Steven PinkerContinues to See the Glass Half Full

Steven Pinker的樂觀心態(tài)

By SARAH BAKEWELL MARCH 2, 2018

Optimism is not generally thought cool, and it is often thought foolish. The optimistic philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in 1828, “I have observed that not the man who hopes when others despair, but the man who despairs when others hope, is admired by a large class of persons as a sage.”In the previous century, Voltaire’s “Candide” had attacked what its author called “optimism”: the Leibnizian idea that all must be for the best in this best of all possible worlds. After suffering through one disaster after another, Candide decides that optimism is merely “a mania for insisting that all is well when things are going badly.”

樂觀主義通常認為是不酷的异逐，反而常常認為是愚蠢的芹枷。1828年逛裤，樂觀主義哲學家John Stuart Mill （約翰·穆勒）寫道：“我觀察到消约，被一大群人視為圣人的媳拴，不是當別人絕望時保持希望的人科贬，而是在別人希望時失望的人府适∥ㄉ埽”在上個世紀啦粹，伏爾泰的“坎迪德（老實人）”這本書中偿荷，作者攻擊了稱之為“樂觀主義”的東西，即萊布尼茲的觀點認為在所有可能的世界中唠椭，一切都必須是最好的跳纳。在經(jīng)歷了一場又一次的災難之后，坎迪德認為樂觀主義僅僅是一種狂熱的堅持贪嫂，“當事情變得很糟糕時寺庄，一切都很好。”

Yet one might argue (and Steven Pinker does) that thephilosophy Voltaire satirizes here is not optimism at all. If you think thisworld is already as good as it gets, then you just have to accept it. A trueoptimist would say that, although human life will never be perfect, crucialaspects of it can improve if we work at it, for example by refining buildingstandards and seismological predictions so that fewer people die inearthquakes. It’s not “best,” but it is surely better.

然而斗塘，有人可能會（Steven Pinker確實這樣做了）認為Voltaire這里批評的哲學并不是樂觀主義赢织。如果你認為這個世界已經(jīng)很好了，那么你就接受它好了馍盟。一個真正的樂觀主義者會說于置，盡管人類的生活永遠不會是完美的，但如果我們?yōu)橹Φ脑捳炅耄饕矫孢€是可以得以改善的八毯，例如，完善建筑標準和地震預測瞄桨，這樣地震中死亡的人就會減少话速。這不是“最好的”，但肯定比之前要好讲婚。

This optimist’s revenge on “Candide” is one of thepassing pleasures in “Enlightenment Now,” Pinker’s follow-up to his 2011 book“The Better Angels of Our Nature.” The earlier work assembled banks of data insupport of his argument that human life is becoming, not worse as many seem tofeel, but globally safer, healthier, longer, less violent, more prosperous,better educated, more tolerant and more fulfilling. His new bookmakes the same case with updated statistics, and addstwo extra elements. First, it takes into account the recent rise ofauthoritarian populism, especially in the form of Donald Trump — a developmentthat has led some to feel more despairing than ever. Second, it raises thepolemicallevel with a rousing defense of the four bigideas named in the subtitle: progress, reason, science and humanism — the lastbeing defined not mainly in terms of non-theism (though Pinker argues for that,too), but as “the goal of maximizing human flourishing — life, health,happiness, freedom, knowledge, love, richness of experience.” Who could beagainst any of that? Yet humanism has been seen in some

quarters as unfashionable, or unachievable, or both. Pinker wants us to take another look.

在“Enlightenment Now“這本書里尿孔，樂觀主義者對“康迪德”的攻擊是一種過時的樂趣，后來在2011年筹麸，Pinker出版了《The Better Angels

of Our Nature》活合。前面一部作品收集了大量的數(shù)據(jù)來支持他的論點，人類的生活不像很多人認為的那么糟物赶，而是在全球范圍內(nèi)白指，變得更安全，健康酵紫，長久告嘲，暴力減少，生活更繁榮奖地，擁有更好的教育橄唬，更寬容且更有滿足感。他的新書用最新的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)做了同樣的論據(jù)参歹，并額外增加了兩個部分仰楚。第一個是，考慮到最近權威民粹主義的興起犬庇，尤其是唐納德·特朗普為代表的——這一發(fā)展導致一些人感到比以往更加沮喪僧界。第二個是，這本書副標題中“進步臭挽、理性捂襟、科學和人文主義”，對這四個觀點非常振奮人心地辯解欢峰，增強了討論的程度葬荷。最后一個觀點人文主義涨共，它并不完全是無神論的意思（盡管Pinker對無神論也提出了質(zhì)疑），但卻是人類繁榮昌盛的目最大化目標——生命闯狱、健康煞赢、幸福、自由哄孤、知識照筑、愛和豐富的閱歷∈莩拢“誰能反對這些凝危？然而，有一些人看來晨逝，人文主義是不流行的蛾默，或是無法實現(xiàn)的，或者都有捉貌。Pinker讓我們再進一步看看支鸡。

