Optimism with prejudice

I've been reading Enlightenment Now by Stephen Pinker, and I have mixed feelings.

He gives a positive view of many trends portrayed as disastrous in pop culture and media: gun violence, world hunger, . But he leaves me skeptical---which is odd, because I'm usually an unabashed optimist.

Most of his arguments hinge upon broad comparisons to the past. It's pretty easy to argue that the human condition has improved since the Dark Ages, the Victorian Era, or even the 1950s. People around the world today live longer, healthier lives with more information and technology available than ever before. His use of statistics is admirable, and I agree with much of his thesis. But in some cases the message still falls flat.

Perhaps this is the wrong time to read such a book. It first released in 2018, so while it captures tinges of the issues we're facing now, we've seen a lot of negativity in the last few years. Many of the 

I think what really bothers me more than anything is Pinker's insistence on praising capitalism as the benefactor for the majority of modern progress and leaving that premise unquestioned. Considering his normal erudition, such a shallow view on political economy shocked me. 

In fact, in a book about fear and bias, I was secretly hoping he would try his hand at dispelling some of the sensationalism around communism and socialism. Instead, he draws a hard line between socialism and social policies, referring to socialism as an intrusive barrier to progress while praising capitalist countries that "invest in their people." He talks about destitution and isolationism of communist countries without acknowledging the global geopolitical forces that contributed to those.

He discusses the decline of communism and the decline of totalitarian leaders as factors that led to increased prosperity around the world. I don't think he's wrong, mind you. But it's confusing and disingenuous to blame communism for what individual leaders did. The policies of Mao or Stalin or Castro are not the same as the ideal of communism. And the fact that their deaths caused such political turmoil implies that their personal appeal far outweighed any ideological considerations.

I don't blame democracy for the choices of my representatives. I hold the individuals accountable. And though I have some trouble with this sometimes, it's also true about capitalism and billionaires. Complex systems allow for some extreme situations.

Maybe these details don't belong in a book about optimism. But I like the book and the author, and this kind of oversimplification is disappointing.