Rutger BregmanCríticas

A great read, I really like a book that makes you think and this one does. It also makes a lot of sense about who were are as humans and why we act the way we do. It also explains why the modern world is what it is!

Worth reading whether you're liberal or conservative. Some great things to ponder with lots of research and studies to back it up. Great discussion points to bring up at dinner with relatives. *wink*

Ik ga eerlijk zijn: tijdens het lezen van dit boek gingen dikwijls mijn stekels omhoog en ergerde ik me geregeld aan het belerend toontje, de dominees-moraal, de naïeve eenzijdigheid. Ik vind het best verfrissend dat Bregman tegengas wil geven tegen de cynische, pessimistische kijk op de mens en op hoe we er vandaag voor staan, een negatieve kijk die constant gevoed wordt door de nieuwsmedia en grotendeels ook door de sociale media (één van zijn adviezen is trouwens om zoveel mogelijk weg te blijven van het nieuws en van de socials). Maar hij begaat de fout dat ook te willen bewijzen.
Zijn discours bestaat vooral uit het doorprikken van een aantal van de negatieve vooroordelen over de mens, bijvoorbeeld door vrij harde kritiek op sociale experimenten als het Milgram-experiment of het Stanford Prison-experiment, of door het ontkrachten van de mythe van de Paaseiland-bewoners die elkaar uitmoordden. Hij beschrijft dat allemaal heel vlot en zelfs spannend, alsof hij de eerste en enige is die er in slaagt te onthullen. Quod non: bijna geen enkel aspect dat Bregman aanhaalt is origineel, laat staan dat het het resultaat is van zijn eigen veldwerk. En er worden nogal wat krenten uit de pap gehaald.
Maar goed, misschien ben ik te streng en moet ik vooral waarderen dat hij een aantal negatieve evidenties over de mens in vraag stelt. Wat in elk geval overtuigend overkomt, is dat we de zogenaamde “vernistheorie”, namelijk dat beschaving maar een dun laagje is dat er in crisissituaties vlug afgaat, absoluut niet als dogma mogen nemen. Dat dit meteen bewijst dat “de meeste mensen deugen” (zoals de oorspronkelijke Nederlandse titel luidt) is een ander paar mouwen. Ik vrees dat het uiteindelijk voor eeuwig en altijd om geloof gaat gaan: ofwel geloof je er in, ofwel niet. Want de voorbeelden die hij aanhaalt, zoals de idyllische gevangenissen in Noorwegen of de reclamecampagnes waarmee een einde zou zijn gemaakt aan de FARC-oorlog in Colombia, overtuigen niet helemaal.
Toch wil ik het kind niet met het badwater weggooien. Dit boek bevat een aantal goede ideeën en voorstellen die inderdaad essentieel zijn om een betere wereld te creëren. Dat vertrouwen een veel betere fundament is dan haat, en dat vertrouwen minstens even besmettelijk kan (en moet) zijn, is zulk een verdienstelijk inzicht. Het is een boutade, ik weet het, maar je hebt mensen die altijd zullen vinden dat het glas halfleeg is, en je hebt mensen zoals Bregman die resoluut gaan voor het halfvolle. Van nature behoor ik tot de laatste groep. Het is wellicht de verdienste van dit boek dat het mijn geloof daarin niet aan het wankelen heeft gebracht.

The friend that lent me this book called it “intellectual fastfood”.

Listened to the audio version which was very well done. The book gives you lots of ideas to ponder...I’m still thinking about them. Definitely worth the time to read.

The ideas in this book match up with a lot of opinions I already held, so I'm pre-disposed to like it, but I really appreciated the historical perspective, especially the fact that Nixon got a UBI bill through the house, but it failed in the senate. I had no idea we were ever that close.

This seems like a good book to hand other people who are curious why I support UBI, shorter work weeks, etc.

This is a great book with a great message, that there isn’t a ton of evidence that “human nature” is evil or that humans are inherently greedy or bad. From the Stanford Prison experiment to war to the Broken Windows theory, the author tackles these and many other pieces of evidence that are often pointed to as proof that people are basically garbage. Instead Bregman argues humans are basically cooperative, social, and good. He argues that we’ve achieved our top of the food chain status today not through our superior intellect or cunning but through our unique ability to be highly, highly social creatures. Additionally the author claims many of modern society’s social ills come from the simple principle that people behave how you expect them to. If you’re raised in a world that sees humans as basically shellfish and one bad day away from a “Purge” movie, you’re going to treat them that way and even develop those behaviors yourself.

