fbpx
01 / 05
Grim Old Days: A. Roger Ekirch’s At Day’s Close, Part 1

Blog Post | Human Development

Grim Old Days: A. Roger Ekirch’s At Day’s Close, Part 1

Our ancestors battled fear, filth, and fatigue after nearly every sundown.

Summary: Before the invention of electric light and modern bedding, nighttime offered little peace for our ancestors. Historian A. Roger Ekirch’s book reveals a world where sleep was fragmented, beds were crowded (sometimes with people and livestock), and fears of crime, vermin, and supernatural forces kept many from true rest. Far from the romantic ideal of tranquil slumber in simpler times, preindustrial nights were noisy, stressful, and often more exhausting than restorative.


The historian A. Roger Ekirch’s book At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past provides a fascinating window into our ancestors’ world. The book provides insight into everything from the nocturnal dangers they faced, such as the threats of crime and fire, to their deeply uncomfortable sleeping arrangements.

It is easy to romanticize preindustrial sleep: Surely before modern vehicular traffic, nighttime was a quiet respite, and without the blue light of smartphone screens to stimulate their brains, our ancestors were able to sink into a deep, restful state of sleep each night. “Implicit in modern conceptions of sleep before the Industrial Revolution remains the wistful belief that our forebears enjoyed tranquil slumber, if often little else, in their meager lives.” Sadly, that was not the case. Before earplugs, neck pillows, white noise machines, ergonomic mattress designs, and other modern bedtime amenities, restful slumber was often evasive. Notwithstanding idyllic stereotypes of repose in simpler times, early modern slumber was highly vulnerable to intermittent disruption, much morе so, in all likelihood, than is sleep today.” In 1657, the British writer and Anglican priest George Herbert wrote that “manie [many people] worke hard all day, and when night comes, their paines increase, for want of food or rest.”

Most preindustrial people suffered from very high levels of stress, making it difficult to relax and sleep soundly. The 17th-century healer Richard Napier recorded over several decades that some 20 percent of his patients suffered from insomnia. “Popular dread of demons kept some persons awake,” while fears of all-too-real nocturnal dangers, such as thieves, made many sleep with a weapon within reach. People also dreaded nightmares, genuinely believing them to be potentially lethal attacks by evil spirits or witches; in 1730, a guide noted that “many a life has been lost by the night-mare.” In 1621, the physician Robert Burton described a common symptom of melancholia (roughly analogous to the modern concepts of anxiety and depression) as “waking, by reason of their continual cares, fears, [and] sorrows.” All social classes suffered nighttime disturbances due to poor mental health. “If, as early writers contended, the affluent suffered broken sleep because of mental stress, diverse psychological disorders, not least depression, afflicted the lower classes.” Of the urban poor in the early modern era, one observer noted, “They sleep, but they feel their sleep interrupted by the cold, the filth, the screams and infants’ cries, and by a thousand other anxieties.”

“Making matters worse were the narrow lanes separating early modern dwellings, with their thin walls, revealing cracks, and naked windows. Not until the eighteenth century did curtains adorn many urban portals, while in the countryside they remained a rarity.”

Bedsharing with family members and overnight guests was extraordinarily common; most ordinary people grew up sharing a bed with several siblings. Beds were expensive, often representing “over one-third the value of all domestic assets” in a modest household. “Inadequate bedding meant that families in the lower ranks routinely slept two, three, or more to a mattress, with overnight visitors included . . . Entire households of European peasants, numbering up to five or six persons, occasionally shared the same bed.” Even well into the industrial era, such arrangements continued in impoverished communities. Of early 19th-century Irish household sleeping configurations, it was said, “They lie down decently and in order, the eldest daughter next the wall farthest from the door, then all the sisters according to their ages, next the mother, father and sons in succession, and then the strangers, whether the travelling pedlar or tailor or beggar.”

