I am sure it's a great, well-researched, and well-structured book, but it didn't pique my interest. My major problem was with the writing; It was very academic and dry. Almost every sentence had a munificent amount commas, and every paragraph had a dozen of quotations, which made this book extremely annoying and impossible to read at times. My second issue was with the content itself. I didnt like how Mr. Pinker downplayed environmental issues, racism and police brutality toward non-white people. Yes, maybe reported hate crime has gone down but what about the day to day bullying people face? What about the general biasness and covert racism? What about let's build a wall ideology supported by hundreds of Americans?

Another absurd and hard to belief point that Mr. Pinker made is related to police brutality. According to him police is as likely to shoot white people as they are to shoot non-whites, but what we witness in real life is completely different. I think It is preposterous to consider less non-white poeple dying a progress.


Since 1910 poor half of the population only possess 5% of the total wealth. And although that 5% is greater in number today, but it make no difference when you take into account the growing amount of good and services in the market. The poor population may have more money, but they still feel as poor as they used to in 1910 and can't afford some of the most basic things from today's standards. It is quite silly to think people are better off cos they have more money. One chart Mr. Pinker referred to in the chapter about inequality doesn't hold true anymore. What was once an elphant is now a dinosaur. Inequality has increased since 2008 instead of declining like some had predicted. I don't think everything is getting better, or what has worked in the past will be able to yield rewards in the future, or that our peregrination will only head upwards.

It's impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy, all we can do is study the past and learn from it. Mr. Pinker thinks that by bringing back the ideals of enlightenment we can ensure a steady progress for humanity. I somewhat agree with him on this point, but the problem is science is without morality and tolerance and the concept of freedom is alien to science. The morality he talked about wasn't scientific, he was echoing his own subjective morality shaped by religion and society. It is quite not right to undermine the role religion has played and is capable of playing in the future.

I would like to quote John Gray here.

In a society based on science there will be no need for liberal values, since moral and political questions will be answered by experts.

The more hostile the Enlightenment has been to monotheism, the more illiberal it has been.

If you are interested you can check out his great review of this book here as well.