The kids who took it as a given that things would get worse had little motivation to try to make things better. It will be the kids who think things can improve who make a positive difference to what happens. So the myth of progress is methodological. — Banno

The "myth of progress" is that progress is inevitable. It's not the myth of progress which is methodically efficacious, but the attitude of openness that allows that progress is possible, but by no means inevitable. This is dialectically opposed to the attitude that "it [is] a given that things [will] get worse"; that progress is impossible.

The kids who took it as a given that things would get worse had little motivation to try to make things better. It will be the kids who think things can improve who make a positive difference to what happens. So the myth of progress is methodological.

There is an obvious parallel here to virtue ethics, in that it's folk who think they can improve on their actions as are the ones who work to improve themselves. Those who think they cannot improve their standing will not make an effort. — Banno

I am reminded of a couplet Goethe wrote to a young Schopenhauer.

Willst du dich des Lebens freuen, So musst der Welt du Werth verleihen.

"If you wish to draw pleasure out of life, You must attach value to the world."

Or as a friend of mine used to say - "Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophesy."

Not sure what your point is here. My purpose was to point out that "progress" is an attitude rather than a fact, that Pinker's error is to treat it as a fact, an error that to some extent shares in his criticism of Pinker.

"If you wish to draw pleasure out of life, You must attach value to the world." — Tom Storm

The lesson of existentialism is that you don't get not to attach value to the stuff around you. But you do, at least to some extent, get to choose which values you attach to what.

After all, would anyone posit that it would be bad for things to get better?

...the prosperity of some nations is bought at the expense of others... — Isaac

Then progress must include all. Perhaps we can do better. That this has been undoubtedly the case in the past leads conservative thinkers to conclude that it must always be so. But must it?

After all, would anyone posit that it would be bad for things to get better? — Banno

News Limited? Catastrophe is their daily bread. But I get your point.

One hopes that's coming back to bite them on the bum. But, yes.

Any and all attitudes are open to manipulation.

Not sure what your point is here. My purpose was to point out that "progress" is an attitude rather than a fact, that Pinker's error is to treat it as a fact, an error that ↪Jamal
to some extent shares in his criticism of Pinker. — Banno

I wasn't concerned whether progress is a "fact". I was merely pointing out that there is a distinction between the defeatist attitude that it is impossible, the optimistic attitude that it is possible, and the complacent attitude that it is inevitable.

Regarding whether it is justifiable to think progress is a fact; I don't see how it could be since just what progress consists in is too open to interpretation to be unequivocal.

Then progress must include all. Perhaps we can do better. That this has been undoubtedly the case in the past leads conservative thinkers to conclude that it must always be so. But must it? — Banno

I think certain types of progress (the type forming the bulk of Pinker's evidence-bank) are quite inextricably tied to exploitation since they rely on some form of excess in the energy budget - either that excess is taken from the exploitation of labour, or from the hoarding of resources, or from debt to future generations in terms of pollution and environmental degradation.

There may not be Malthusian limits to growth (that much I agree is arguable), but there are clearly limits to the rate of growth. we cannot develop faster than human minds can come up with sustainable ways to extract more value form the same limited resources (the earth and it's environs).

The problem, therefore, that I find with Pinker's "Let's not slide back" argument is that it encourages us to continue with the unsustainable growth (innovation which expands value at the expense of others) whilst we're waiting for sustainable growth (innovation which doesn't). I can't see a justification for that.

I think this is the harm of 'the myth of progress'. It takes progress as the primary objective and sustainability as a kind of 'nice to have' icing on the cake. But sustainability, and equality, should be the constraints on any progress bar none, meaning no 'progress' which doesn't meet these criteria should take place.

Taking sustainability and equality seriously means remaining in our apocryphal 'mud huts' for ten thousand years if necessary until we innovate the centrally heated, air conditioned bungalow in a form which is available to everyone, regardless of their status, and does not take more from its environment than it can sustain in its lifetime.

I don't think many are really willing to concede that.

