Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Do Humankind’s Best Days Lie Ahead?: The Munk Debates” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Do Humankind’s Best Days Lie Ahead?: The Munk Debates

Steven Pinker (Goodreads Author),

Matt Ridley,

Alain de Botton (Goodreads Author),

Malcolm Gladwell

3.37 · Rating details · 934 ratings · 120 reviews

Progress. It is one of the animating concepts of the modern era. From the Enlightenment onwards, the West has had an enduring belief that through the evolution of institutions, innovations, and ideas, the human condition is improving. This process is supposedly accelerating as new technologies, individual freedoms, and the spread of global norms empower individuals and soc ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 128 pages

Published June 7th 2016 by House of Anansi Press

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Do Humankind’s Best Days Lie Ahead?, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Do Humankind’s Best Days Lie Ahead?

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.37 ·

Rating details

· 934 ratings · 120 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Do Humankind’s Best Days Lie Ahead?: The Munk Debates

Nov 08, 2016 Danielle rated it it was ok

This book was underwhelming in a major way. First, I don't think the question "Do humankind's best days lie ahead?" was a fair way to parse the question at hand. Since there are so many measurable variables that suggest that human life is improving, it's hard to argue against this proposition. I would have thought that the 'con' representatives would have brought stronger points. Instead, the whole debate seemed to be a back and forth of low shots and slight insults. Furthermore, when thinking o ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Jan 03, 2017 Daniel rated it liked it

Shelves: economics, climate-change, futurism, humor, environmentalism, politics, read-in-2017, history, philosophy, skepticism

The book transcribes a debate between two teams of two men each, on the proposition: "Do Humankind's Best Days Lie Ahead?". The question is not well-posed - the answer could literally be "Yes" despite an apocalyptic scenario. Suppose the coming year is the best in humankind's history, and then, say, an asteroid impact causes total human extinction. The answer to the question is still "yes." All you really need is a minimum of two really good future days to satisfy the premise (two days qualifies ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Jul 20, 2018 Alan rated it liked it

This book is the transcript of the Munk debate that took place in 2015, and it comes with pre-debate interviews and post-debate commentary. Holy hell were the teams mismatched. I mean you have a Harvard professor and a member of the House of Lords debating a journalist and an (admittedly mesmerizing) "intellectual" and philosopher.

The debate plays out exactly as you would expect it to. The teams begin with opening remarks, misunderstand the question, and then gung-ho, here we go. Honestly felt ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Dec 24, 2016 John rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

This short book transcribes a debate on the question 'Do Humankind's Best Days Lie Ahead?' Arguing for the proposition are Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley, against are Alain de Botton and Malcolm Gladwell.

Pinker and Ridley have much the better of the debate. They avoid Whiggish determinism for the most part and, looking progress on a range of issues in recent decades, look at what a continuation of these trends might mean for the future and the likelihood of them continuing.

De Botton puts in a ve ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jan 03, 2017 asih simanis rated it it was ok · review of another edition

It's surprising how intellectuals at the level of these 4 gentlemen debate so childlike when it comes to this issue of human progress.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Dec 06, 2017 Audrey rated it it was ok

Quick read that gave me a few chuckles but to be honest I expected more from these great thinkers. The debate would veer off topic at times or just become baseless. Plus, where was the female perspective? I enjoyed Gladwell's argument the best, that for every problem we solve, new problems are generated. Therefore, we can only conclude that humankind's days will be different, but we cannot quantify "better".

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 03, 2017 Mugren Ohaly rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: 2017

Underwhelming.

I began the debate con and ended it con. However, none of the arguments were convincing.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jun 12, 2018 PolicemanPrawn rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, 2016, philosophy

This is a transcript of the 2016 Munk Debate on the question of 'do humankind's best days lie ahead?' and of single one-to-one interviews with each of the four participants. The 'yes' side might appear to be getting the better of it, possibly owing to Pinker and Ridley's grounding in science and De Botton and Gladwell's lack of it. De Botton and Gladwell are often flapping and saying strange things. But I think every participant has some worthy things to say.