Yet sleeping in a huddled mass was not the sole purview of the destitute. “Even well-to-do individuals, when separated from home, occasionally shared beds overnight,” and among ordinary peasants, bedsharing was a given. Sharing a bed with one’s servants was also quite common. “Female domestics, when sleeping with their mistresses, afforded protection at night from abusive husbands.” A noblewoman known as Madame de Liancourt advised her granddaughter not to share a bed with female servants, as such a practice “goes against cleanliness and decency,” blurring social boundaries and diminishing “respect.” Her attitude reflects how society’s upper crust often resented communal sleep and abandoned the practice as soon as rising general prosperity gave them the means to do so. “By the eighteenth century, communal sleep inspired widespread disdain among the gentle classes . . . In no other sphere of preindustrial life did a mounting appreciation for personal privacy among the upper ranks of society manifest itself more plainly.” The average person did not have the luxury to pursue higher standards of privacy in their sleeping arrangements.

In both urban and rural areas, “peasant families at night brought farm animals under their roofs” and slept huddled together for warmth. A British term for sharing a bed with many bedfellows was “to pig,” and in some cases, the bedfellows were literal swine. In 18th-century Wales, one observer claimed that in the homes of the common people, “every edifice” was practically a miniature “Noah’s Ark”—filled with a great variety of animals. “In Scotland and parts of northern Europe, curtained beds were built into walls, in part to allow animals additional room. According to a visitor to the Hebrides in the 1780s, the urine from cows was regularly collected in tubs and discarded, but the dung was removed just once a year.” One shudders to think of the barnlike smell that bedchambers took on, in addition to the chorus of barnyard sounds that filled every night. The hubbub “from frogs and katydids to barking dogs, lovesick cats, and needy livestock, not all of which grew familiar with time. In the dairy region of East Anglia, ‘bull’s noon was a common expression for midnight, the hour when bullocks, in full throat, bellowed for their mates. And vice-versa.”

A passage from the poem The Complaints of Poverty (1742) by Nicholas James describes the quality of sleep suffered by the impoverished masses:

And when, to gather strength and still his woes,
He seeks his last redress in soft repose,
The tatter’d blanket, erst the fleas’ retreat,
Denies his shiv’ring limbs sufficient heat;
Teaz’d with the sqwalling babes nocturnal cries,
He restless on the dusty pillow lies.

Animals and drunken commotions were frequent sources of nocturnal clangor. Because many farm animals such as cows and pigs were kept inside cities, the din of pigsties and lowing of cows cramped in small spaces mixed with the howling of dogs to create a tumultuous chorus. From cities to villages, nighttime brought a din of animal cries. “We lost our road,” wrote a traveler in early modern France, “and about midnight, directed by the sound of village dogs, dropt upon Fontinelle.”

Where night watchmen were tasked with keeping the noise level down, “some watchmen were even blamed for causing much of the noise nuisances at night themselves. [A character in a novel published in 1771] complained, ‘I start every hour from my sleep, at the horrid noise of the watchmen bawling the hour through every street, and thundering at every door; a set of useless fellows, who serve no other purpose but that of disturbing the repose of inhabitants.’ . . . In the Danish play Masquerades (ca 1723), by Ludvig Baron Holberg, the servant Henrich complains, ‘Every hour of the night they waken people out of their sleep by shouting to them that they hope they are sleeping well.’” Indeed, despite the clangor of numerous obnoxious sounds at night, “urban denizens reserved their sharpest annoyance for the nightwatch. Many residents never grew habituated to their cries.” Night watchmen were variously described as drunk, “decrepit,” and the “very dregs” of the “human race.” They were often viewed as incompetent or corrupt, “colluding with thieves.”

The majority of households did not dare rely on night watchmen to keep them safe. “Most households were armed, often more heavily than members of the nightwatch. Most domestic arsenals contained swords, pikes, and firearms, or in less affluent homes cudgels and sticks, both capable of delivering mortal blows.” People slept beside their weapons. “Once a family retired for the night, weapons were kept close.” Noblemen might sleep with a sword within reach, while ordinary people slumbered near less exalted weapons. “Valued as a club was the common bed-staff, a short, sturdy stick used in sets two on each side of a bed to hold-its covers in place.” For protection, households fashioned devices, such as shutters equipped with bells, to rouse sleeping inhabitants during a break-in. “Watchdogs prowled inside and out,” undoubtedly considered more reliable than watchmen by many. “It would be difficult to exaggerate the extent of popular contempt for nightwatchmen.” Businesses such as mills, stables, and warehouses hired private “watchers” or guards, as private security was more reliable than the public night watch.