If you haven’t read it already, I’d recommend Graeber and Wengrow’s Dawn of Everything. It is a critique of Darwinist progressive accounts of anthropological change as seen in Pinker, Diamond and Harari. Graeber shares your moralist individualism, asserting that each culture in each era of history makes valuative choices ( equality-inequality, hierarchy- nonhierarchy, statist- non statist) above and beyond geographical, technological and other material determinants. — Joshs

Excellent reading suggestion, thanks! :up: I’m part way through it now. Might have to renew the e-book a few more times. A long book isn’t a problem when it’s interesting... and digital books don’t weigh 20 lbs, lol.

Early in the book, the authors make a striking (to me) claim: that European contact with Native Americans heavily influenced, if not outright caused, the European Age of Enlightenment. Specifically, the interactions of English-speaking Natives and European settlers which were transcribed. In a nutshell, the fluent Natives proved to be so rational and intelligent, and most importantly, devastatingly critical of the European way of life (both in America and in Europe), that it influenced many who read it. And it spread from there. Some Natives visited Europe, of course, where they got a first hand view that repelled them. They thought the Europeans to be savages!

The authors also theorize that modern Westerners might actually be closer overall in thought to the Natives, with their ideas of freedom (equality is a more complicated thing, which the authors dwell on later). The rigid hierarchical society of Europe would seem stifling and bizarre to us (if I’m understanding their position).

Don’t confuse motion with progress. (As the saying goes).
Don’t confuse progress with improvement either. (One might add).
And don’t always believe that “improvement” is really what you are looking for in a particular situation. (Seeking the newest and latest cutting edge etc).

And don’t forget the stillness that underlies all this motion...
and the silence that surrounds all, eternally listening...

I was merely pointing out that there is a distinction between the defeatist attitude that it is impossible, the optimistic attitude that it is possible, and the complacent attitude that it is inevitable. — Janus

Interesting. Attitudes are central to this. I've been debating this idea of progress (mostly badly) for decades. Not as a philosopher but more simply as a reflection of my culture, here in Australia.

I think where people sit on this has a lot to do with their aesthetics and politics more than anything. For instance, it seems that there are many people who have an understandable critical antipathy towards capitalism and though this lens it is almost impossible to see a version of the world that is not one of ceaseless exploitation, degradation and suffering.

Pinker as an evidentialist seems to bracket the world and describe or isolate progress as a series of calculations that speak for themselves. It's a kind of progress positivism. Not sure what I think about this.

I was talking to an Aboriginal man I know who (like most First Nations people) can look back at his family and culture as a kind of history of white oppression and genocide. Families torn apart by deliberate social policies, not being able to vote as citizens until 1967, deaths in custody, racism, etc, etc. I asked him if he believed in progress. "Fuck yeah!" he responded. 'But we're only part of the way there.' Progress is situational, specific and reversible and never completed and can't be understood as some kind of Hegelian process.

I think where people sit on this has a lot to do with their aesthetics and politics more than anything. For instance, it seems that there are many people who have an understandable critical antipathy towards capitalism and though this lens it is almost impossible to see a version of the world that is not one of ceaseless exploitation, degradation and suffering. — Tom Storm

From some ethical and aesthetical perspectives, there is certainly something ugly, something degraded, about capitalism and the priveleging of the profit motive. Exploitation has always been with us in the forms of slavery and serfdom for example. but capitalism packages itself as a kind of meritocratic freedom, a survival of the best, a rising of the cream to the top; it creates a semblance of (a potential at least) universal prosperity that does everything it can to keep the real victims in the shadows, and if they appear on the stage for a few brief moments, a litany of promissory notes will be presented to set everyone's minds at rest.

I asked him if he believed in progress. "Fuck yeah!" he responded. 'But we're only part of the way there.' Progress is situational and specific and never completed and can't be understood as some kind of Hegelian process. — Tom Storm

The question is whether he meant to say that he believed in the ideal of progress, or to put it another way, whether he believed that progress is desirable. Would many people deny that progress in the sense of social betterment, fairness and justice and greater prosperity for all is desirable?

The question as to whether, and to what degree, these ideals are becoming actualized or whether their universal actualization would even be practicable are very different ones, it seems to me.

