[klum]

Having just read Steven Pinker's book "Enlightenment Now", I'm skeptical of any article that paints this cynical view of how humans are wasting the earth, living their short-sighted lives with no regard for their future descendants.

The reality is that science, described here as "keeping the whole system of technical improvisation from falling down", is eradicating extreme poverty and disease on an incredible scale. It is also making poor countries less poor, which in turn makes their people better off and, yes, make them contribute less to pollution (it also slows population growth). It seems likely to me that the hits taken by the economy in these circumstances will be felt harder in poorer countries, slowing this positive progress for a while.

The author actually notes that the earth holding close to 8 billion people is only made possible by science. He describes this as "unnatural and unstable". This, combined with the fact that further scientific progress is required for all these people to be healthy and well-fed makes me tend to agree with the poster reacting the the novel Aurora and noting "we don't have anywhere to go back to".

[morsch]

It is also making poor countries less poor, which in turn makes their people better off and, yes, make them contribute less to pollution (it also slows population growth).

How is that? People who are less poor – almost per definition – consume more and hence tend to use up more resources/cause more pollution per capita.

[klum]

Some of the reasons put forth by Pinker:

* a poor country prioritizes growth while a richer one can afford to consider the environment

* a richer country has access to more efficient technology

* on the level of individuals, moral (or future) concerns are not in the forefront of your mind until you have your immediate needs for shelter, food etc. covered.

[BLKNSLVR]

> * a poor country prioritizes growth while a richer one can afford to consider the environment

Can afford to. May even consider it. But don't act.

> * a richer country has access to more efficient technology

But will not encourage that efficiency unless there's some kind of profit to be made from switching away from the less efficient incumbent.

> * on the level of individuals, moral (or future) concerns are not in the forefront of your mind until you have your immediate needs for shelter, food etc. covered.

PS5, Samsung S999, Lexus, Jetski, Outdoor entertaining re-model.