want smart people to critique it
I don't know anything about the paper you mention but war-related deaths from the middle ages or before should of course be presented as a proportion of the total global population, not as absolute figures, as they are very misleading. Pinker's 'findings' are not actually his findings, they are a summary of other key statisticians' work in this area. He also references Our World in Data quite a lot, which is an excellent source of info on a whole range of human welfare/social development areas
@@energyben the paper i mentioned shows war deaths have increased as a percentage of total population not just absolute figures. i looked at "our world data" section "war and peace," and its figures appear to be consistent with Eckhardt's. it is very hard to find data that goes further back than the middle ages
@@7lllll the data referenced in Our World In Data doesn't show an increase overall though, it represents the 20th century as yet another peak. Also as you say this only includes the relatively recent past of the middle ages, and even from that the picture is pretty mixed. We can clearly see huge spikes in 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as well as the 20th. As the authors of that section point out, there is a certain amount of historical myopia going on when looking at the violence of the 20th century - it is the closest century to our vantage point and thus easier to recall. As an example of something beyond our vantage point is Genghis Khan's wars in the 13th century. There is data that suggests that when you take into account civilian deaths from starvation and disease as a result of war, his atrocities in the 13th century killed off a significantly larger amount of the global population than WW2, which can be ranked as the 11th most bloody episode in human history. This is when you also roll in civilian deaths rather than just battlefield deaths. I'm not a statistician and can't argue to the validity of these statistics, but given that medical standards for civilians (and soldiers) was so very much worse in the middle ages and prior to that than it has been for the last few centuries, these figures would seem to make sense. The figures I quoted are here:historum.com/threads/the-20-worst-things-people-have-done-to-each-other.75212/
Disclaimer: I have read Pinker's book on the history of violence, ('Better Angels...') and I am a former anti-capitalist misanthrope
@@energyben the data at our world in data shows the 2 world wars as the biggest peaks, and the scale is logarithmic, so the slight difference in height is a big deal, and notice the relative peace in the 15th and 16th centuries. i do not know about the rest of your claims, which is why i want smart people to critique the paper i referenced
@@7lllll they are not my claims, the source is included for you. The only claim I made was about medical standards, and that's clearly factual.
One of the strange things about Pinker‘s point of view is that it is often identical to real Marxist historical materialism. Meaning Marx predicted that capitalism would increase material conditions in a revolutionary way. But unlike Marx, Pinker’s conclusion is therefore we ought to stop complaining because we live in the best of all possible worlds. Marx made a different conclusion that the rise of material conditions coupled with the inherent contradictions in capitalism will make the inherent inequalities of capitalism more apparent than ever and necessitate a shift into socialism.
Of course I prefer many modern things, and I would rather be poor now than in the year 1800, but the inequalities have become both apparent and absurd to such a degree that I think it is apparent that most of the governed don’t consent to the ruling authorities whether government or corporate. And the only way to continue the farce is to increase the propaganda so we continue to live in a fake world.
So I think we have now reached an impasse that Marx predicted, what comes next is not known. I don’t think it will be anything like what Marx imagined, and I hope for real visionary change rather than barbarism. But we can’t go much further than the farcical reality we live in now.
Hi, I know it has been almost a year since you left this comment but I've transcribed this into my reading notes and I am wondering how to cite you? Is your username and the name of this video enough? I like to give credit where it is due
Great analysis btw
Just plumbing and electricity? How bout soap. Antibiotics. Reading, writing, and arithmetic. Books. Cars. Airplanes. Wheelchairs. Dental care. Class mobility. Does chomsky even know how to use a smart phone? When i was a kid i had to go to the library just to see a picture of space. Now i can sit here in the 3rd world and use my pocket sized super computer to watch videos about rich people feeling guilty about how stinking rich they are.
