>I read Stephen Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature I don't think you realize just how funny of a source that is I will just leave this here: https://en.wiki

>I read Stephen Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature I don't think you realize just how funny of a source that is I will just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur... and this: https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pd... And the following is from Pinker himself(https://web.archive.org/web/20201026010157/https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/comments_on_taleb_by_s_pinker.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20201026010157/https://stevenpin...): "The upshot is that each of the following two assertions can be true: (1) the chances of war are lower than they were before, and (2) the damage caused by the most severe imaginable war is greater than it was before. That makes it meaningless—an issue of semantics—to speculate about whether the world is “safer” overall; in one sense it may be safer, in another sense, less safe. That is exactly why Better Angels does not claim, contra Taleb, that the world is “safer” across the board"