While I don’t fully support everything Rutger Bregman has to say in this book (we’ll have to agree to disagree about his stance on punching Nazi’s), I do endorse his overall premise and can’t wait to read some of the works he’s cited. Overall this was a fascinating, read-able work and a bit of much needed hope in a difficult year.

I wish..✨

In the past, Bregman argues, the problem was people were poor, ugly, sick and stupid. In the present, the problem was that people have lost their dreams. All of the dreams that were possible in the past have been realized, and nowhere is that more true than in the US, where the per capita income and life expectancy have skyrocketed in just the last two hundred years. Per capita income is up 50-fold and life-expectancy has doubled. But instead of settling, we need new dreams of an even brighter future.

Just that message alone is a refreshing antidote to the mounting concern that society is crumbling over the past month and a half. Bregman then pitches the book on providing evidence for three utopian ideas: a universal basic income (UBI), a 15 hour work week and open borders.

Like most probable readers, I was already pretty familiar with UBI (an idea that I thought I invented several years ago before finding out about the Manitoba mincome experiment) and I thought I knew pretty much the basic primer, but I didn't know about Nixon's failed UBI proposal. Bregman also provides the most optimistic statistical analysis of UBI and how its sustainable that I've ever seen (more on that later), making it sound like an actually feasible idea. This section, prima facie, really lives up to the "for realists" segment, focusing on studies supporting the financial sustainability of UBI, and I thought that this was the strongest (and bulkiest) section.

In contrast, the Open Border section is pretty short, basically: countries that accept immigrants make more money than those that don't; immigrants, and in particular refugees are less likely to be involved in crime, and any criminal activity is predicted by socioeconomic status and that immigrants are more likely to return to their home country in open borders (and that the more we've militarized the US-Mexico border, the higher percentage of undocumented immigrants that stay here, so that clearly fits well with the plan for a Wall.) It all makes sense, but is a pretty anemic chapter.

Finally, the fifteen hour work week is more fleshed out, and there's some good thought processes there (i.e. that working longer hours decreases productivity, especially in creative jobs and that there are fewer good jobs than there are people) but there's not a lot of hard data.

Honestly, I thought the book's best ideas weren't the ostensible main ideas but were things that came up in the interstitial pages:
1. Is GDP actually a good measure and what can we use instead that would be more congruent with cultural values? Let's get rid of productivity and efficiency as goals, and concentrate on creativity and innovation, which is less metric-able
2. So many people are doing "bullshit" jobs, where they move around money, but don't do any societal or personal good. 1/3 of Americans think their job is pointless and doesn't bring them satisfaction. Let's get rid of dumb jobs and use the money to subsidize actually important work, like teachers and social workers, paid for by taxes on the financial industry.
3. Social good can be measured, just like anything else, and can be optimized by using randomized controlled trials to try out new ideas and see how much good they bring.

And finally, as a balm to my anxiety about what the best way to respond to the growing decline of political liberalism, Bregman has a strategy: use Politics as a way to move the Overton window to the left: for too long, the Global Right has been moving more and more right, while the progressive parties talk about compromises and being reasonable. But each new rightwing extremist defines deviance down, so what we perceive as moderation shifts further and further right. Bregman encourages readers to use the statistics he presents to calmly and logically argue back in the other direction, and convince politicians to run on truly progressive agenda.

So the downsides? I've hinted at a couple of them: like many books that seem to have started as a collection of essays, I found Utopia for Realists a little disorganized, and at times disjointed. I found I had to read large chunks at a time, or I would get lost because Bergman will revisit ideas that he previously explored without noting that it was discussed in a prior chapter. I thought the three sections were a little artificial -- the topics relate to each other, and the information between the Big Ideas, I thought was as worthy of fleshing out, and perhaps one chapter per concept would have provided an internal structure that the book seemed to lack. Finally, and perhaps my biggest criticism is that Bergman told, rather than showed the statistics, and for a book that prides itself on being "for realists" and data-driven, I wanted to see the data. In at least three different spots, Bergman talks about data showing one thing, than being reanalyzed and showing another. That's normal for such highly charged, politicized topics, but as a reader with a strong mathematical background, I wanted more evidence about why I should believe the reanalysis over the original results: what was the statistical error? What other analyses have been done?