Much of the book is taken up with evidence-basedphilosophizing, with charts showing a worldwide increase in life expectancy, adecline in life-shattering diseases, ever better education and access toinformation, greater recognition of female equality and L.G.B.T. rights, and soon — even down to data showing that Americans today are 37 times less likely tobe killed by lightning than in 1900, thanks to better weather forecasting,electrical engineering and safety awareness. Improvements in health have betteredthe human condition enormously, and Pinker tells us that his favorite sentencein the whole English language comes from Wikipedia: “Smallpox

was an infectious disease caused by either of two virus variants, Variola major

and Variola minor.” The word “was” is what he likes.

這本書的大部分內(nèi)容哲學都是基于論據(jù)的，圖表顯示了世界范圍內(nèi)的壽命的增加趁窃、災難性疾病的下降牧挣、比以往更好的教育和能更好地獲取信息、對女性平等和L.G.B.T.權利的更好的認識等等醒陆。數(shù)據(jù)顯示瀑构，由于天氣預報、電氣工程和安全意識刨摩，今天的美國人被閃電擊斃的可能性要比1900的人少37倍寺晌。在健康方面，人類的健康狀況得到了極大地改善澡刹，Pinker告訴我們呻征，他最喜歡的一句話全是來自維基百科的：“天花是由兩種病毒變種引起的一種傳染病，主要是Variola major and Variola minor罢浇∨吕纾”“他喜歡用was來表達。

He later adds that he could have ended every chapter bysaying, “But all this progress is threatened if Donald Trump gets his way.”Trumpism risks knocking the world backward in almost every department of life,especially by trying to undo the international structures that have madeprogress possible:peace and trade agreements, health

care, climate change accords and the general understanding that nuclear weapons

should never be used. All this is now in question. Pinker isparticularlysharp on the dangers of ignoring oroverridingthe systems that make nuclear warunlikely.

他后來補充說己莺，他本可以每結束一章寫到：“但如果Donald Trump（唐納德·特朗普）得逞，所有這些進步都會受到威脅戈轿×枋埽”特朗普主義幾乎會讓生活中所有的領域讓世界倒退，尤其是試圖破壞已經(jīng)取得進展的國際結構：和平與貿(mào)易協(xié)定思杯、醫(yī)療保健胜蛉、氣候變化協(xié)定和達成共識的禁用核武器挠进。所有這些現(xiàn)在都成了問題。Pinker對忽視或者推翻體系的危險尤為尖銳誊册，這些體系是為了不讓核戰(zhàn)爭成為可能领突。

Having said this, he argues thatcatastrophismis itself a risk — that is, the pessimistic tendency to fix on the worstimaginable outcome, and to panic. Authoritarian populism itself has fed on thefeeling that everything is going wrong: that crime and terrorism have runamok, that immigration is disastrous and that theworld has lost its ethical direction in some terrible way. Meanwhile, fear anddespair play havocwith the opposition too. Ingeneral, people are more likely to workconstructivelyif they think problems are solvable, or that progress has already been made andcan be extended. As Pinker says, considering the fact that we have not yetblown the world up in a nuclear war, our best approach is “to figure out whathas gone right, so we can do more of whatever it is.” Optimism does not meanlying back and relaxing. He cites the economist Paul Romer, who distinguishesthe “complacent optimism” of a child waiting forpresents with the “conditional optimism” of a child who wants a treehouse, andgets hold of the wood and nails to make one. Someone who thinks a treehouse isimpossible, or assumes someone will instantly come and knock it down, isunlikely ever to start hammering.

他說，災難論本身就是一種風險案怯，也就是說君旦，悲觀主義老是傾向于盯住最糟糕的可想象結果，并引起恐慌嘲碱。獨裁民粹主義本身就助長了這種一切都錯了的感覺：認為犯罪分子和恐怖主義是殺氣騰騰的金砍，移民是災難性的，世界已經(jīng)以某種可怕的方式失去了道德的方向麦锯。同時恕稠，恐懼和絕望也對反對人士造成嚴重破壞》鲂溃總的來說鹅巍，如果人們認為問題是可解決的，或者已經(jīng)取得進展并可以進一步發(fā)展的話料祠，人們更有可能進行建設性的工作骆捧。正如Pinker所說，考慮到我們還沒有在核戰(zhàn)爭中把世界炸毀术陶，我們最好的辦法是“找出什么是正確的凑懂，這樣我們就可以做更多的事情∥喙”樂觀并不意味著平躺和放松接谨。他引用了經(jīng)濟學家Paul Romer的觀點，把一個等待禮物的孩子的“自滿式樂觀”與一個想要樹屋的孩子的“條件式樂觀”區(qū)別開來塘匣，“條件式樂觀”的孩子會用木頭和釘子來制造樹屋脓豪。認為樹屋是不可能實現(xiàn)的，或者假想有人迅速來弄倒它的這些人忌卤，都是不太可能開始敲擊制造的人扫夜。