“Between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, European beds evolved from straw pallets on earthen floors to wooden frames complete with pillows, sheets, blankets, coverlets, and ‘flock’ mattresses, filled with rags and stray pieces of wool. . . . ‘Whether due to sleeping on a bed fouler than a rubbish heap, or not being able to cover oneself,’” a Bolognese curate observed of insomnia among the poor, ‘who can explain how much harm is done?’” The poorest slept on the earthen floors of their peasant dwellings, with a layer of straw as their only bed:

In Scotland and Ireland, entire families slept upon earthen floors strewn with rushes, straw, and heather. Not only was the cost of bedsteads prohibitive, but they occupied valuable space in cramped dwellings. Of the “better sort of cabins,” a visitor to Ireland found in the late 1600s, “there is generally one flock bed, seldom more, feathers being too costly; this serves the man and his wife, the rest all lie on straw, some with one sheet and blanket, others only their clothes and blanket to cover them. The cabins have seldom any floor but the earth.”

Dwellings in general provided more limited shelter from the elements than modern homes. In 1703, a man named Thomas Naish related how after being awakened by a rainstorm he was unable to return to bed “for the violence of the noise, ratling of the tyles, and for fear that my house would fall down upon me.”

Ill-constructed houses generated their own cacophony, owing to shrinking timber, loose boards, drafty doors, broken windows, and open chimneys. All of which inclement weather made worse. Not only did keyholes whistle, but hinges and bolts gave way, and roofs leaked.

Many went to bed late: “Numerous people toiled past nightfall, both in towns and in the country.” In a world of intense poverty, the “pressures of subsistence . . . drove workers to toil late hours. . . . Of course, some laborers must have collapsed after returning home barely able from numbing fatigue to consume an evening meal, especially in rural regions during the summer when fieldwork grew most strenuous.” In 1777, a doctor in south-central France described peasants “returning home in the evening, harassed by weariness and misery.”

No matter how profound their exhaustion, the people of the past had little choice but to keep working late into the night. “Often there were jobs at night to do, from butchering stock to chopping wood to picking apples, all labor-intensive tasks able to be performed in poor light.” The full moon that occurs closest to the autumnal equinox earned the name “harvest moon” because it provided illumination for farmworkers gathering their crops late into the evening.

In the Netherlands, “maidservants might not retire until two or three o’clock” at night. Bakers began their work at night in order to provide freshly baked goods in the morning. A pamphlet from 1715 in Paris by journeymen bakers fumed, “We start our days in the evenings, we knead the dough at night; we have to spend all night in captivity. Night, the time of rest, is for us a time of torture.” Weavers and lacemakers were among the workers who often labored by candlelight:

“On long winter evenings, from Sweden to the Italian peninsula, mothers, daughters, and servants turned their hands to spinning wheels or looms.” Seemingly “every peasant at night [was] a weaver, some so poor that they relied upon moonlight to card wool.” “In the Fast Anglian city of Norwich, according to a census in the early 1570s, 94 percent of poor women performed textile work of some sort.”

All women were expected to stay up late working. “The good huswive’s [housewife’s] candle never goeth out,” remarked the writer William Baldwin in 1584, capturing the popular notion that women should work at all hours. Such attitudes were stable for centuries. The Book of Proverbs describes an ideal wife similarly: “Her candle goeth not out by night.” Preindustrial men, in contrast, often went to sleep at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m.

“Before bed, doors and shutters were double-checked.” Another pre-bedtime ritual was hunting for bedbugs and fleas and lice: Families combed the pests out of their hair, picked them out of beds, and plucked them off nightclothes. “Bugs were everywhere, especially given the proximity of dogs and livestock,” even in urban settings. Early modern Britons complained of “whole armies” of bugs attacking their night chambers.