Pinker and Ridley's main argument is ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 07, 2019 Sorina Negrilă rated it liked it · review of another edition

It's the first time I read a debate instead of watching the video. But it was interesting specifically for that reason, because with a pen in my hand, I could actually follow through the argumentative process instead of being charmed by the speaker's charisma. I already have a slight liking of Pinker, though I can't say I share all of his optimism (he obviously was on the pro team) or his arguments for it, but I have to say I can see why sometimes science looks down on the "humanities" - Alain d ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 31, 2017 Nickky Faustine de Guzman rated it it was amazing

A new year always makes us more hopeful of the coming unknown days. In this short book (you can read it in one sitting), the debating teams of scientists and philosophers present us with polarizing outlooks: the former think we have better tomorrow thanks to the technologies that have improved our health, work, economy, education, etc., but the latter, on the other hand, believe that we should be more realistic than positivist, tomorrow is no better, they say, because if it is, how come more and ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 31, 2019 Ian Gillies rated it really liked it

Four intellectuals debate whether things are getting better or worse. After all was said, in a witty and lively debate, 73% of the audience at Toronto's Massey Hall were convinced that our best days as a species are ahead of us. Stephen Pinker best put forward the evidence supporting the optimist's view humankind's fortures. Malcolm Gladwell took the opposing point of view. I am interested in this debate because I think the prevailing intellectual narrative in Canada can be summed up in the phra ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 12, 2020 Wendelle added it

entertaining wordplay among 4 brash and talented gentlemen, worth it for something like an exciting night at a debate parlor or intellectual salon, but unlikely to change anyone's position or quicken anyone's minds towards serious realisations

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 18, 2018 Sharon rated it liked it

An interesting debate - which I think would have been more fun to watch than to read!

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 22, 2018 Saif Saeed rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Really good short read. Excellent arguments from all sides. And they were funny in some moments too.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 23, 2019 Zach Smith rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction

It's easy to get mired in negativity just because of the topics that make headlines. Reading about positivity is like a breath of fresh air!

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 25, 2016 Lydia rated it really liked it · review of another edition

This is a transcript of a debate between 4 important thinkers and scientists of our day. The debate itself is only half the book and then there are individual interviews with each of the speakers about their stance more specifically.
The book itself is a quick read and very enjoyable. I was familiar with Pinker and de Botton's ideas, but watching the 4 men play off against each other was very interesting and often hilarious (apparently even big thinkers get petty with each other).
All four seem ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 06, 2016 Shannon rated it really liked it · review of another edition

It's one thing to read works by these brilliant men , but really a treat to see how they interact when such great minds go head to head. Loved the spicy tension between Pinker and Gladwell. Informative and entertaining.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 04, 2018 Erik rated it liked it

Shelves: v-unsorted, read-in-2018

This debate has a strong case strongly made by Pinker and Ridley, and some very irrelevant objections made by de Botton and Malcolm Gladwell. But I wanted to explore something de Botton said about Anna Karenina. Unfortunately, that's not possible to do without spoiling that book.

So, a bit of setup:

Alain de Botton: Do you know a famous novel, written in the nineteenth century called Anna Karenina. Now, the people in Anna Karenina - none of them suffered from your ten [dimensions of wellbeing - Pi This debate has a strong case strongly made by Pinker and Ridley, and some very irrelevant objections made by de Botton and Malcolm Gladwell. But I wanted to explore something de Botton said about Anna Karenina. Unfortunately, that's not possible to do without spoiling that book.

So, a bit of setup:

Alain de Botton: Do you know a famous novel, written in the nineteenth century called Anna Karenina. Now, the people in Anna Karenina - none of them suffered from your ten [dimensions of wellbeing - Pinker has just named eight of these: 'life, health, education, affluence, peace, safety, intelligence, women’s empowerment' - the two missing are human rights and freedom]. Was it a happy story? No.
(...)
I’m just keen to find out what answers science might have to the very serious kinds of human unhappiness which have tracked human beings through their history.
Matt Ridley: Do I think that we are going to (...) cure unhappiness with a pill in the next few years to, you know, so that Alain’s literary heroes can be less miserable? No, I don’t. But, I do I think that the progress of science, the discovery of deep geological time, this discovery of the vast excesses of space, the discovery of the genome of what’s going on inside our cells. Do I think that has enlarged the human imagination and given us even more exciting things to think about, and to want to write literature and plays and things about? Yes, I do.
Alain de Botton: So, Anna Karenina is standing on the edge of the platform and you’re saying, “Hang on, deep geological time is the answer for you, dear.” That’s your answer, is it? That’s the answer of Mr. and Mrs. Pollyanna.