And what is with all the pro hunter gatherer bs? Hunter gatherers still exist and i dont see anybody throwing their 'useless' iphones away and rushing out the door to join them. Hands up, who wants to spend the next 40 years hoping the wolves dont make it inside the camp grounds tonight? Who wants their worth to be decided by physical strength? Who wants to be afraid of stubbing his toe and dying from a staph infection? Any takers?
Dude, it's a pretty established phenomenon that European colonists settling the Americas would - in incredibly small numbers - leave behind their agricultural, near-industrial society and join the hunter gatherering Native American tribes - but the reverse never _once_ occurred without compulsion.
Also, idk what the point of that list at the start was. He pointed at indoor plumbing and electricity as the two most fairly evident improvements to society in the window Pinker was analyzing, describing advances in hygiene as more effectual than the same in medicine. It's just a might pedantic.
@@lettuceprime4922 im headin to bed so if you got an answer ill get to it later.
I dont know what history youre referring to with regard to preference for the hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but you qualified it well by specifying 'incredibly small numbers'. Outliers do not a rule make. To be clearer about my point: do you think modern, living people want to live the tiring and terribly monotonous life of a nomad whose existence is ruled largely by fate and luck? We left that behind on purpose.
As for my list, i was saying that its not reasonable to dismiss smart phones (and other inventions) as not having had a significant and useful impact on our lives. My point about libraries earlier was that research used to take a day's walk rather than 5 mins of google. Even people earning less than minimum wage have access to all that info now. As weve seen, social media can even help check the power of a repressive regime. These are all important achievements.
To summarize my pov: pinkers main point is that life is better now than in the past and i agree with him, as most would. We have progressed in science, tech, medicine, etc. Chomsky does not agree wih pinker because he has an ideology to promote. Yet if we had time machines we all know that some people might holiday in the past but most would want to remain in the present with all its modern conveniences.
Nativist/Noble Savage mythos is very influential on the left.
@@subsonic9854 finally a voice of reason on this thread, i completely agree. I don't see what is controversial about Pinker's arguments. He puts the current state of civilisation and modern human values (modern meaning the last 300 years or so) in the context of core human values for the whole time before that (so at least 10,000 years of various societies and civilisations). For the whole of human history prior to 300 years ago, torture, barbaric cruelty, slavery and genocide were deeply ingrained in every human society across the planet. And this wasn't just something done by oppressors to the oppressed - public torture rituals were enjoyed by normal everyday citizens in their masses. People found entertainment in watching other peoples' agony and suffering; public tortures and executions were highly popular. I could quote a lot of figures but I will hope that people who read this can understand that this statement is clearly factual. This has gone on for as long as there are records and no doubt way before that as well. So it has taken thousands and thousands of years for us to stop being barbaric, i.e. it does not come naturally to us to be disgusted by torture, slavery, genocide. Our modern values of the last few centuries are a very new development in humanity, and we should appreciate the incredible humanitarian revolution that has happened over the last few centuries. Yes of course there are problems, injustices, corruption etc nowadays, but if you compare these to the barbarism and cruelty that existed in any other time in history, and things really could be so much worse given our appalling track record. I've noticed there is quite a lot of white washing of our history though, so I guess it's understandable in a way that people don't realise just how deeply ingrained horrific cruelty was in most societies for most of human history, and how remarkable it is that we have shunned barbarism as a human value. You only have to look at the rise of gladiatorial blood sports such as UFC cage fighting etc to see that there is something disturbing in the human mind that enjoys violence. So it is still there, under the surface it seems. But we have come on such a long way and our spheres of empathy are so much larger, and our stomachs for violence much less than they have been for most of human history. I used to be a big fan of Chomsky but I see that actually he is an idealogical misanthrope who refuses to acknowledge the current state of the world in the context of humanity's long term track record.
Don't forget the pill
What does Chomsky think of common refrigeration, minor medical interventions, basic dentistry. Has he not looked at a life expectancy chart or infant mortality rates???
What does Mike Graham think of anthropogenic climate breakdown, and rising tensions that could end up in the use of species ending weapons???