Bedbugs plagued our ancestors in all seasons, but especially the warmer months. In areas of Europe with warmer climates such as Italy, tarantulas and scorpions also plagued households. The colonies of North America contended with mosquitoes and worse. “The Virginia servant John Harrower found a snake one night under his pillow.”

Rats and mice often joined the insect swarm in pestering our ancestors at night. “We might have rested, had not the mice rendezvoused over our faces,” a traveler in Scotland lamented in 1677. Such pests were infamously noisy. “Within some homes, most notoriously those with wooden frames fixed in the earth, such was the tumult created by rats and mice that walls and rafters seemed on the verge of collapse.”

“Bedding afforded notorious homes to lice, fleas, and bedbugs, the unholy trinity of early modern entomology. . . . Bedding rife with housemites triggered asthma.”

In colonial Delaware, one lodger trying to sleep captured a wide array of common complaints when he wrote of the “stink of the candle-snuff,” bugs, mosquitoes, the “grunting & groaning of a person asleep in the next room,” a “male bedfellow,” and the noise made by a cat.

“As if illness, foul weather, and fleas were not enough. There was yet another, even more familiar source of broken sleep in preindustrial societies”—a routine interval at night of wakefulness. For millennia, people slept in two distinct phases. Ekirch discovered this phenomenon through archival research and became the first historian to (co)author an article in the discipline of sleep science. For many preindustrial people, “biphasic sleep” was the norm.

The initial interval of sleep was called “first sleep.” Early classical writers such as Livy, Virgil, and Homer all invoked the term, as did numerous medieval and early modern writers. “After midnight, preindustrial households usually began to stir” and entered a routine period of wakefulness, sometimes called ‘the watch.’ . . . Some varieties of medicine, physicians advised, might be taken during this interval, including potions for indigestion, sores, and smallpox.” Women often used this window of time to tend children and “perform myriad chores.” Men also performed chores during this interval, such as Henry Best of Elmswell, who recorded tending to his cattle at midnight.

Unfortunately, many people used the interval to commit crimes. “At no other time of the night was there such a secluded interval in which to commit petty crimes: filching from dockyards and other urban workplaces, or, in the countryside, pilfering firewood, poaching, and robbing orchards.” Others still did not fully awake after their first sleep. “The French called this ambiguous interval of semi-consciousness dorveille, which the English termed ‘twixt sleepe and wake.’”

“Far from enjoying blissful repose, ordinary men and women likely suffered some degree of sleep deprivation, feeling as weary upon rising at dawn as when retiring at bedtime.” “Chronic fatigue . . . probably afflicted much of the early modern population.” Many laborers collapsed asleep from exhaustion during the day, prompting complaints of the working class’s tendency to nap: “‘At noon he must have his sleeping time,’ groused Bishop [James] Pilkington of the typical laborer in the late 1500s.” And a laborer’s days could start quite early, further limiting the opportunity for rest.


Read part two of the book review.

Blog Post | Human Development

A Feast of Human Progress and Abundance

Let’s give thanks for how far we’ve come since the time of the Pilgrims.

Summary: A family group chat about Thanksgiving dinner reflects centuries of extraordinary advancement. The same journey that once separated families by months can now be made in hours. A meal that was once a rare luxury has become highly affordable. From instant communication to abundant food, everyday conveniences serve as a reminder that human ingenuity has transformed hardship into prosperity.


Two weeks before Thanksgiving, my sister sent a link to our family group chat. It wasn’t an RSVP form; it was closer to an online wedding gift registry. All the Thanksgiving classic foodstuffs were on the list—turkey, honey baked ham, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, cranberry sauce, candied yams, green bean casserole, pumpkin pie, and more—each with a sign-up slot to commit to bringing the goods. This brief interaction represented numerous aspects of human progress, and I paused to take it in with awe and gratitude.

