This is not merely a criticism of humanism. It may be the most important question humanism must answer.
The twentieth century demonstrated both the heights and depths of human capability. Human beings produced science, medicine, and unprecedented technological progress. Yet the same century witnessed world wars, genocide, totalitarianism, and industrial-scale killing.
Given this history, confidence in humanity can seem naïve.
If human beings created many of the world's greatest problems, why should we believe they are capable of solving them?
The humanist response cannot be that humans are naturally good. History does not support such optimism. Human beings are capable of compassion and cruelty, wisdom and irrationality, cooperation and destruction.
A more realistic response is that humanism does not rely on human perfection. It relies on human responsibility.
If there is no divine intervention waiting in the wings, then responsibility for this world ultimately rests with us.
The uncomfortable truth is that there is nobody else. The beings who start wars are human beings. The beings who negotiate peace are also human beings. The beings who commit atrocities are human beings.
The beings who expose those atrocities, rescue victims, and build institutions to prevent them are human beings too.
The same species is capable of both.
This is why I am increasingly drawn to a form of humanism that is grounded in realism rather than optimism. Humanism should not be based on the belief that humans are inherently good. Instead, it should begin with the recognition that humans are unavoidably responsible.
As a healthcare professional, I see a parallel in medicine. Healthcare systems are imperfect. Doctors, nurses, and institutions make mistakes. Yet when people are sick, we do not conclude that medicine is useless because it is imperfect. We work to improve it because it remains the best tool we have. Likewise, human beings may be flawed, but reason, compassion, dialogue, and cooperation remain the best tools available for addressing human problems.
So the question we need to ask is not whether humans deserve our trust, If not humans, then who?
My current understanding of humanism is not that humanity will inevitably create a better world. Rather, it is that humanity bears the responsibility of trying. We may fail, sometimes spectacularly. But if a better future is to exist, it will not arrive through magic, destiny, or rescue from elsewhere. It will be created, if at all, by imperfect human beings working together.
September 2026
