All of Roger Parker's Comments + Replies

Is Progress Real?

Yes, cultural mindsets and institutions are impermanent and dynamic. But that implies they can improve as well as deteriorate.  Twelve thousand years ago most people were part of a band with a moral circle or network of three or four dozen people. Today we see networks of cooperation that involve billions in some cases.  Part of this is from the creation of rules, institutions, norms, and behavioral mindsets which allow us to increasingly solve the problems of cooperation. We have become more moral or at least our morality has become more effective and broader in scope. 

1TannyTalk2yYes, culture can improve, and has. Is our morality more effective? That's a tricky one. Consider that we have thousands of massive hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, and we generally find this ever present existential threat too boring to bother discussing. It seems we have a ways to go yet in achieving effective morality. I think we're basically agreeing that culture can both improve and deteriorate. The history of modern Germany perhaps offers one example of that. High culture, to primitive barbarism, and then back to high culture.
Is Progress Real?

Stimulating comment!  Building upon it, perhaps it could add value if we separate human nature which we are born with and likely hasn’t changed much over the last few millennia, from human nature embedded within culture and institutions and various mindsets and frameworks.  

In other words, what do we mean by "human morality"? If we restrict it to our innate human nature, then it probably hasn’t made any progress. But if we look at our abilities to form larger and more constructive and cooperative networks, then the increase in moral progress has been immense over the last century or two. 

1TannyTalk2yHi Roger, I agree with comments. Yes, there has been important progress within the content of thought. But because that kind of morality is just ideas, it's not permanent or durable. It can change quickly based on particular local circumstances. It is of course nonetheless an important project to keep working on. Here's an example which may add to what we're exploring. To my knowledge, every ideology ever invented has inevitably subdivided in to competing internal factions. The universality of this experience suggests the source of the division is something that all ideologies have in common. This can not be their content, for the content of ideologies varies widely. What all ideologies have in common is what they're all made of, thought. And so we see many very different ideologies all follow a similar path of internal division, due to the nature of the medium in which all the ideologies exist.
Think wider about the root causes of progress

Two of the other major requirements for the Modern Breakthrough (McCloskey's term I believe) which I have seen in most profiles of the phenomenon (I have read dozens) have been:

  1. The open nature of three plus new continents with very few people (after disease wiped them out). This not only provided 20X the room to grow in amazingly fertile areas, it also provided an influx of better staple crops (potatoes and corn), timber, and the dynamic ability to establish hundreds of new statelets.  This was both a favorable condition leading up to the IR, it also
... (read more)
Why pessimism sounds smart

"But if progress is a primarily matter of agency, then whether it continues is up to us."

It isn't so easy. The problem is it is not up to individual agency, but the cumulative dynamic equilibrium of 8 billion people along with a healthy dose of luck and contingency. I strongly agree that we saw unprecedented amounts of progress over the past two centuries, but there is no guarantee it will continue. 
 

That said, there are things we can do to increase the likelihood of progress. These include better understanding how progress works, and by spreading out our bets so that all our eggs aren’t in one or two baskets. 

Where is “Progress Studies” Going?

Chris, you seem to be reducing "progress" down to "technology". This is exactly the type of thing progress studies needs to clarify. As someone who has spent half his life studying progress, my two cents on the issue is that it is helpful to view two distinct types of progress. 
The first is what I call type 1 progress or progress in capability, knowledge or technology. This is nukes! Progress in technology and capability are fairly commonplace in history and even evolution.

The second is what I call type 2 progress, or progress in outcome or welfare. T... (read more)