For one, I live in Boston, not far from where the original Thanksgiving Pilgrims settled in Plymouth, while my family lives in Los Angeles. The distance between us is almost identical to the distance between Britain and the New World, roughly 3,000 miles across land instead of ocean. Yet, the majority of Pilgrims never returned home and never even had the opportunity to stay in contact with the world they left behind. A letter across the Atlantic would cost days’ worth of wages and take months to arrive, if it found safe passage at all.

By the time the first Americans began settling in California in the 1840s, locomotives and the telegraph had been invented, but no transcontinental systems had yet been established. Most westward settlers knew they were signing up for a one-way journey taking many months, with high rates of death and disease. If they could maintain any contact with family on the other side of the continent, messages would take weeks via stagecoach. Even the extraordinarily speedy and expensive Pony Express system—with riders galloping nonstop at full speed, exchanging horses every 10-15 miles, and exchanging riders once or twice a day—still took 10 days to deliver messages across the country.

By the time the first transcontinental telegraph line was established in 1861, messages took minutes rather than weeks but were extraordinarily expensive—nearly a day’s average wage per word. Messages had to be brief and were largely reserved for the government, the military, and the ultra-wealthy. However, a decade later, the first transcontinental railroad was established, which, with the adoption of standardized domestic postage, meant most Americans could afford to send letters across the country and have them arrive within a week. Travel between Los Angeles and Boston became possible but still took weeks and cost several weeks’ worth of average wages.

Innovation accelerated even more rapidly during the 20th century with the invention and commercialization of telephones and air travel. By 1950, the luxuries of traveling between coasts in six hours and communicating across coasts in real time became possible. But these new services were still extraordinarily expensive. Transcontinental flights, both then and now, cost around $300; however, adjusted for inflation, a $300 flight in 1950 corresponds to well over $3,000 in today’s dollars. Likewise, while modern phone plans offer unlimited texts and calls for the equivalent of a few hours of the average minimum wage per month, transcontinental phone calls in the 1950s cost over $2.00 per minute, or over $27 per minute in today’s dollars. Only in the last 30 years, thanks to the economic engine of progress, did it become affordable for the average American to call long-distance for hours.

The technologies enabling long-distance communication and travel have improved immeasurably from the time of the Pilgrims.  That alone is reason enough to be thankful. But besides the amazing pocket-sized supercomputers and the satellite infrastructure that made my family’s group message possible, our exchange hinted at another amazing development that people often take for granted: food abundance.

My father grew up in a small Palestinian village in northern Israel, where most people were farmers. He was one of nine siblings and told stories of how chickens were slaughtered only on special occasions—red meat even rarer. A single bird was shared among a dozen people. “You were lucky if you got a drumstick,” my father said. Everything from feeding to slaughtering and plucking was done by hand. And without refrigeration, the meal had to be eaten at once.

By contrast, in the United States today, food is so cheap and plentiful that several relatives can volunteer to bring a whole turkey. At my local supermarket, frozen birds were recently on sale for $0.47 per pound. A 15-pound turkey, enough to feed a family, costs less than an hour’s minimum wage.

I am grateful for the world of superabundance, which has improved our lives and Thanksgiving holidays beyond what our ancestors could have dreamed. The fact that these interactions are commonplace enough to be taken for granted—communicating in real time across vast distances, flying across the country or around the world in hours, earning enough calories with a day’s wages to feed a family for a week—make our story of progress all the better.

This Thanksgiving, take a moment to consider how life has improved since the time of the Pilgrims. The food on your plate, the technology in your pocket, and the family who traveled long distances to be at the table were all made possible thanks to generations of compounding progress.

Reasons to be Cheerful | Child Abuse & Bullying

Moldova Is Making Orphanages Obsolete

“Moldova, like many post-Soviet nations, inherited a system heavily reliant on institutional child care. Prior to 2000, the country had over 17,000 children living in orphanages. Known in the country as residential institutions, they generally had austere conditions and provided a basic level of care and education…

But over the past two decades, the Moldovan government has been dismantling this legacy of institutional care, working with non-profits and UNICEF to prevent family separation and reform the child care system. Closing orphanages has given way to building new social support systems for disadvantaged families and single mothers, with the goal of keeping children with their birth families whenever possible. Introducing inclusive education for children with special needs has also been key, destigmatizing what it means to have a child with a disability. Developing a network of compassionate foster families has been at the heart of this shift.

