Pinker argues that humanism (a reasoned commitment to maximizing human flourishing), science, and democracy have resulted in substantial, measurable human progress over the last 500 years. There are 17 chapters setting out evidence (illustrated in some 75 charts) that globally humans are living longer healthier lives (pp. 53-67); developing agricultural methods that are making great strides toward eliminating famine (68-78); increasing per capita income and reducing income inequality (71-120); working on technology and global cooperation to address pressing environmental problems (121-55); decreasing war-related deaths (156-66); increasing safety (167-90); reducing deaths caused by terrorism (191-98); adopting democratic forms of government that promote higher economic growth (200); spreading equal rights (214-32); increasing literacy and the quality of education (247-61); dramatically improving the quality of life (247-61); leading happier lives (262-89); and addressing the existential threats of overpopulation, resource shortages, and the threat of nuclear war (290-321). The book is not triumphalist but consistently evidence-based. I do not have the expertise to assess the details of the evidence Pinker relies on, but he does cite recognized authorities. And some of his conclusions are irrefutable. People are living longer. They are better fed. The rule of law does make people living in democracies safer.
Despite some criticism to the contrary, Pinker does recognize that we still have a long way to go in providing food security, a living wage, and better health to some seven hundred million people who still live in extreme poverty (e.g., 87-89; 325). His argument is that we are not wasting money on trying to eliminate world poverty, that we have made substantial progress in reducing the number of people in extreme poverty by getting some things right. Communism has failed, totalitarian, planned economies are in retreat, and market economies coupled with improved agricultural practices and access to global markets have lifted billions out of extreme poverty in the last 75 years (89-96).
Pinker argues we should think scientifically, not that we should let science decide value questions (390-91). A scientific approach is based on two characteristics: the world is intelligible and we should allow the world to tell us whether our ideas about it are correct (329-93). We should let the facts on the ground, not our tribal, cultural allegiances, guide us toward policies and practices that help all people flourish (357-69).
Many will find Pinker's rejection of religion as a guide to human flourishing (30, 392-94, 421, and 428-33) disquieting, if not repulsing. I don't think that argument is essential to the book's main message. Human flourishing is a goal that all of the many religions that populate the globe can agree with. As Pinker points out, basic moral rules have always been agreed to by all societies. He asserts that two thousand five hundred years ago Plato argued in Euthyphro that the gods are not necessary to tell us what is moral (428). We all know that we should treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves, that we should not cause injury to others, or steal their property. Our religious disagreements are not about morality but prescribed practices, rituals, and theological beliefs. Those conflicts should not get in the way of all of us, whatever our religion beliefs, supporting secular society's goal of promoting human flourishing.

This book is Steven Pinker‘s masterpiece. If you choose just one of his books to read, this is the one. He takes an optimistic view of the current political and social upheavals plaguing our world and puts them in context with both recent and ancient history.

In his perfect-pitch prose, Pinker makes the case that although many people decry the times in which we live, he disagrees, in essence saying, “let the good times roll.“ He doesn’t think we’re nearing the end of The Enlightenment, either — he thinks it’s a set of ideas and a way of reasoning that can and should be renewed with each successive generation.

He cites numerous statistics showing how people are richer, wealthier, and live longer than any other time in history. There are hundreds of examples that give ample reason for optimism as we navigate this era of confusion and frustration in U.S. and world politics.

Enlightenment Now is a long and dense book, but be sure to read it all the way to the end, because all through this masterful narrative of our society, there are some of the most profound paragraphs, pages and chapters I’ve ever read.

This is one of my favorite books of all time, perhaps my most favorite. I need a long time to think about and sort out all the ideas in this book. After spending the past month reading and studying it, it’s become clear to me that I need to adjust my point of view on many issues. One thing is certain: I will carry with me the ideas, concepts, and most importantly, the way of thinking that I’ve learned in Enlightenment Now for the rest of my life.

This is an interesting book to review. I've read a lot of reviews of the book before actually reading the book which is fairly rare for me. I usually only read one or two book reviews at most. To be upfront, I personally enjoy Pinker's style, and agreed with him on most of the issues he presented already. I also appreciate that Pinker does a great job of explaining his ideas clearly, in a way that I understand how he came to such an idea, whether or not I actually agree with the reasoning process.

For the most part, I have found that the criticisms of Pinker seem less strong after having read the book. Not all criticisms, but many. Pinker's data of some progress for humans is, in totality, certainly hard to argue with. The picture painted is of great progress in the past couple centuries, and it is almost perverse to disagree with this. We certainly still have a long way to go, but Pinker's point that we should appreciate what we've already accomplished is well-taken.

Some have taken issue with Pinker's presentation of the Enlightenment. I would certainly agree that Pinker does not provide a strong history of the Enlightenment. On the other hand, Pinker uses the word "Enlightenment" to mean a set of ideas associated with reason, science, and humanism. While I agree this may not be a typical or even historically useful definition, he makes this association clear very early on, so that I don't see it as much of a criticism. He mostly uses Enlightenment for the set of ideas he proposes are important for human flourishing.

As I said, I find most of what Pinker says credible, but I think that he sometimes too easily vanquishes an argument. His environmentalism and anti-AI arguments seem to me to defeat the arguments of his opponents a bit too easily. I personally am skeptical of an intelligence boom in AI, but I don't think Pinker argues against the strongest arguments in favor of such an intelligence boom (or the reasons to invest in containing a superintelligence). For the most part, though, I think he fairly represents opponents's arguments in the book where I have some familiarity with the background. It appeared to me he may have painted some environmentalism a bit too negatively, but it seems mostly so that he can embrace neo-environmentalism (i.e., ecomodernism or ecopragmatism)

The final part of the book on humanism was also an interesting addition. It is certainly the section with the least number of graphs and data. What stood out most to me here was that Pinker has a very negative opinion of Nietzsche (I don't know enough about Nietzsche to determine how biased a perspective this is).

Overall, I enjoyed the book. Pinker is a very clear, concise writer for the most part, and his arguments don't require more than a bit of sense and data to understand. That's not to say that these are obvious or necessarily true arguments, but that the reasons for believing them are laid out for all to see. I don't really see how the idea that we've made a ton of progress in human flourishing in the past couple of centuries could be controversial, but perhaps I just agree too much with the measurements of flourishing that Pinker uses.