Rosner, Pinker and Co fell into the same trap they critiqued others - belief in destiny. They try to counter pessimistic destiny narratives with positive destiny narratives and selecting data that fits the narrative.

You can't extrapolation the future from current trends. There are discontinuities and challenges that can change the dynamics.

Aren't they simply trying to explain and persuade people current institutions are responsible for the positive changes, and that therefore they are good, and thus we should be supporting them? Also, they seem to counter misconceptions, not advocate for blind faith in a never ending progression.

Pinker actually addressed this, but unfortunately I can't remember in which book/lecture/talk/article. Largely paraphrasing he said that we have to work for the gains, but that doesn't mean we can't have a positive attitude about these processes. (Such as comparative advantage resulting in trade resulting in cooperation and some degree of altruism - or we can just call it "counterparty risk management", or simply looking out for your buyers and suppliers.)

> people current institutions are responsible for the positive changes, and that therefore they are good, and thus we should be supporting them?

Current institutions as a vague continuity or the same?

Because if Pinker and other try to argue that current institutions have been historically enough, we just continue growth, they are very much wrong.

Benefits from innovations and growth have been accompanied with massive institutional changes in every 30 years or so. The current era is becoming an exception where institutions are becoming stale after 40-50 years of the same. That threatens continuity because institutions have to change in response to the change in the environment or they collapse.

I'm of course no Pinker himself, nor a tenured prof at Hardvard, or even friends with him, but based on what I read from him and about him, he is very much in support of change toward new, more inclusive, more fair, more egalitarian and more rational institutions. And argues that trade and good old classic liberal ideas are slowly but surely bringing forth these changes (through the work of many hundreds of millions of slightly altruistic people), despite the efforts of our demons (innate or cultural/contextual xenophobia, ignorance, extreme greed/selfishness, etc).

"You can't extrapolation the future from current trends. "

Yes, you can.

We are learning and adapting our civilizations, and by most measures, it looks like we are 'getting better'.

If we continue along this path, things will likely improve.

Nobody is suggesting that there cannot be alternate dynamics. We all face the risk of war, famine, climate change etc.

> I thought it's really poorly argued

That's interesting, because the book does not contain any arguments.

It contains facts. Hard numbers gathered over generations.

It's not a discussion or an argument, it's simply facts about the state of the world.

The facts that you choose to include in a book and which to not include is implicitly an argument. I doubt the book goes over how the sky is blue, grass is green, and water is wet. What facts it considers relevant to mention is the entire argument itself.

would you care to expand on why? If you're wanting to inform others that the book isn't accurate, stating that it's wrong and it made you angry that it was wrong is not a very convincing argument.

Care to elaborate on actual data?

BP ? HR ?

Probably “Blood Pressure” and “Hans Rosling”.