So let's have a look at ways Anna Karenina would be a happier story if it took place in modern day Switzerland than in the Russia of the 1870s.

SPOILERS AHEAD

.

.

First of all, de Botton claims that Anna Karenina didn't lack in any of Pinker's ten dimensions of wellbeing. That's obviously not true regarding democratic freedom or human rights in general, but gender equity is the one that really hurts Anna. She cannot have a divorce unless she agrees to let her husband take custody of her child and not let her see him again. She is also hurt by societal double standards where men pay no social price for infidelity, but women are shunned. In modern day Switzerland (de Botton's favorite example), no-fault divorces are common and mostly amicable, child custody cases are usually resolved to the child's benefit, and divorcees pay no social price.

Another way Anna's life would be better would be with improved health care. Anna nearly dies giving birth to her and Vronsky's child. That would not happen in Switzerland. She also probably suffers from a post-partem depression - not something we have a cure for, but something that can partially be treated and is much more easily diagnosed today. And this depression results in a psychotic breakdown which leads to her taking her life. Suicides are much too common still, but with modern psychiatric health care, her depression would have less of a chance to develop into a psychosis, and in case of psychosis she would have better chances of getting good treatment at a psychiatric hospital and to control the psychosis long term with antipsychotic drugs.

In another Tolstoy classic, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, progress hasn't cured death or anguish, but the incompetent health care Ivan receives would probably be replaced with competent diagnosis and antibiotics which would save his life for another 40 years. Even if there were no cure for the disease, a competent palliative treatment would reduce his pain at least as much as the peasant Gerasim's massages. That's not to say the book has nothing to teach us about life, but it's absurd to say progress wouldn't help these fictional characters. Middle-class people in modern affluent societies have a much higher quality of life than even the highest aristocracy of the 19th century. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 14, 2018 Bec rated it it was ok

This was interesting to read instead of watch as I could see exactly what they were saying without their grandstanding getting in the way, which I'm sure there was at least a bit of. Botton showed up to the wrong debate, he argued that things would not be perfect in the future, billionaires feel poor & life sucks a little bit from time to time in Switzerland. Ridley & Pinker rightly pointed out that not dying from Malaria & having your children generally live is a big plus but they also took the This was interesting to read instead of watch as I could see exactly what they were saying without their grandstanding getting in the way, which I'm sure there was at least a bit of. Botton showed up to the wrong debate, he argued that things would not be perfect in the future, billionaires feel poor & life sucks a little bit from time to time in Switzerland. Ridley & Pinker rightly pointed out that not dying from Malaria & having your children generally live is a big plus but they also took the smug, smarmy tone that everything will be just fine (climate change for example) because the economists have got it figured out. Well, not everyone listens to economists. I'm not entirely sure of Gladwell's proposal as he started rebutting before he was supposed but I think the gist was, if the debate had been previously humanity's best days have lain ahead the answer is a clear yes, now we have to contend with possible digital 9/11 & possibly other things too. Ridley pointed out that everyone thinks their generation is the best & it has always been nonsense. Pinker said literary comparisons have no merit as characters are not real as Botton kept bringing up Anna Karenina. The rise of ideology was barely mentioned. I think Gladwell pointed out that the world is getting better for the likes of Pinker & Ridley, but I think Gladwell & Botton too.
No one talked about the rising suicide rates around the world in young people, no-one talked about terror & bombs in London. Violence is decreasing say the stats & we are all connected now so all know about it when something happens- I have read Pinker's book that discusses this ('better angels of our nature' or something similar). I don't think there has ever been a time when children attending pop concerts have been targeted & nothing like this is brought up. The disappearing middle class, the rise of robots taking over industry, a universal basic income was not mentioned.
No-one talked about Trump, or Brexit, or xenophobia. They talked smarmy, upper class crap that just shows how disconnected these 4 are from everyday human problems. Oh, a carbon tax would fix climate change tomorrow, we don't need to worry about climate change says Ridley. Extinctions have decreased since 100 years ago, maybe but the amount of animals living on borrowed time has never been greater.
They did not mention that we are living in the Anthropocene. To convince us that humanity's best days do not lie ahead Botton talked shit about Anna Karenina feeling sad.
I advise you to watch these debates, as otherwise it's just pompous bullshit. ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 13, 2020 Madalin Betivoiu rated it liked it

Not exactly a book, just a transcript of the televised debate between the 4 famous authors, as part of the semi-annual Munk debates in Toronto (November 2015 edition). The topic is highlighted in the title and had Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley in the "pro" camp, with Malcolm Gladwell and Alain de Botton in the "against" camp.

