On the other hand, you may not have many progress skeptics in your audience.
Since I agree with you, we can't debate this topic. But I would gladly debate you on the topic "Are Renewable Energy Investments a Waste of Resources?" If, that is, we can mutually agree on a list of rules as precise as the ones you propose above. In writing or on video stream, either way.
Post an article on your column. I will consider it, but I am not sure that your phrasing really gets to the heart of the matter. The question needs to be clearly falsifiable and not just a matter of opinion or based on predictions of the future.
Also, I am not interested in debating climate change, which I think is where you want to take the debate. My goal is promoting human material progress.
I do not think anyone can rationally argue that we have not see great material and social progress worldwide over the last two centuries.
From this it does not follow that all aspects have been good. After all, the most prosperous countries often report the worst mental wellbeing, see link below. So that no, material and social progress, as they are generally conceived of in the West, and apparently by you, does not necessarily lead to greater happiness.
Still less does it mean that this material and social progress will continue into the future indefinitely. This is of course why you've excluded the future as part of your "debate". It's a neat dodge of the thrust of what people actually care about, the future. That I am well off today means little to me if I am to be in the shit tomorrow, and that I am in the shit today can be tolerated if I am to be well-off tomorrow. People care more about tomorrow than today or yesterday.
So: what will happen to me and my children tomorrow? What about the billions living in poverty today? You can't dodge that so easily.
Material progress depends on - well, materials. And resources are finite. Rational people believe in progress, religious people believe in Progress! and Science! - "they'll think of something" and "well what about the asteroids?" and "maybe we'll all live to 100 someday" and so on and so forth are not rational statements, but statements of faith.
There's nothing wrong with having faith. But "they'll think of something" is no more nor less rational than "allah is the one true god and -" etc. Public policy and understanding of the world must be based in rational realities, not faith.
This study that you linked to is only from 2019 to 2023, and this period spans the largest pandemic of the last century. Virtually all the decline in reported well-being is during 2020, so the period of real change is very short.
It is much too short a period to be useful in identifying long-term trends, and it is very plausible that the causes of the decline are the pandemic and government responses to the pandemic.
There is no evidence in this report that we have reached a major turning point in material or mental well-being. Perhaps in 10 to 20 years, we will be able to say that, but now it is pure speculation.
If you want to start a debate on the future or "Mental State of the World" with someone else, fine. Start one on your own Substack. That is not what this challenge is about.
And I already addressed some of this in another article. If you want to comment on that article, please do so there:
"That progress has had such an enormous positive effect on humanity that we need to integrate that fact into our worldview. "
The mental wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people can reasonably be taken to lie within the scope of "an enormous positive effect on humanity." And a worldview is somewhat deficient if it does not include mental wellbeing. Now you wish to exclude mental wellbeing. This makes as much sense as excluding physical wellbeing.
What you're saying is, "apart from all the ways it's caused harm, it's caused nothing but good." Well of course.
In a genuine debate, you don't get to define all the terms. What you have is a neutral moderator who defines the terms, and then the two parties debate it out along those. You're trying to be both the moderator and a debater. Both the judge and the defendant against the plaintiff. Well of course the plaintiff can't win in those circumstances.
A more reasonable response would be to read the report, and then to acknowledge that material progress is like everything else: there is a point of diminishing returns followed by a point of negative returns. We could say that people are better off with telephones, for example, but they are worse with smartphones are 8 years old. That's a reasonable position to take.
1) Your argument has no logic, human material progress may cause enormous positive effects, while another factor can undermine mental well-being. That is a different issue. That by the way is what I think is happening.
2) I have already given you a huge amount of evidence in a link that human material progress is closely connected to self-reported happiness. You apparently ignored it.
3) If you want to debate that on your own Substack, go right ahead.
4) If you can find a "neutral moderator" to referee a debate on human material progress, then please tell me who that person is.
5) Yes, material progress may turn negative in the future, but you have presented no evidence that it has actually done so. You have acknowledged that it is "obvious" in another comment.
6) Saying that human material progress has diminishing returns acknowledges its existence.
7) I never excluded mental well being as a concept. It is just not what I want to debate. I think a debate on mental well being will just go in circles (just like your comments).
I never argued that "this material and social progress will continue into the future indefinitely." I can promise you that it will eventually end, but no one knows when.
Neither you nor I nor anyone else know what will happen in the future.
Looking back at material history to see trends is not a"faith."
