Thanks for your comment.

Bregman doesn't make this assertion in Humankind, but rather makes a well-supported case that systems of control and incentives play to our worst instincts. The reviewer provides no support for his assertions, so I don't really see why anyone would pay the any heed. Bregman provides vast supporting evidence for his claims, and over-turned many of my fundamental assumptions about the nature of humanity—which I had simply gleaned from popular psychology and "common sense", through the weight of the evidence he provides.

I recommend both his recent books highly. While he may be pushing a particular narrative, it is one that is a counterweight to the prevailing distorted narrative of humanity passed down by the likes of Golding, Milgram and Zimbardo.

Thanks Luke!

Hey Matt, I thought this was really interesting. I think the mistake people make is seeing saving lives as a very isolated (subjective) good, which is at odds with collective goods (zero-sum thinking), when actually saving lives has a load of other cumulative benefits also. For instance lowering infant mortality lowers the birth rate, mitigating overpopulation, not having family members die is better for people's mental health and productivity, and not being starving also means people can reach their potential, contributing more to the world as a whole.

Those people who don't die, and aren't starving might very well be those that solve the asteroid crisis. I've always been a Karl Popper fan for this very reason, that quantifiable goods in the here and now don't necessarily contradict distant unquantifiable goods, in fact, as you lock in piecemeal rights and well-being factors for people, that layer of security can be built upon, making future benefits more likely.