@@ally11488 I agree that nuclear weapons are a huge problem. I don't think anthropogenic climate change is a huge problem though. The worst projections of climate change do not take into account how people will adapt to climate change, such as building dykes and dams. Bjorn Lomborg explains this well.
I don't like how Chomsky simply dismisses Pinker's recent work. What about eradicating smallpox? Malaria, the bubonic plague, tuberculosis etc are nowhere near as bad as they used to be because of science. The percentage of people dying of starvation is far smaller than it used to be. What about all the advances the previous commenter mentioned?
@@Wilson_the_Mannequin Is he simply dismissing it or basing his opinions on counter-research?
@@ally11488 I answered your questions about climate change and weapons. If you would like to answer my questions, I'll answer your question.
Have you noticed that life expectancy went down recently?
More intellectuals like Chomsky need to publicly correct "intellectuals" like Pinker.
Tara Fitzgerald Sure, name 5 in US who rival Chomsky's intelligence & ability to communicate? Perhaps, you could watch Chris Hedges on "On Contact" weekly? The real question is how many people are intelligent enough to listen & comprehend? Judging from comments, not many. (FYI I think he did just publicly criticize Pinker!)
On the one hand I agree on the other the guy saw a gap in the market for a book like that so...
Lets hear your rebuttal to Pinkers material in the book. Have you bothered to read it? Where is the data incorrect?
Sure. Multiple academics have called him out for using $2 a day statistic as an arbitrary figure that cannot give a clear picture of world poverty. If baseline is increased to $5 a day the upward trend reverses. Latch Pritchard, a Harvard economist, publicly criticized Pinker by saying the poverty level should be raised to $12 to $15 a day in order to get an accurate estimate of world poverty. With this statistical change, Pinker's argument completely fall apart.
I suggest you take the time to read this scholarly article by Jason Hickel.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2015.1109439
While your at it, check out Hickel's direct rebuttal to Pinker here:
twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1032588789493858304?lang=en
@@tarafitzgerald3947 I think you'd find that Pinker was the figure of $2 dollars as he took it from other sources as a good indicator. Those are the individual that would have to be rebutted there. Nevertheless, your principle is that his selection process for that figure was erroneous. He's overarching point he was alluding to is hard to discount, more people in very specific regions of the world, for very specific reasons have seen increased standards of living, the likes of which has not been witnessed before.
Why are so many 12 year old boys interviewing Noam Chomsky. I just say another video where the guy interviewed him about Zizac (?) and he was completely moronic. They don't ask content questions - they ask "what did you think about this person?" That's not an intellectual question.
I respect Chomsky but he is completely wrong about Pinker and his book. The last 200 years have seen a uniform improvement in the lives of a broad swath of mankind. Chomsky is too much of a partisan and dedicated communist to acknowledge any improvements. he is also wrong that the 20th century has seen the murderous wars ever, and most scientists exaggerate the threat of nuclear wars. Democratic forms have also been ascendant when compared to totalitarian systems, especially if one discounts the EU and waning defense of sovereignty of nation states.
I travel, lived and have friends in the third world and I will tell you, capitalism and neo-liberalism is making everything worse. The rich are carving up state assests, making the citizenry pay for them and allowing them to live in abject poverty. The increase in living conditions are happening due to the massive philanthropy of big names like Bill and Melinda Gates, The clintons, the U.N. etc. These programs are not capitalistic in nature and account for significant increase in living conditions. It is the capitalists and some religous institutions within and out of the country that are undoing these gains. Thats for outside of America, in America the problems still persist.
Pinker cherry picks data, changes definitions and flat out ignores information he does not like. Life expectancy has reduced in parts of america, and some parts are like the third world.