I never said any of the quotes that you attributed to me in quote marks. It is very unethical for you to pretend to be quoting me, when you are just making it up.
You are obviously not even trying to understand what I am saying.
I love this debate series. I just wish we could find a way to find voices from the other side. Perhaps direct invites to those with substacks on the other side of the debate? Seems like once something like this took off that it would be great for subscriptions for all involved.
Is this something that we could post in the Astral Codex open dialogue discussion threads?
It's because you've neatly crafted your argument to refute any serious discussion.
"Looking just at the measures I think are important, and ignoring everything else, and pretending the future doesn't exist... Progress!"
It's like looking at a square metre of the wall of the Hiroshima dome and arguing that atomic bombs are harmless. "See? Nobody will debate me! I must be right."
In your other comment, you said "I do not think anyone can rationally argue that we have not see great material and social progress worldwide over the last two centuries."!!!!!!
So basically your argument is:
1) You are obviously correct
2) I care about other things more.....
3) So therefore "you've neatly crafted your argument to refute any serious discussion."
Your entire comment is obfuscation. I have specifically crafted the challenge to create a serious discussion based on real data, not opinions or haggling over definitions.
Your arguments make no sense:
1) I did not restrict the challenge to anything remotely close to "a square metre of the wall." I specifically stated that the challenge is for "the entire world."
2) I never specified a measurement. The third part of the challenge says "What data do you have...?" I specifically mentioned 19 different metrics as examples. I am not restricting the debate to them.
3) I specified a concept of "material standard of living" and left it up to the debaters to choose their own metric.
4) Yes, I left out the future. A debate on the future is pointless because neither you nor I nor anyone else knows what will happen. We only know about the past and the present.
Still waiting for my first taker...
Are there really no brave skeptics of progress, who are willing to debate me?
Or did all of them read the questions, and then suddenly realize that I am correct?
<queue the Jeopardy theme music>
You are correct, of course. Progress is real.
On the other hand, you may not have many progress skeptics in your audience.
Since I agree with you, we can't debate this topic. But I would gladly debate you on the topic "Are Renewable Energy Investments a Waste of Resources?" If, that is, we can mutually agree on a list of rules as precise as the ones you propose above. In writing or on video stream, either way.
Please forward my challenge to anyone who is skeptical of progress.
Post an article on your column. I will consider it, but I am not sure that your phrasing really gets to the heart of the matter. The question needs to be clearly falsifiable and not just a matter of opinion or based on predictions of the future.
Also, I am not interested in debating climate change, which I think is where you want to take the debate. My goal is promoting human material progress.
The debate challenge post is up in my column.
Thanks. I replied in the Comments.
I do not think anyone can rationally argue that we have not see great material and social progress worldwide over the last two centuries.
From this it does not follow that all aspects have been good. After all, the most prosperous countries often report the worst mental wellbeing, see link below. So that no, material and social progress, as they are generally conceived of in the West, and apparently by you, does not necessarily lead to greater happiness.
Still less does it mean that this material and social progress will continue into the future indefinitely. This is of course why you've excluded the future as part of your "debate". It's a neat dodge of the thrust of what people actually care about, the future. That I am well off today means little to me if I am to be in the shit tomorrow, and that I am in the shit today can be tolerated if I am to be well-off tomorrow. People care more about tomorrow than today or yesterday.
So: what will happen to me and my children tomorrow? What about the billions living in poverty today? You can't dodge that so easily.
Material progress depends on - well, materials. And resources are finite. Rational people believe in progress, religious people believe in Progress! and Science! - "they'll think of something" and "well what about the asteroids?" and "maybe we'll all live to 100 someday" and so on and so forth are not rational statements, but statements of faith.
There's nothing wrong with having faith. But "they'll think of something" is no more nor less rational than "allah is the one true god and -" etc. Public policy and understanding of the world must be based in rational realities, not faith.
https://sapienlabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/4th-Annual-Mental-State-of-the-World-Report.pdf
This study that you linked to is only from 2019 to 2023, and this period spans the largest pandemic of the last century. Virtually all the decline in reported well-being is during 2020, so the period of real change is very short.
It is much too short a period to be useful in identifying long-term trends, and it is very plausible that the causes of the decline are the pandemic and government responses to the pandemic.
There is no evidence in this report that we have reached a major turning point in material or mental well-being. Perhaps in 10 to 20 years, we will be able to say that, but now it is pure speculation.