While arguably Pinker and Ridley had the easier mission to start with (71% of the audience held the "pro" view), their arguments were rather stereotypical. They made the est Not exactly a book, just a transcript of the televised debate between the 4 famous authors, as part of the semi-annual Munk debates in Toronto (November 2015 edition). The topic is highlighted in the title and had Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley in the "pro" camp, with Malcolm Gladwell and Alain de Botton in the "against" camp.

While arguably Pinker and Ridley had the easier mission to start with (71% of the audience held the "pro" view), their arguments were rather stereotypical. They made the established arguments of inevitability of progress based on progress in the past century, with the assumption that we are in a good spot right now and that we will continue to prevail, so we should be optimistic. Their main position was that technology and science have served us well so far, and will continue to serve us in eradicating extreme poverty, disease, and global warming. Do keep in mind that we are talking about 2015, so we are pre-Trump and before the major scandals brought forth by impact of social media and even before the threat of AI became palpable. It is unlikely that a 2019 version would bring different arguments on the optimistic camp though.

On the opposite side, we a see a disappointing Alain de Botton (and it really pains me to say this!), as well as a very aggressive Malcolm Gladwell, using "humanist", philosophical arguments of individual happiness and moral perspective. de Botton suggested that first-world problems are just as valid as any other, perhaps even more so because the rest of the world are looking to catch up to them - and even if the rest of the world would look like his home country of Switzerland it would be for nothing, because people will still not be content. Gladwell was cautioning on how the same science and technology that brought us progress could turn against us, as well as how globalization and interconnectivity could end up hurting us (we do see some truths in that in years since then, with the pandemic and social media).

The conversation was not particularly civil (perhaps for show) or kept on point and I find the overall arguments to be inconclusive. Obviously we cannot predict the future, it is merely an exercise of imagination, of speculation; but I would have liked to see a bit more pragmatism in discussing the Big problems mankind is currently facing (of which these men are more than capable of doing), rather than some sort of standoff between science vs humanities or historical inevitability vs "realistic pessimism". ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 14, 2018 Chloe Lee rated it it was ok · review of another edition

The notion that the future is going to get better is hopelessly naive. And the word better is misplaced. What we are really facing when we look at the future is a future that's different.

Not only is the notion 'hopelessly naive', it is also hopelessly generalised. Furthermore, such a notion would already place people in either stance, and with a rather strong attitude. This can be manifested by the parties, who are so intent on their own stances they seemingly cannot accept anything from the opp ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 28, 2020 Jakub Ferencik added it

This book is another Munk Debate that was put into written form. Pinker & Ridley (argue that the world is getting better) vs. Gladwell & Botton.

I did not enjoy this debate as much as my previously reviewed Munk Debate on the liberal international order, between Niall Ferguson and Fareed Zakaria. The debate was full of one-liners and frequent interruptions. Pinker came across as uncharitable to the opposition the same as Gladwell. Botton was just being misunderstood, it seemed to me, both by Pink This book is another Munk Debate that was put into written form. Pinker & Ridley (argue that the world is getting better) vs. Gladwell & Botton.

I did not enjoy this debate as much as my previously reviewed Munk Debate on the liberal international order, between Niall Ferguson and Fareed Zakaria. The debate was full of one-liners and frequent interruptions. Pinker came across as uncharitable to the opposition the same as Gladwell. Botton was just being misunderstood, it seemed to me, both by Pinker & Ridley (I agree w Pinker & Ridley, although I think that Gladwell & Bottom raise important points worth considering). I haven't read "Enlightenment Now" in its completion but I have a tough time understanding how someone could disagree with the data that Pinker raises in the book.

Gladwell's counterargument to the science that Pinker quotes is that science is too simplistic in its assessment. Steven Pinker, however, argues that a scientific approach in understanding human wellbeing is the sophisticated method. This is the main distinction between these two arguments. Gladwell claims that history is not necessarily repetitive whereas Pinker claims that history can properly dictate what is most likely to happen in the future (51). It should not surprise us that some disagree with one, or more, of the premises of the form of this inductive argument.