Overall, though, I thought Utopia for Realists was a fresh take on the topic of how to make the world a better place. I liked that Bergman focused on some concrete ideas, and looked to bring in evidence for each, within the context of a philosophical idea to dream bigger. Often with books like this, I wonder who the intended audience is, but I think with the stated goal of encouraging liberals to use data to shift the Overton window, Bergman answers that question and it's a good answer: this book isn't intended to change the minds of people who are opposed to UBI or a 15 hour workweek or open borders (or housing first, or direct cash assistance, or randomized controlled trials of social justice), but to change the minds of people who are in favor of all of those things, but afraid to look impractical. I'm still not totally convinced, but I feel better than I did before reading it.

Bregman, nosso centrista honorário, traz mais um livro fácil de ler, voltado para o grande público, que, apesar de soar aqui e ali simplificado e um pouco grosseiro, convence no geral e é bastante interessante. O tema principal circula sobre como é cômodo, psicologicamente e depois socialmente, tomarmos o humano como essencialmente egoísta e a sociedade como um verniz de civilidade. A hipótese de Bregman é que isso seria um nocebo (um placebo ruim), e Rosseau estava certo (embora soe apressado os elogios à fase coletora-caçadora da nossa espécie, ao menos o autor não deixa de comentar os avanços da regulação racional do comportamento). Nessa jornada o autor faz divulgação científica de teses sobre a origem de nossa espécie, seu sucesso (contra neandertais mais fortes e inteligentes), introduz a correlação entre docilidade e inteligência (selecionar docilidade acaba selecionando inteligência, em animais) e nos chama de homus-cachorrinho. Aproveita para convencer-nos o quanto a visão da interação social de O Senhor das Moscas é irrealista, e dá um exemplo similar, mas real, de "garotos perdidos na ilha deserta", aliás, muito mais ensolarado. Desmistifica o bando de charlatões da psicologia comportamental com os controversos experimentos da prisão, da inimizade entre garotos, do aumento de voltagem do choque, consultando a literatura que descreve as condições de aplicação destes. Passeia pela biologia e psicologia atual para apoiar a tese (consistente) de que somos inatamente cooperativos. Por fim, aconselha evitar notícias, esperar o melhor dos outros, prefira a compaixão (mais mediada racionalmente) que a empatia, ser bom etc. E fornece exemplos de iniciativas fofas de sucesso, mas sem ser brega demais, embora às vezes soe esperançoso demais (e sim, democracia participativa porto-alegrense consta lá).

Went through 3 of the books main points (universal basic income, 15-hour workweek, and open borders) and how all of these things would contribute to overall growth for people worldwide (and not just economic growth) and the elimination of extreme poverty.

Went through 3 of the books main points (universal basic income, 15-hour workweek, and open borders) and how all of these things would contribute to overall growth for people worldwide (and not just economic growth) and the elimination of extreme poverty.

I krátká knížka dovede vyprovokovat k přemýšlení, a hned zkraje můžu potvrdit, že Bregmanova Utopie pro realisty takovou knihou je. Bregman se v ní nezabývá utopií obecně, neřeší jak by takový utopický svět měl vypadat, zaměřuje se vcelku střídmě na tři kroky, které by podle něj ze současný svět k utopii přiblížili. Jeho představa vlastně překvapivě zrcadlí to, co je již dnes běžné například pro ty, kteří dnes mají dost peněz na to, aby mohli žít jen z jejich úročení: hodně volného času, bezpracný výdělek a volný pohyb po celém světě.

Nejpřesvědčivější je Bregman v oblasti nepodmíněného příjmu. Je to ostatně oblast, ve které ze všech tří zkoumaných témat proběhlo nejvíce výzkumů, z nichž autor úspěšně těží. Ačkoli je myšlenka nepodmíněného příjmu na první pohled spíše socialistická, je pro mě jakožto pro zastánce minimálního státu paradoxně nejlákavější. Spleť zákonů a pravidel určujících, kdo a za jakých podmínek si zaslouží státní příspěvky a ve kterých případech vzniká nárok na úlevu z daní, nabízí nahradit jedním plošným příspěvkem. Vyměnit stovky stran zákonů, tisíce stran vyhlášek a miliony hodin práce státních a obecních zaměstatnců za něco, co lze v principu shrnout do jedné věty, je prostě krásná představa a velice doufám, že někdy dospěje i do našich končin světa.