If you want to start a debate on the future or "Mental State of the World" with someone else, fine. Start one on your own Substack. That is not what this challenge is about.
And I already addressed some of this in another article. If you want to comment on that article, please do so there:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-are-people-still-unhappy-in-a
You said in regards to material progress,
"That progress has had such an enormous positive effect on humanity that we need to integrate that fact into our worldview. "
The mental wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people can reasonably be taken to lie within the scope of "an enormous positive effect on humanity." And a worldview is somewhat deficient if it does not include mental wellbeing. Now you wish to exclude mental wellbeing. This makes as much sense as excluding physical wellbeing.
What you're saying is, "apart from all the ways it's caused harm, it's caused nothing but good." Well of course.
In a genuine debate, you don't get to define all the terms. What you have is a neutral moderator who defines the terms, and then the two parties debate it out along those. You're trying to be both the moderator and a debater. Both the judge and the defendant against the plaintiff. Well of course the plaintiff can't win in those circumstances.
A more reasonable response would be to read the report, and then to acknowledge that material progress is like everything else: there is a point of diminishing returns followed by a point of negative returns. We could say that people are better off with telephones, for example, but they are worse with smartphones are 8 years old. That's a reasonable position to take.
1) Your argument has no logic, human material progress may cause enormous positive effects, while another factor can undermine mental well-being. That is a different issue. That by the way is what I think is happening.
2) I have already given you a huge amount of evidence in a link that human material progress is closely connected to self-reported happiness. You apparently ignored it.
3) If you want to debate that on your own Substack, go right ahead.
4) If you can find a "neutral moderator" to referee a debate on human material progress, then please tell me who that person is.
5) Yes, material progress may turn negative in the future, but you have presented no evidence that it has actually done so. You have acknowledged that it is "obvious" in another comment.
6) Saying that human material progress has diminishing returns acknowledges its existence.
7) I never excluded mental well being as a concept. It is just not what I want to debate. I think a debate on mental well being will just go in circles (just like your comments).
I never claimed that "all aspects have been good."
There is actually a lot of evidence that human material progress leads to higher overall levels of happiness:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/does-material-progress-lead-to-happiness
I never argued that "this material and social progress will continue into the future indefinitely." I can promise you that it will eventually end, but no one knows when.
Neither you nor I nor anyone else know what will happen in the future.
Looking back at material history to see trends is not a"faith."
I never said any of the quotes that you attributed to me in quote marks. It is very unethical for you to pretend to be quoting me, when you are just making it up.
You are obviously not even trying to understand what I am saying.
I love this debate series. I just wish we could find a way to find voices from the other side. Perhaps direct invites to those with substacks on the other side of the debate? Seems like once something like this took off that it would be great for subscriptions for all involved.
Is this something that we could post in the Astral Codex open dialogue discussion threads?
Glad that you like it.
I have been posting to the sites of many potential debaters. So far no takers.
Too many people are afraid of a real debate, I guess.
Feel free to post the link wherever you want. Just please do it in an appropriate manner.
It's because you've neatly crafted your argument to refute any serious discussion.
"Looking just at the measures I think are important, and ignoring everything else, and pretending the future doesn't exist... Progress!"
It's like looking at a square metre of the wall of the Hiroshima dome and arguing that atomic bombs are harmless. "See? Nobody will debate me! I must be right."
Unbelievable.
In your other comment, you said "I do not think anyone can rationally argue that we have not see great material and social progress worldwide over the last two centuries."!!!!!!
So basically your argument is:
1) You are obviously correct
2) I care about other things more.....
3) So therefore "you've neatly crafted your argument to refute any serious discussion."
4) Therefore you are obviously incorrect
Oh,please!
Your entire comment is obfuscation. I have specifically crafted the challenge to create a serious discussion based on real data, not opinions or haggling over definitions.
Your arguments make no sense:
1) I did not restrict the challenge to anything remotely close to "a square metre of the wall." I specifically stated that the challenge is for "the entire world."
2) I never specified a measurement. The third part of the challenge says "What data do you have...?" I specifically mentioned 19 different metrics as examples. I am not restricting the debate to them.
3) I specified a concept of "material standard of living" and left it up to the debaters to choose their own metric.
4) Yes, I left out the future. A debate on the future is pointless because neither you nor I nor anyone else knows what will happen. We only know about the past and the present.
So are you brave enough to debate or not?