I'll finish with a quote from Allain de Bottom that summarizes his side of the argument well: "The great dream of the Enlightenment was that through education, people would abandon prejudice, rotten ideas, and bad impulses and that these things would melt away like fog on a sunny day under the light of reason. It doesn't happen. & we've seen conflict after conflict & educated populations, so education is not a panacea" (72).

The issue may not be as clear as originally proposed. Perhaps this issue is more nuanced. I am open to both sides of the argument, however, I intuitively lean more with Pinker & Ridley. Fewer interruptions among the speakers next time, please. And more charitable reasoning. Please. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 13, 2018 Drew Clancy rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Loved this book which is a transcript of a 2016 Munk debate in Toronto in which four writers/ thinkers argue about whether life is getting better or worse.

During the debate, Pinker and Ridley share a plethora of data showing that life is getting better -
from life expectancy to health, prosperity, peace, safety, freedom, knowledge, human rights, gender equality, and intelligence.

Pinker's book The Better Angels of our Nature is one of my favorite books as it was such an eye-opener to me about t ...more

flag Like · see review

Aug 22, 2017 David rated it liked it

The title of this book really got my attention, especially in a season when it seems nuclear weapons are becoming popular again, racism is on the rise, and true happiness (as much as money has bought us much convenience) seems somewhat low. So I was intrigued to hear the opinions of the authors. In some ways I wasn't surprised at the pro-side presenters, basing their projections on innovation and economic progress yet at the same time was slightly disappointed with the con-side objections (or th ...more

flag Like · see review

Aug 05, 2018 Andreas Andersen rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

flag Like · see review

Aug 11, 2017 Darius Daruvalla-riccio rated it it was ok

Shelves: non-fiction

Alain de bottom ruined this. He forced the debate to revolve around his irrelevant ideas about first world problems.
Steven pinker completely wrecked him with this: "are you serious? are you willing to approach a peasant in cambodia, sudan or bangladesh and say: listen, ive been there. you worry about your child dying or your wife dying in childbirth, you're full of parasites; you don't have enough to eat, but trust me, it's no great shakes to live in Switzerland".
De Botton then spent the rest o ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 30, 2018 A.J. Saktiana rated it really liked it

This short book transcribes the Munk debate that took place in 2015 on the question 'Do Humankind's Best Days Lie Ahead?' Arguing for the proposition are Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley, against are Alain de Botton and Malcolm Gladwell in Cons side.

The Pro team cites reams of statistics that show steady improvement in human well-being by several important measures; Pinker lists ten. Ridley tags in with some additional fire support. This improvement in human welfare seems indisputable. Ridley's cla ...more

flag Like · see review

Apr 27, 2020 Loukia rated it liked it

There is not much to be said in terms of writing style since it's basically a transcript of a debate. In terms of the actual debate, it is very well structured and allows all participants/authors to express their ideas giving them equal speaking time. However, the ideas expressed are not necessarily ground braking and a good chunk of the debate was (unsurprisingly) centered around what would constitute "best days" and how do you measure progress. Personally, I found myself agreeing with argument ...more

flag Like · see review

May 03, 2018 Hind Al-Qahtani rated it really liked it

I saw it got some bad reviews on Goodreads. I found it entertaining and informative in the realm of ideas, not necessarily facts. Alain de Botton was criticized for his role in the debate but I thought he brought a fresh angle and the contrast between him and his opponents highlights the basis of both positions more clearly. Surprisingly enough they debated viciously. I´ve always heard that Arabs do not master the art of debate, but now I think no one does, lol. Some of the comments were petty, ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 07, 2019 Bill Hill rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Cross purposes?

An interesting debate that seemed to pit optimistic projections based on long-run societal level trends against pessimistic projections based on well understood human behavioural traits.

The debaters were often at cross purposes and seemingly debating two different propositions. The pro speakers talking about the topic and the cons talking about whether a good societal trend is worth pain of those who don’t benefit from the upswing. I think one side was too optimistic basing every ...more

flag Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Nonfiction

55 users

Philosophy

26 users

Science

19 users

Politics

10 users

History

9 users

Sociology

6 users

Economics

5 users

Psychology

4 users

Cultural > Canada

2 users

Cultural

2 users

See top shelves…

About Steven Pinker

Steven Pinker

7,053 followers

Steven Arthur Pinker is a prominent Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and author of popular science. Pinker is known for his wide-ranging explorations of human nature and its relevance to language, history, morality, politics, and everyday life. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Repu ...more