And on the flip side I agree that to see progress as inevitable, as a necessary evolution of consciousness or the Spirit seems to be largely wishful thinking.

Would many people deny that progress in the sense of social betterment, fairness and justice and greater prosperity for all is desirable? — Janus

I think the problem is that progress is hard to define and aligned with worldviews. Hence the internecine battles between 'progressives' and conservatives.

From some ethical and aesthetical perspectives, there is certainly something ugly, something degraded, about capitalism — Janus

No arguments - but I was putting the view without wanting to explore this as a separate point.

The question is whether he meant to say that he believed in the ideal of progress — Janus

I think the notion of the ideal of progress was not overtly a part of his worldview. But he did feel there was some, shall we say 'transcendent' aspect of improvement built into human spirituality.

I think the problem is that progress is hard to define and aligned with worldviews. Hence the internecine battles between 'progressives' and conservatives. — Tom Storm

I agree with the idea that there are different notions of progress, but wouldn't social justice and universal prosperity (and the other benefits that go with those) be in common, with the differences being more in the way of how to get there?

I think the notion of the ideal of progress was not overtly a part of his worldview. But he did feel there was some, shall we say 'transcendent' aspect of improvement built into human spirituality. — Tom Storm

Would you say that if he thought progress was desirable then the ideal of progress would at least be implicit in his worldview? I'm curious to know what a " 'transcendent' aspect of improvement built into human spirituality' would look like to your friend. Would this refer to just individual spiritual improvement via personal effort or to some kind of divine plan as in Christianity or some other religion perhaps?

I'm curious to know what a " 'transcendent' aspect of improvement built into human spirituality' would look like to your friend — Janus

Fair point. It's likely to be Aboriginal culture/spirituality, which I don't pretend to understand but it is hinting at human nature having an openness to goodness as a dimension of how we were created. This is put together from longer conversations.

wouldn't social justice and universal prosperity (and the other benefits that go with those) be in common, with the differences being more in the way of how to get there? — Janus

Yep. I think many human problems come down to how we get there. Just as morality is not a theory, it is what we do.

It's likely to be Aboriginal culture/spirituality, which I don't pretend to understand but it is hinting at human nature having an openness to goodness as a dimension of how we were created. This is put together from longer conversations. — Tom Storm

That's interesting; I know not much about Aboriginal spirituality.

Yep. I think many human problems come down to how we get there. Just as morality is not a theory, it is what we do. — Tom Storm

:up:

I think this is the harm of 'the myth of progress'. It takes progress as the primary objective and sustainability as a kind of 'nice to have' icing on the cake. But sustainability, and equality, should be the constraints on any progress bar none, meaning no 'progress' which doesn't meet these criteria should take place. — Isaac

I agree with that.

In a way, sustainability enforces itself. Unsustainable activity can't last forever. When the crash comes, there is turmoil and after a while, we start again. Maybe we avoid some of the mistakes that caused the crash. We will certainly make some new ones.

Equality is a different matter. It may well be ideal, but I suspect that the best we can expect is tolerable inequality. "Tolerable" requires the power elite in a political system to recognize when they need to bend with the wind of popular discontent. The example of Bismark's State socialism is instructive. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany). Not that I'm recommending oligarchy.

Taking sustainability and equality seriously means remaining in our apocryphal 'mud huts' for ten thousand years if necessary until we innovate the centrally heated, air conditioned bungalow in a form which is available to everyone, regardless of their status, and does not take more from its environment than it can sustain in its lifetime. — Isaac

You're right. That's a tough sell. I think that some compromise will be necessary.

an openness to goodness as a dimension of how we were created. — Tom Storm

There is a tendency to polarize ideas of human nature; either it is a Good Thing (Rouseau) or a Bad Thing (Hobbes). But either view is mistaken. Our crises have not been created by some evil force, but by the limitations of our understanding of what we have been doing for, say, the last two hundred years. We know more now, but it is safe to predict that our understanding is still limited. We'll find out what we have not thought of eventually.

Would many people deny that progress in the sense of social betterment, fairness and justice and greater prosperity for all is desirable? — Janus

Very few would deny that. But there would be different and competing interpretations of what they mean. People will always defend what they have and usually look for improvement from where they are.