@@gororo9380 I defy you to point out any "cherry picking" by Pinker on his data. I have looked at it very closely and the meta data he uses is the best and most comprehensive available. What assets are the rich in the US "carving up"? Is that a joke? The massive reduction of poverty in China is due to the availability of the US market. Religious institutions in the US transfer about 40 Billion to third world countries, with the Catholic Church alone accounting for transfers of about 17 Billion. Gates is getting rid of malaria and hence allowing the population of sub Saharan Africa to grow at unsustainable rates. The only colonialist power left is China. Capitalism is an operating system and not an ideology. Marx, the first millennial (never held a job; GDP went up 300% in England during his life; lived off others; basis for his theories has been disproven) was wrong. One thing Marx got right, however, was his love of Capitalism and statement that it was th essential criteria for his delusional socialist utopia based on a presumption about human nature that has been proven false.
The Congolese civil war and Rwanda weren't counted as violence because the weren't "major powers". That is absurd and retarded. There is no reason to think violence has really dropped over history. Taleb showed this if it wasn't already apparent. Pinker is always seemed full of it on that claim.
That's it. The people most unwilling to ackowledge social progress are usually those committed to failed ideologies like Christianity, Communism and Fascism.
@@gororo9380
Well he has statistics. You just have your anecdotes and the feeling that things *ought* to be bad, because capitalism is.
The problem today is still authoritarianism. With the rise of science came a clash between scientific freethinkers and the religous leaders holding on their power. Throughout the middle ages, the feudalist system and the hierarchy of the church kept everyone on their place. The top down structure of centralized power remained on the form of economics and the state (trickle down).
What changed was man conquered nature. In its place is man struggling against man for tge right to determine the future of the human race. That is why, coupled to the mulitppe uses of scientific technology, wars have become more extent and far more violent. Individualism turned into hyperindividualism, because capitalism demands the constant attainment and expansion of profit through resources, which are limited.
It is more interesting today. But more interesting does not mean better.
i can recommend the dawn of everything
Your conclusions suggest capitalism is the primary problem, not authoritarianism. 🤔
@@jessenowells2920 Capitalism is just a system with tradeoffs like any other system. But the root cause of these problems is human nature. When has there been a political or economic system that didn't have similar issues with men striving for power and control?
He’s wrong. People and societies have evolved and improved.
In what ways? And how is he wrong?
Chomsky probably has a strong smell of book coming off of him.
I think Steven pinker send to Noam Chomsky his book from his own hands
@@wordwarrior2350 is this a question, statement or butt typing? It very hard to differentiate when you write like a troglodyte.
Terrible audio
I really want to watch this.. but the interviewers sniffling is getting on my last nerve.
watch Zizek then.
Fuck sake, I never notice that type of things until someone makes me aware of it.
You ruined it for me too
@@bustamoveorelse ...sorry 'bout that!
I also have misophonia... so there's that
@@Muykle ...why.. does he use ASL?
Chomsky is in his dotage.
there's zero evidence of that. Just an ad hominem from a gentleman like you, I would add "intelligent gentleman" too but there's no evidence to that either
I watched a video of Pinker discussing Chomsky and it was one of the most embarrassingly dishonest, biased and uncharitable expositions I have had the misfortune of listening to, making me doubt the sincerity and intellectual honesty of Pinker.
Are Chomsky’s hands real hands?
I have wondered the same myself
What does moral progress mean? just the recognition of something like human rights or their actual protection by judicial systems? if individual rights are protected by modern judicial systems where they weren't before (say in the U.S., ancient Rome, or anywhere else if you were a slave or hunter-gatherer societies) doesn't that also imply an improvement in the standard of living? Also, the average life span of a human in hunter-gatherer societies is something like 30 years old. is it trivial that many humans today can enjoy the likely prospect of living into their 80's and 90's? I love big Noam, but time and again it seems like he argues from his first principle of capitalism/the west=bad, and then makes his case around his most central tenet, and doesn't seem to seriously question the tenet itself. It's help given birth to a kind neo-religiosity on the left I think. He's a brilliant apologist for his view, but in his works of political science and philosophy lacks the serious truth-seeking ethic. His tireless defense over the years of his "little black box" also shows his religious fervor i think, although there's a good chance he might be right about that.