This book will attract some hammering itself: It contains something to upset almost everyone. When not attacking the populist right,Pinker lays into leftist intellectuals. He is especially scathing about newspaper editorialists who, in 2016, fell over themselves in their haste to proclaim the death of Enlightenment values and the advent of “post-truth.” His (rather too broadly painted) targets include humanities professors, postmodernists, the politically correct and anyone who has something nice to say about Friedrich

Nietzsche. “Progressive” thinkers seem to consider progress a bad thing,he claims; they reject as crass or na?ve “the notion that we should apply our collective reason to enhance flourishing and reduce suffering.”

這本書將吸引一些正在“用錘子敲擊”努力的人：它包含了一些幾乎讓所有人都感到不安的內(nèi)容。在不侵犯民權的情況下驰徊，Pinker狠狠地批評了左翼知識分子笤闯。他特別嚴厲地批評了報紙編輯，在2016的時候棍厂，他們積極地匆忙地宣布了啟蒙價值觀的死亡和“后真相”的出現(xiàn)颗味。他的批評目標（相當廣泛）包括人文主義教授、后現(xiàn)代主義者牺弹、政治上正確的人浦马，還有任何說Friedrich Nietzsche（尼采）好話的人时呀。Pinker聲稱，所謂的“進步的”的思想家他們覺得進步是一件壞事晶默，他們拒絕“我們應該結合理性來促進繁榮谨娜、減少痛苦”的觀念，認為是“粗魯或天真”的磺陡。

In fact, there may already be signs of a change in mood,with chirps of optimism being heard from varied directions. The musician DavidByrne has just launched a web project entitled “Reasons to Be Cheerful,”celebrating positive initiativesin the realms ofculture, science, transportation, civic engagementand so on. Quartz, a business journalism site, ended 2017 with a list of 99cheerful links to the year’s good news:snow leopardsbeing taken off the endangered species list; a province in Pakistan planting abillion trees over the last two years as a response to the 2015 floods; adramatic fall in sufferers from thehideous Guinea worm(from 3.5 million in 1986 to just 30 in 2017); and a slow but steady increasein women holdingparliamentaryseats worldwide,from 12 percent in 1997 to 23 percent now.

事實上趴梢，已經(jīng)可能有跡象顯示了情緒的變化，在各個領域都可以聽到樂觀的鳴響聲音仅政。音樂家David Byrne（大衛(wèi)·拜恩）剛推出了一個名為“理應快樂”的網(wǎng)絡項目垢油，慶祝在文化、科學圆丹、交通滩愁、公民參與等領域積極的舉措。Quartz辫封，一家商業(yè)新聞網(wǎng)站硝枉，在2017年度的好消息中列出了99個令人愉快的新聞：雪豹從瀕危物種名單中去除；巴基斯坦的一個省對2015發(fā)生的洪水倦微，在過去的兩年里種植了十億棵樹妻味；來自可怕的幾內(nèi)亞蠕蟲傷害（從1986到350萬只到2017只有30只）；同時世界范圍內(nèi)占據(jù)議會席位的女性緩慢而穩(wěn)步地增長欣福，從1997年的12%增加到現(xiàn)在的23%责球。

Bertrand Russell once pointed out that maintaining asense of hope can be hard work. In the closing pages ofhis autobiography, with its account of his many activist years, he wrote: “Topreserve hope in our world makes calls upon our intelligence and our energy. Inthose who despair it is frequently the energy that is lacking.” Steven Pinker’sbook is full of vigor andvim, and it sets outto inspire a similar energy in its readers.

Bertrand Russell曾指出，保持希望是很困難的拓劝。在他自傳的結尾部分雏逾，在他敘述自己作為積極分子的那些年，他寫道：“為了寄予世界希望郑临，需要喚起我們的智慧和活力栖博。”在那些絕望的人中厢洞，往往是缺乏活力的仇让。“Steven Pinker的書充滿了活力躺翻，它給讀者激發(fā)了同樣的活力丧叽。

He cites one study of “negativity bias”that says a critic who pans a book “is perceived as more

competent than a critic who praises it.” I will just have to take thatrisk: “Enlightenment Now” strikes me as an excellent book, lucidly written,timely, rich in data and eloquent in its championing of a rational humanismthat is — it turns out — really quite cool.

他引用了一篇關于“負面偏好”的研究，里面寫到書評家對書籍批評比對贊揚更視為有能力公你〈勒”我不得不冒這樣的風險：“Enlightenment Now”給我的印象是一本優(yōu)秀的書，寫得很清晰易懂省店，同時又數(shù)據(jù)詳盡嚣崭，在這本書闡述的理性人道主義方面辨析有理有據(jù)，——它看起來真的很酷懦傍。