Brexit

[wufwugy]

The original quote was: I've learned that humans generally get less miserable when we collaborate and that we get totally hosed when we choose ideology over actual humans.

A literal impossibility.

He didn't say anything about what he "considers positive-for-humans developments"; I don't see where you got this from that quote. "Generally get less miserable" is about as broad a brush as can be painted while specifically avoiding saying that said reduction in misery is positive. If anything, I grant you, he's implying that it's less bad than being "totally hosed."

His view is that some things make things better (less miserable) than other things (totally hosed). That he considers the former to arise from "positive-for-humans developments" is necessary.

He didn't say what the root causes or manifestations of collaboration are (or aren't). I don't see how the Enlightenment is antithetical to the sentence. A quick Google search shows that the Enlightenment looks like it was about freeing humans to think and share their thoughts in an open and free way, which is fairly rockin'.

I added the explanation about the Enlightenment for your benefit.

I think he'd say that to the extent that Enlightenment ideologies promoted the humans, things generally got less miserable and that to the extent that the ideals of the Enlightenment were used to suppress humans, things got totally hosed.

This is the same as saying that which is good for people is good for people. A meaningful explanation regarding history provides a description of potential causality. The Enlightenment is widely considered that causality for the betterment of humankind.

It is NOT the case that pursuit of ideology has made things worse and pursuit of "humans" makes things better. His statement misses the mark in two ways: (1) that which he says is not ideology is still ideology and (2) particular ideologies are the backbone for what made things "less miserable."