The launch in 2007 of Moldova’s National Strategy to reform its residential childcare system aimed to deinstitutionalize 50 percent of children housed in orphanages as the country began focusing on raising social standards to align with the rest of Europe, all in preparation for EU membership, which it is still negotiating. Today, only around 700 children remain in Moldova’s orphanages. By 2027, the goal is to have none.”

From Reasons to be Cheerful.

Blog Post | Culture & Tolerance

What You Need to Know About Humans to Advance Human Progress

Neither nature nor nurture can be ignored.

Summary: Human progress depends on understanding human nature to some degree. Our blended capacities for cooperation, competition, empathy, and aggression cannot necessarily be ignored or overwritten by social engineering. Sustainable progress arises when institutions and innovations work with our evolved psychology rather than against it, channeling our instincts toward creativity, cooperation, and flourishing.


“Nature versus nurture” is a debate older than the field of psychology itself. Are we born with fixed traits, or are we shaped entirely by our upbringing? Of course, this is a false dichotomy. Both genes and environment shape most psychological traits. The real question is not nature versus nurture, but how much each contributes to different outcomes.

This question matters deeply for thinking about human progress. Any attempts at improving the human condition must be compatible with human nature, or they will risk creating more problems—such as the collapse of communist and socialist economies, for example—than they solve. And understanding human nature means grappling with our biological constraints and evolutionary history. Progress for squirrels might mean a world devoid of natural predators, where every tree grows acorns year-round. But human progress is a distinctly human concept.

As a psychologist, I am interested in the psychological foundations of human progress. To understand and sustain human progress, we must first understand the nature of the humans who are progressing. Strangely, the beings most capable of reflecting on our own values are also the most skilled at obfuscating them, as my graduate advisor, Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker, has explored at length in his books The Blank Slate and Rationality. Many influential thinkers throughout history have questioned or outright denied the concept of human nature. 

Superficially, that makes sense. Unlike some animals, which can walk and forage minutes after birth, human infants are born helpless and remain dependent on others for years. We are not born with language, and the languages we learn to speak depend entirely on the environment we were brought up in. As the English philosopher John Locke noted, all knowledge appears to come from experience, whether firsthand or taught by others. The human mind, at birth, is seemingly a true blank slate.

The blank-slate view was profoundly influential on the Enlightenment philosophy that set the stage for the miraculous forms of human progress in the coming centuries. If every baby starts out essentially the same, only advantaged or disadvantaged by their environment, then the case for equality becomes not just moral, but empirically necessary. It suggests that no one is born inherently superior, and that differences in status, intelligence, or virtue are all shaped by experience, not destiny. If all minds begin equally blank, then all individuals are capable of reason, learning, and democratic self-governance.

The idea that human nature was endlessly flexible fueled optimism, but it also began to cast blame on modern society. If we are all a product of our environments, then violence, poverty, and inequality were the results of a manipulated system. This philosophy was most famously embodied by the Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that humans were born fundamentally good and were corrupted by society. In his view, the natural state of humanity was one of egalitarian peace, disrupted only by the emergence of social institutions that fostered competition and inequality.

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in stark contrast, believed the default state of human life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. For Hobbes, society constrained the worst of our innate impulses, and a strong legal system made crime more dangerous than cooperation. While Hobbes’s vision was often caricatured as bleak or authoritarian, modern psychology has increasingly validated his core insight. Humans are not born peaceful and rational, but possess a mix of impulses—some prosocial, others aggressive, impulsive, and self-serving. As the Canadian developmental psychologist Richard Tremblay has shown, the most aggressive humans are, in fact, toddlers. Although they cannot inflict real harm, most toddlers hit, steal, and lie as soon as they are capable. As all parents know, these innate antisocial behaviors must be patiently weaned out of children through healthy socialization and repeated instruction.