Ve zbylých dvou tématech je Bregmanova argumentace poněkud slabší. Zatímco s principem otevřených hranic v zásadě souhlasím, nevidím cestu k realizaci už jen proto, že nikdy nebude ve světě existovat dost dobré vůle. Patnáctihodinový pracovní týden je pak podobně lákavý, jeho cesta však jistě musí vést přes řadu mezikroků a dnes si jen těžko dovedu představit, že bychom se v dohledné době dostali alespoň ke třiceti hodinám. Zůstává navíc otázkou, o co bychom byli jako lidstvo ochuzeno, pokud by se patnáctihodinovou pracovní dobou řídil opravdu každý, včetně těch mohykánů průmyslu, kteří se právě neúnavnou prací dostali na míle před své konkurenty a posunuli lidské poznání a možnosti o krok dál. Jejich budoucí zaměstnanci by však kratší pracovní dobu jistě ocenili a nejen proto tak zůstává Bregman argumentačně silný i v této části knihy.

Pokud mi tedy na Utopii pro realisty něco chybí, je to snad jen trochu praktičnosti. Bregman o svých cílech píše přesvědčivě, jenže již neradí, kudy k nim vede cesta. Jak přimět populistické politky k otevření hranic? Jak provést tak radikální změnu státních sociálních systémů, která by je připravila na nepodmíněný příjem? Chápu, asi chci od útlé knížky moc, jenže dokud se ti, kteří ve skutečnosti činí rozhodnutí (ať již politici či jejich prostřednictvím voliči) sami od sebe nezačnou rozhodovat čistě racionálně, zůstává Bregmanova Utopie pro realisty utopií pro snílky.

This book is based on the premise that most people, deep down are pretty decent. I was not convinced by some of the content but I do appreciate that it has challenged some of my beliefs. There were also some portions of the book I found dull and I almost abandoned the book, but I am glad I stuck with it. There were some great stories and quotes throughout. Some of the ones that particularly resonated with me were:
"Contact engenders more trust, more solidarity and more mutual kindness. It helps you see the world through other people’s eyes."
"We are what we believe. We find what we go looking for."
"Think as carefully about what information you feed your mind as you do about the food you feed your body."
"If you treat employees as if they are responsible and reliable, they will be."
3.25/5

Kiinnostava teos ratkaisuistä köyhyyteen ja eriarvoisuuteen. Esittelee anekdootteja, tarinoita ja tutkimuksia mm. perustulosta ja muista ratkaisuista. Ei valitse poliittisesti puolta.

CUPRINS

1. Prolog - pag. 11
2. Un nou realism - pag. 18
3. Adevaratul imparat al mustelor - pag. 35

PARTEA I - Statul primitiv - pag. 53

4. Evolutia lui Homo Puppy - pag. 60
5. Colonelul Marshall si soldatii care refuza sa traga cu arma - pag. 82
6. Blestemul civilizatiei - pag. 99
7. Misterul de pe Insula Pastelui - pag. 116

PARTEA A II-A. Dupa Auschwitz - pag. 135

8. In subsolurile Universitatii Stanfors - pag. 139
9. Stanley Milgram si aparatul de electrosocuri - pag. 155
10. Moartea lui Catherine Susan Genovese - pag.173

PARTEA A III-A - De ce fac rau oamenii buni - pag. 187

11. Cum orbeste empatia - pag. 192
12. Cum corupe puterea - pag. 210
13. Cu ce a gresit Iluminismul ? - pag. 226

PARTEA A IV-A - Noul realism - pag. 235

14. Puterea motivatiei intrinsece - pag. 246
15. Homo Ludens - pag. 260
16. Asa arata o democratie adevarata - pag. 274

PARTEA A V-A - Celalalt obraz - pag. 293

17. La un ceai cu teroristii - pag. 298
18. Cel mai bun remediu impotriva urii, a rasismului si a prejudecatilor - pag. 318
19. Cand soldatii au iesit din transee - pag. 333

20. Epilog - pag. 345
21. Multumiri - pag. 361
22. Surse - pag. 363

Het volstaat de titel van het boek te lezen.
De meeste mensen deugen inderdaad.½

As the name implies, this book is about “small” steps that could be made to make our society better, the core ones being (in the author’s mind) Universal Basic Income, 15-hour workweeks, and globally open borders.