There is a tendency to polarize ideas of human nature; either it is a Good Thing (Rouseau) or a Bad Thing (Hobbes). But either view is mistaken. — Ludwig V

I don't think this is relevant to my example and certainly not how this person would view human nature. I was trying (badly) to describe an aspect of Aboriginal spirituality as informing the man's view. No need to provide exegesis on it since the account is flawed and incomplete. :wink:

What you describe is classic Western dualistic thinking and this bifurcated view of reality is, I agree, unproductive.

Very few would deny that. But there would be different and competing interpretations of what they mean. People will always defend what they have and usually look for improvement from where they are. — Ludwig V

I think it's more a case of disagreement over how to get there than disagreement over what they mean. I agree that people will defend what they have and that is the problem; for all to enjoy more or less equal prosperity it would be necessary for the most prosperous to become far less prosperous, so that the least prosperous can become far more prosperous..

It is easy to advocate for social justice and fairness and prosperity for all as an ideal; the actuality may be far less appealing to the side that currently enjoys the prosperity.

What you describe is classic Western dualistic thinking and this bifurcated view of reality is, I agree, unproductive. — Tom Storm

I agree. I agree also that you were careful to make the status of your interpretation (or perhaps quasi-interpretation?) clear.

I had no intention of commenting on Aboriginal ideas about human nature. I'm not remotely competent to do so. I'm sorry if I gave a different impression.

I thought (perhaps wrongly) that a protest against that dualist thinking was relevant because still it infects Western (European) ideas about progress and a reminder of what many others have said seemed appropriate.

It is easy to advocate for social justice and fairness and prosperity for all as an ideal; the actuality may be far less appealing to the side that currently enjoys the prosperity. — Janus

Yes. So it shouldn't have been a surprise when large corporations started to fund (and manipulate) anti-climate change research. On the other hand, it looks to me as if at least some capitalists are realizing that there is money to be made (which should have been obvious all along). To be fair, there have always been a few prosperous people who were able to recognize the importance of the issue and supported it because it is necessary rather than for financial reasons. So there are some ways to get the more prosperous to join in the project.

I think it's more a case of disagreement over how to get there than disagreement over what they mean. — Janus

H'mm. I'm not sure about that. There is indeed plenty of room for disagreement about how to get there. But there's also room for disagreement about where "there" is.

For example, I was taken aback when I realized that my modest circumstances would count as riches in what is still hopefully called the developing world. Realizing that I might count as enjoying prosperity and consequently be liable to a decline in my standard of living was somewhat alarming. I can't help hoping that I can at least maintain my current standards. I'm sure many people who are better off than me have exactly the same hope.

In a way, sustainability enforces itself. Unsustainable activity can't last forever. When the crash comes, there is turmoil and after a while, we start again. Maybe we avoid some of the mistakes that caused the crash. We will certainly make some new ones. — Ludwig V

That's true, but foreseeable impacts are still part of the knowledge-base on which we build. If I invent a machine which I can tell will explode after six uses, I go back to the drawing board, it needs refinement. I don't put it into productions and say "well, it works for the first five, we'll improve on it later".

So a technology for which we can see we'll run out of the main fuel, or run out of capacity to hold the waste product, is a technology that doesn't work. Back to the drawing board.

Un-foreseeable lack of sustainability is obviously going to be part of any technological innovation in a complex world, but we're dealing, in the most part, with completely foreseeable issues.

Equality is a different matter. It may well be ideal, but I suspect that the best we can expect is tolerable inequality. "Tolerable" requires the power elite in a political system to recognize when they need to bend with the wind of popular discontent. — Ludwig V

Yes, I think that's right. Some inequality is inevitable. I'm not sure that the power elite are the problem though. No elite has that much power, in real terms. It's not hard to overthrow a government. Populations outnumber them by factors of thousands to one at least, not even the bristling armaments of the US can counter that ratio. Likewise with corporations. It's easy to bring Amazon to its knees. Just stop buying stuff from it.