I disagree. I think he is trying to argue against a simple minded claim. He would agree and has said that life is improving, in fact he just said it did right here, for a century no less. He just thinks it mostly due to social and and technological advances. He also cautions that to the extent we mix these advances with old problems like empire, classes, and states, we create a contradictory situation that may imperial the gains. In other words, his view is fairly nuanced.
But the Enlughtenment didn't actually look to gay and woman's rights.
I still think Pinker’s work is useful when describing what happened to enlightenment progress since the 1970s.
Pinker is great if you are happy with state capitalist hegemonic global neo-imperialism, otherwise you world realise he is a total scumbag apologist who is commendable and only terrorised by the most privileged to rationalize their own happy wealth
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart My guess is you haven't read his books... Am I right?
I think it's just simulation and nostalgia
poor audio
Chomsky's observations are utter nonsense. He bases them on nothing and leads them to nowhere.
Pinker’s “Sense of Style” is antiintellectual garbage
Noam just strawmanned the fuck out of Pinker's work in The Better Angels of our Nature.
Humanity Needs Reason Over Religion's Epidemic & Opium.
Humanity needs meaning
@@davidd854well said
Anyone else wonder if that first interviewer is on coke or something?
I thought at one point he was actually going to vomit
Probably adderall
The second clip of Noam could be the forward to Pinker's new book about the Enlightenment. I don't see what the disagreement is between these guys.
Eh... Chomsky says progress stalled in 1970. Lots of people around the world would disagree with that, I think. You can't judge everything by the relative state of the American middle class, right?
I can never understand what Noam Chomsky is saying.
Yeah, I'd much rather live life today thab a few hundred or a few thousand years ago. And so would you. Chomsky is crazy.
Smart Phones are frills in comparison to plumbing.... Tell that to the people in the developing world who have smartphones and no plumbing and spotty electricity.
Smart phones are changing the world pretty radically.
Not in an objectively positive way. Also, when you have to pick between plumbing, electricity, and smart phones. You're going to pick plumbing and electricity.
That seems pretty silly. Having a smart phone won't make your life any better if you have no food or plumbing.
@@johnnonamegibbon3580 arguable having a smart phone isn't making your life better now.
jdrubin89 Iphones are just like a toilet a fixture for comfort, not the plumbing system! You still have to bury your own sh--. You tell people sh---ing in the dirt in the rain, getting diseases, filth...Stench is less important than their smart phone.
Smart phones are for dumb people who have forgotten they are a functional TOOL for easy access to information,compiling / organizing data & confirming appts, google, business of life texts Just like a toilet wi a big sewer cloud in space lol
They are not a subsitutes for teachers, family, friends, social interaction, learning OR reading books, making art or music. Listen again to what Chomsky says about them. Then read one of Donald Trump's tweets. Pick your role model:)
I'm a former teacher so I already have a solid education which kids today are not getting! Talk to a high school kid, ask them questions about the Classics (books, music & art) BAN phones from schools.
Of course, I am using a computer, Kindle & Android phone but it's not my life. I'm an artist. People are smarter than their phones.
@@65minimom A smart Phone is a tool to the collective knowledge of human civilization. I'd say its comparable to plumbing.
Chomsky is 90+ years old.
His own existence proves Pinker is right.
One of the greatest medical advances, the Polio vaccine, was developed in part by Jonas Salk with zero profit motive involved. Salk insisted the formula not be patented. Meanwhile, numerous other advances in science are RESTRICTED by the profit motive, like developing treatments for niche deadly illnesses or potential future superbugs that haven't yet appeared. Don't confuse technological advances with Capitalism
Pinker has the most ad hoc arguments. The problem with Pinker it's not that is profoundly biased methodologicaly, you can read Nassim Taleb for that. Something that Pinker's fans are completely unaware. The problem is that he and others don't understand the nature of inequality, and don't realize that it's hardwired in most of the politics, economical, political rhetoric. For instance also how "license softwares" increase digital divide gap, among generations and other population stratifications, while increse the privilage of otherst. They only advocate for a status quo, comforting the privileged with ultra ad hoc stats.