He makes cases for these, but he also gets sidetracked quite a bit.

My only gripe is the narrow view of history but if you’re staying a “realist” it might make sense to stick to the popular historical narrative of “civilization constantly moving forwards” and also stick to the most recent 200 years or so, as he does.

Still, good read overall.

Erinomainen kirja! Kuvaa ihmisyyttä ja ihmiskunnan historiaa hauskalla ja kiinnostavalla tavalla, avaten niiden positiivista puolta. Lämmitti kyynistä sydäntäni.

Opsomming van historische onderzoeken en memorabele gebeurtenissen die proberen aan te tonen dat meestal de intenties en de mensen het goed voor hebben. Interessante opstapeling van bevindingen die proberen te overtuigen maar helaas te sporadisch, te gespreid om effectief het algemene buikgevoel van de lezers te weerleggen. Hetgeen met ervaart, ziet in de dagdagelijkse realiteit is niet het gedrag dat men hier probeert te verkopen.

I wanted to like this book more as it agrees my belief that "people are mostly good". I'm left with the perception of criticism of research against his premise, rather than a presentation of supportive research. Even if we can all agree that folks are mostly "good", the book doesn't do a good job explaining what society should do about the small percent who don't maintain that good behavior, whether as criminals or politicians or business people. . . or the fact that incentives (religious, social, and financial, to name a few) continue to push "good" people to do "bad" things.

A better understanding of the evolution of our brains could have also helped the book. Most critically Bregman failed to recognize: if being nice helps one in mate selection, then being nice is "selfish gene" behavior that will be rewarded by evolution--it's not just about survival.

Only three concepts: 15-hours workweek, universal basic income and transparent state's borders. Expecting much more.

Humans evolved to emphasize cooperation, friendliness (homo puppy), and are inclined to trust one another.

This book is interestingly written, well-referenced, and rearranges my thinking about prehistory. It covers in many places the archeological material similar to "The Dawn of Everything" that I finished reading not long ago. He also discusses modern psychological studies, like the Milman shock experiments, the Standford jail experiment, and intelligence tests, pointing out the flaws in the analyses that suggested humans could be mean, and talking to participants about what they felt during the trials. He discusses S.L.A. Marshall's discovery that in war, few soldiers fire their weapons. He considers the human gift to be that of cooperation, not intelligence or memory. He thinks the equality of the sexes in forager bands was a strong advantage. He notes that a study of human skulls over 200,000 years established that our faces and bodies have grown softer and rounder, and the jaws and teeth more childlike, in the same way that domesticated dogs resemble wolf pups. Hence his playful term homo puppy. Civilization brought war bands that evolved into dynasties, and inheritences made people jealous. He suggests that in cold of the ice ages bands slept close together, "...the struggle for existence was actually the snuggle for existence."

Excelente livro sobre renda básica universal. Explora a história das práticas envolvidas, origens dos desentendimentos e má fama da distribuição direta de renda. Dá exemplos de tentativas políticas de implementação (por exemplo, no governo Nixon dos EUA) e de locais de implementação parcial (por exemplo, caso dos moradores de rua no Canadá). Mostra de modo convincente as vantagens que tal sistema proveria socialmente. A distribuição direta de renda permite economizar em áreas diversas dos gastos públicos, em que os problemas originam justamente por parte da população não ter dinheiro. O resultado total de todos os cuidadores e serviços para pessoas em situação de risco excede a de dar dinheiro para que elas mesmas saiam dessa situação. Ademais, faria diminuiria uma série de problemas, como o do subemprego (poucos aceitariam e isso geraria demanda para logística melhor e automação bem utilizada), da falta de empregos (não seria estritamente necessário trabalhar), e dos inúmeros empregos inúteis ou semi-inúteis e ineficientes (pois entre fazer nada no trabalho ou fazer algo fora dele parece clara a escolha). Ademais, remodelaria as relações, muitas vezes abusivas, de hierarquia no local de trabalho, por permitir negociação efetiva entre funcionário e patrão em algum nível (o funcionário podendo recusar sem ter risco de passar fome por não ter dinheiro).

So, this book has a wonderful message and I feel like I learned a lot. It was fascinating a lot of the things we are taught that have been disproven or that are based on extremely limited information regarding the nature of humankind. I will say it got dry and long at times and there were a few moments where I thought about not finishing it a few times, but I’m really glad I did.