It's a collection of a transcript of the Munk debate and pre-interview conducted on the topic " Do humankind best days lie ahead?".Expected at least either rationale or reasonable answer since bright minds involved in the debate but ended up with utter disappointment when the entire debate was carried away by the childish behavior of the panelist.The invited panelists are sailors of different seas so debate became disastrous. A war between the scientific approach and the humanist approach corrup...

This book, which transcribes one of the several Munk debates organized by an initiative financed by Peter and Melanie Munk, addresses the question of whether the future of humanity will be better or worst than the present.I was a supporter of the Pro team; unless we put Malcolm's words\perspective in recent years with a pandemic, and global wars, y

This debate should be repeated in post pandemic 2022. Just time has made some of the Pro team's arguments obsolete

a short book that consists of valid points that also seem to be extremely obvious. i definitely expected more. however, it could be of great use in an argument about the future of humanity.

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...

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".

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...

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

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...

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

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

The debate in its totality was enjoyable, however I can't say it was as informative. The second half was basically insults (real funny and witty ones) going back and forth between these lovely authors..I lean towards Pinker-Ridley team, humanity as a collective is going forward. However, It personally saddens me that my country's civil war is an example; How the causalities of war only pushed back to the 2000s numbers. (I admire how Pinker addressed it gently)I also understand Gladwell and de Bo...

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

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

Where do I even start with this book?! From the first few pages I was already in a rage. So much so that I actually stopped reading for MONTHS, then picked it up again this week to see if I could get through it. The rage tripled. This is a transcript of a “debate”, but I use that term very loosely because this wouldn’t pass the standard of most university debating societies. The balatant and continued tones of racism and whiteness, and a focus on the West being “good”/affluent, and that poor cou...

I really enjoyed and benefited.29/10/2020

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...

It is ironic reading this debate that took place in 2015, whereby both Pinker & Ridley are on the positive side of things. I wonder what they think 6 years later as we find ourselves in the midst of a global pandemic that has affected both the rate of poverty, economic progression, and women's rights. I am amply curious about what De Botton & Gladwell on the con side are thinking; is there a smug look upon their face, if that is too sadistic an image? But they were right in withholding their sup...

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...

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...