Inequality is hard-wired? Okay, so where does equality ever get to come in?
What in the world is an "ad hoc stat"?
I'd rather live in a house while my neighbour lives in a palace than both of us living in a barrel. But I guess that's just inconceivable to someone operating under envy-ethics.
Boo fucking hoo. Stay sad and angry then you dumb leftist
I think it's interesting you use the term hard-wired when talking about inequality. It isn't the systems. The biology creates the system. The competitiveness creates these 'unequal' systems. Good luck changing or fixing our biology to create your utopian vision
Chomsky is super average.
Nathan J!
I think Chomsky has a lot of good ideas, but he is also arrogant.
It's as if certain advocates for the state avoid the inconvenient history of authoritarian statist all together. When Steven Pinker says "Where would you have rather lived? West Germany, or East Germany?". And everyone says West Germany, it's because they know entrepreneurs don't inherently equate to monopolistic robber barons. Choice is the difference here, why does this have to be repeatedly explained to socialist?
I think I missed the part in the clip when Chomsky said "I worship the State and authority"...
I suggest that Noam Chomsky read Gwynne Dyer's "War". There are many examples in past history which show that in the past wars were far more lethal than those of the twentieth century, as a proportion of the population killed. Dyer points out that before firearms, battles were basically pushing and shoving contests in which often half the participants died by spear and sword, but they were relatively rare and lasted a few hours or a day. In modern battles, far fewer soldiers are killed each day despite the lethality of weapons, but the battles can spread over very long periods of time. Beyond that, even though modern wars are total, far fewer civilians are killed, even with massacres of the sort which occurred in WWII in Poland, Ukraine and Belarus. In ancient times, entire cities and nations were massacred or enslaved, the Romans especially being practitioners of such warcraft. Despite the horrors of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and lesser imitators, there is universal revulsion to genocide, whereas in the past Romans, Huns, Tatars and many other warlike tribes had no such compunction. Yes, today's weapons are infinitely more destructive, but their use is heavily circumscribed by the world community of humans.
Chomsky, without reading it, would dismiss and say "If you really want to be serious, look into this obscure academic who has limited range on the issue with whom I agree with more and/or share similar attitudes with on the issue" and/or might add, very condescendingly, "I don't even know what that means" and will say that Dyer makes "one good point," and fastidious Chomsky fans will respond by saying:
"Professor Chomsky just destroyed Dyer! He's a god! My hero!"
(It's startling how this satire isn't exaggerating by very much)
There is some strawmanning going on here. Chomsky never refuted any of the information shared here, in fact he agreed that since the advent of the state that violence increased. His claim was that violence was less common before the creation of states, not that past states were less violent. He's addressing the problem from the timeline of all human history, you're only looking at the timeline from the beginning of written history, which is relatively recent.
Also the fact that most people are repulsed by nuclear weapons does not change the fact that they are entirely more powerful and deadly than any weapon which preceded them. All it takes is a couple of lunatics or zealously misguided people in positions of power to end organized human life on earth. That's unprecedented.
Another Chomsky video down the pipe
Hey Norm.....USA isn't the Center of the universe. Immense progress is being made around the world.
your new-found cosmopolitanism in defense of a narrow, regressive ideology is comical.
@@zachflame123 Saying something is comical is not an argument. Could you come up with one?
The problem here is that you could blame the liberalism of the 60's onwards - the kind of things Chomsky would laud - for the collapse of western societies.
I bet Chomsky is a riot at parties
look at these dorks
Very little in the way of data to support such a dismissive attitude, Noam.