It's solidarity that's the problem. Hence the main focus of any institution of power is to divide.

It's solidarity that's the problem. Hence the main focus of any institution of power is to divide. — Isaac

Wise words.

So a technology for which we can see we'll run out of the main fuel, or run out of capacity to hold the waste product, is a technology that doesn't work. Back to the drawing board.

Un-foreseeable lack of sustainability is obviously going to be part of any technological innovation in a complex world, but we're dealing, in the most part, with completely foreseeable issues. — Isaac

You're right about both of these. I hate to make things complicated, but you don't mention a third category, issues that are foreseeable but not foreseen. For whatever reason.

In your first case, it depends when the limitation is recognized. If it is recognized before the technology is introduced, back to the drawing board is not too hard. Yet, even then, and certainly after it becomes well established, people may prefer kicking the can down the road to the inevitably disruptive process of re-design.

It's solidarity that's the problem. Hence the main focus of any institution of power is to divide. — Isaac

Certainly that's a popular tactic. It gets more complicated, though. Power structures can fall apart because of internal disunity. They need their own support to remain united.

Wise words. — Tom Storm

Thanks. Used to be pretty standard fare on the left. But then so did opposition to corporate profiteering, so I suppose I'm something of a dying breed...

you don't mention a third category, issues that are foreseeable but not foreseen. For whatever reason. — Ludwig V

Ah...The infamous known unknowns.

people may prefer kicking the can down the road to the inevitably disruptive process of re-design. — Ludwig V

I think people are told that, but it's bollocks.

Think if your average joe's life - college, university, early career climbing the promotion ladder... we're talking about something like 30-40 hours per week of hard work dedicated to nothing more than just getting food, shelter, warmth etc. That's some 30--40 thousand hours. Just a flat screen TV might represent some 100 hours of solid hard work at some menial task to afford.

The 'disruption' is a bogeyman. We're a species happy to put in 100 hours of menial labour to have Keanu Reeve's face slightly bigger on the lounge wall.

We're told the status quo is too fragile to be disturbed. It's repeated often enough to make it one of the most compelling narratives of our time. We've had our moments where people challenged that, but now the idea is back with a vengeance. Aspirational politics has lost to "We'd love to change but I'm afraid our hands are tied" centrists.

Power structures can fall apart because of internal disunity. They need their own support to remain united. — Ludwig V

Absolutely. And this affects all levels of organisation, form the protest group to the Hedge Fund board. It's a pretty damning indictment of modern protest movements that they can't even make any headway against corporations that are themselves as wracked with infighting as ever. It's not as if we face a united shield-wall of profiteering ideologues. They're a divided, back-stabbing shambles. It's pathetic that the left can't even muster enough solidarity to make a dent.

The 'disruption' is a bogeyman. — Isaac

Your case study (thought-case study) is persuasive. But I had in mind people losing their jobs and even careers. The new jobs are often lower paid, lower status, somewhere else and so on. It is serious. It may still be worth it, but it needs good, sympathetic management, which doesn't usually seem to be provided - not even by those who profit from the change.

It's pathetic that the left can't even muster enough solidarity to make a dent. — Isaac

Tell me about it. It seems to be part of the left-wing personality that compromise in the name of solidarity is regarded as betrayal. Although to be fair, I have noticed similar tendencies in the right wing as well.

I had in mind people losing their jobs and even careers. The new jobs are often lower paid, lower status, somewhere else and so on. It is serious. It may still be worth it, but it needs good, sympathetic management, which doesn't usually seem to be provided - not even by those who profit from the change. — Ludwig V

Yes, definitely. It depends though what kind of changes are associated with a drop in wages. There's very little evidence to show an association between excess income and well-being, so we only need focus really on necessities. I agree that this is often not even covered by some changes envisaged, but I'm really talking here about a more low impact lifestyle which I don't see as being intrinsically problematic in terms of well-being. There doesn't seem to be any strong connection.

Tell me about it. It seems to be part of the left-wing personality that compromise in the name of solidarity is regarded as betrayal. — Ludwig V

That's exactly it. Which suggests tribalism, rather than human well-being, is the more prominent driving force.