These two visions—Rousseau’s romanticism and Hobbes’s realism—have shaped centuries of thought about human nature and the role of institutions. One sees society as the source of our problems; the other sees it as the solution. Both, in their extremes, miss the full picture. We are born capable of both empathy and cruelty, cooperation and tribalism, innovation and superstition. Society both nurtures us and constrains us. Different aspects of different ideologies and institutions both facilitate and prevent human progress.

Institutions are not just abstract systems—they are extensions of human psychology. Their success or failure often hinges on how well they accommodate and channel our evolved tendencies. When institutions align with human nature, they can guide self-interest into cooperation, aggression into justice, and tribalism into civic identity. When they ignore it, they risk collapse, corruption, or unintended negative consequences.

Consider the market economy. At its best, it transforms individual ambition into mutual benefit. Entrepreneurs seek profit, but in doing so, they create goods, services, and jobs. This is not a triumph over human nature—it is a clever use of it. As the Scottish economist Adam Smith noted, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Contrast that with utopian communes that attempt to erase hierarchy, suppress competition, or eliminate private property. These experiments often fail because they ignore deep-seated human drives for status, autonomy, and reciprocity. When institutions deny these drives, they invite dysfunction.

Successful democracies are not built on the belief that humans are all born the same, but that our differences can complement each other, given sufficient freedom and equality before the law. Checks and balances, the rule of law, and free speech are not just moral principles, but safeguards against the psychological realities that humans are fallible, competitive, and prone to power-seeking. Progress is not achieved by transcending our psychology, but by building systems that align with our best impulses and constrain our worst.

Despite these self-evident truths, discussions of progress often neglect human nature in favor of nurture. Whether arguing for government intervention in the market, increased social welfare spending, or profound cultural change, advocates of such positions share a commitment to reshaping our environments. Yet even in identical environments, outcomes vary dramatically depending on psychological factors such as trust, optimism, gratitude, and self-control. These are not variables that can be socially engineered. Instead, they are traits that arise from genetic inheritance, individual beliefs, decisions, and cultivation of habits.

Even in this almost miraculous age of superabundance—characterized by unprecedented material wealth, a high degree of freedom, and technological sophistication—many people feel lost, cynical, and devoid of purpose. To improve people’s psychological outlook, a deep understanding of human nature is necessary. That consists of considering not only our environments but also human nature itself. Without that understanding, progress can lead to unintended, sometimes negative, consequences. Material abundance can breed obesity and lethargy; excess freedom can lead to decision paralysis; technological progress can erode attention spans and lead to addiction. History shows that we are not blank slates who can be remolded into something we are not.

My role at Human Progress will be to not just examine the psychological aspects of progress—mental health, optimism, rationality, cooperation, creativity, and productivity—but to understand how progress interfaces with human nature and leads to human flourishing. In the words of the American economist Thomas Sowell, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Progress is a negotiation between our aspirations and our nature—between what we were built to be and what we hope to become. The most enduring advances come not from denying our instincts, but from designing systems that guide them toward constructive ends.

Blog Post | Culture & Tolerance

Moral Progress Is Hidden in Plain Sight

We're not getting worse, we just want better.

Summary: Every generation believes it is living through a moral decline, yet the evidence tells a different story. While people often perceive society as growing more selfish or rude, they see kindness and integrity in those closest to them. In reality, cooperation, generosity, and moral progress have grown over time. Our tendency to focus on the negative simply makes it harder to recognize how far we’ve come.


Every generation thinks it’s witnessing humanity’s moral collapse. New York Times columnist David Brooks claims that “we inhabit a society in which people are no longer trained in how to treat others with kindness and consideration.” But are these timeless claims now true? This time, are we really living in the most immoral era?

Moral panic and pessimism appear to be largely illusory. In a study conducted by psychologists Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert of Harvard University, they found that every generation perceives moral decline. By consolidating survey data covering 235 questions about morality over a 70-year period, and with more than 12 million participants, Mastroianni and Gilbert found that people collectively believed that their generation and successive generations are morally declining compared to previous ones.

