[vanderreeah]

The vast, vast majority of people in the world have to work most of the best hours of the day in order to pay for shelter from the weather and food for their family. In return they get the dubious privilege of allowing their brain to decompress in front of corporate-manufactured garbage on television.

Although we are not currently in a World War or its aftermath, and therefore our lives could reasonably be said to be better than in, say, 1917, I think this is taking a remarkably short view. There's a solid argument to be had that the life of an average human (well, admittedly a man) in the 17th century was immeasurably richer than the life of an average man in the late 20th / early 21st century, and that this downturn is because of the Enlightenment Pinker worships. Sure, life was shorter, but it's at least arguable that the quantification of life ushered in by the Enlightenment is responsible for the impoverishment of quality as a measure.

[Haul4ss]

I do not believe that is a solid argument at all.

A man in the 17th century would likely have to bury at least one of his children because of disease. The man himself might succumb early to painful illness or infection. If he needed to travel for business he would be away from his family for months. If he lived on a farm (as many did) his days would be filled with hard labor and his standard of living would be much lower.

To say nothing of men of color, or gay men, or women, or men who were not landed gentry.

For many, many people, the 17th century was not a good time.

[beatinho]

Wow, apart from the book, this is something I am thinking about a lot. Does the book give any further thought on this?