But here’s the paradox: When people rated those close to them (neighbors, coworkers, friends, and family), the perception of moral decline disappeared. In some cases, they viewed people they knew as more moral than the population at large. Thus, people hold inconsistent beliefs: Everyone is becoming more selfish, rude, and dishonest—except the people they know best.

Mastroianni and Gilbert attribute this mistaken perception of moral decline to two psychological biases working in tandem. First, we overvalue, seek out, and focus on negative information. When we witness immoral behavior, this information becomes especially memorable, skewing our beliefs about human morality.

Second, we view the past through rose-colored glasses, remembering earlier times as better across many measures. Because of this bias, we naturally assume that people in previous generations were more moral and virtuous than they actually were.

“Moral behavior” is difficult to quantify, never mind track over time. As argued by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature, the modern world has experienced a severe decrease in homicide, slavery, and torture. Such historic moral improvement, Pinker argues, can be attributed to the advent of liberal society and the acceptance of Enlightenment values.

But the evidence for moral progress extends beyond these dramatic historical shifts. Social trust appears to be increasing as well. In a meta-analysis of social dilemma surveys from 1956–2017, psychologist Mingliang Yuan of Anhui Agricultural University and fellow researchers found that, in America, the “level of cooperation among strangers has increased” over the 61-year period. Moreover, they found that increases in urbanization and societal wealth correlated with greater social trust and cooperation.

This growing cooperation between strangers may help explain the increase in our charitable giving to people we’ll never meet. With the rise of the Information Age and global connectivity, we now have instant access to news about poverty and suffering worldwide, and we respond with unprecedented generosity.

According to Giving USA, in partnership with the University of Indiana School of Philanthropy, American charitable giving increased 3.3 percent (when adjusted for inflation) to $592.50 billion in the past year. The largest increase was in “international affairs” philanthropies, many of which aim to improve the well-being of the global poor.

The growth in charitable donations over the last decade has even inspired more evidence-based charities. One of these, GiveWell, publishes comprehensive research on the cost-effectiveness of the global health and development charities they fund. GiveWell even goes so far as to publish their mistakes, should a program or charitable organization prove to be less effective than expected, or if GiveWell’s research methods prove to be defective. They’re not only trying to maximize moral impact, but doing so with unusual transparency and self-correction.

Contrary to this evidence of generosity and the historic trends of moral progress, many still believe that the virtue of humanity is decaying. Some recent data seem to support their pessimism: The Understanding America Survey from the University of Southern California found in 2025 that conscientiousness (a tenet of the Big Five personality traits) is in decline. John Burn-Murdoch, at the Financial Times, speculates that this survey data on the decline of conscientiousness can be partially explained by technology enabling our ability to ghost and abandon social commitments. 

But we should interpret these findings carefully. The survey data on conscientiousness is self-reported: how people perceive their own conscientiousness. In a new global culture focused on self-optimization that rewards dieting, perfectionism, and prestige in higher education, it’s perhaps no surprise that we see ourselves as less dependable, less industrious, and not nearly as conscientious as our grandparents.

Even if we fall prey to thinking of our generation as less moral than our predecessors, we need not let this pessimism make us pessimistic. In Mastroianni’s paper, “Things Could Be Better,” he conducted seven studies asking participants to imagine various events, institutions, and objects to be different. In every experiment survey participants routinely thought of how it “could be better” and not how things “could be worse.” Thus, they were less likely to appreciate the ways humanity has progressed. Mastroianni noted in an interview, “When it comes to moral progress, we may be less grateful that we won’t get stabbed by a spear when we walk down the street, instead we feel like there’s moral decay when someone gives us a weird look on the bus.” 

We tend to overlook our moral progress and focus on how things could be better, which keeps us imagining a more virtuous world. Yet historical evidence shows we’re living in a time of unprecedented moral advancement; people are more cooperative, generous, and concerned for others than in any previous generation. We want to improve, and we want moral progress so much that at times we miss the forest for the trees.