A reply to Ted Gioia "The Honest Broker" on progress

There are answers to his questions on progress

Jan 23, 2024

One of the best things about Substack is the opportunity to engage with people with widely differing opinions. I am happy to see that there has been an increase in Substack articles on the topic of progress.

One of the most recent was Ted Gioia’s article entitled:

“I Ask Seven Heretical Questions About Progress

“And I offer seven radical hypotheses. But can you handle the truth?”

Here are a few of my articles that get to the heart of the matter in my discussion with Ted:

I was very excited to read the article (it was linked to by one of my readers). In the article, Ted seemed to ask good-faith questions to supporters of progress. He said that he wanted replies to his question. So I took him for his word.

Unfortunately, not too long afterward, Ted Gioia banned me and deleted all my comments. He has every right to do so (though it did catch me by surprise), though it seems a bit disingenuous given his request for answers to his questions.

Because he raised some important issues related to progress, I decided to reply to each one of his questions in my next post. I have no intention of “getting back” at Ted. I just think this is an important topic.

I would love it if Ted replied in this column, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

I suggest reading his article before my reply, although the key content is mainly in the transcript below:

I will separate his questions from my answers:

My comment starts with:

Yes, I can handle the truth!

You have fundamentally misunderstood what progress is and have too high expectations that it can solve all problems without any downturns or negative side effects.

I am happy to debate you in more detail, but here is my reply to your questions:

So here’s my first heretical question: Why did my mother abandon the most innovative food technologies of her generation and return to laborious and expensive organic foods—raised according to the farming standards of the Middle Ages? How could this possibly be a step forward in the modern world? Or was she just a fool?

Question 1: Your mother’s farming choices.

One of the great benefits of progress is that people have far more choice as to their lifestyle. Your mother seems to have chosen organic farming as a hobby or small business. Good for her. But my guess is that she is also enjoying many of the benefits of modern technology. That is a luxury that few had 100 years ago.

And, please, she is not farming like in the Middle ages. Not even close.

Here’s my second heretical question: How much is progress really worth if the people at the forefront of it anticipate global collapse in their private lives?

Question 2: Mark Zuckerberg’s bunker

Mark Zuckerberg does not control progress. No one does. It is the unintended outcome of the decisions of millions of different people.

Throughout history rich elites have spent money and luxury items and backup plans when the SHTF. The entire nation of Finland invests in those shelters.

This is not evidence of a problem.

This leads to my third heretical question: How can huge investment in advancing medical and safety technology result in shorter lifespans? This is the single biggest area of private investment in the entire US, and things are getting worse. If this is what progress looks like, why should I want more of it?

Question 3: dip in US life expectancy since 2019

You state “this defies all the rules”, which means that you assume that progress is always producing positive outcomes. But there is no rule in progress that everything gets better all the time everywhere. That is naïve to expect that.

Progress is about long-term trends. It has only been 4 years since 2019 and we had a major pandemic.

If this short-term dip turns a long-term reversal across many metrics and in 200+ nations, then that is reason to wonder if progress is ending.

This is likely not that.

The reality is that lifespans have just as much to do with genes, sanitation, lifestyle choices like eating, exercise, and avoiding drugs and alcohol.

So here’s my fourth heretical question: Why did property values go up so much in a city that rejected progress and efficiency in almost every possible way? Why do so many people want to live and work there today? Why would they move from Silicon Valley to a boring farming community?

Question 4: People moving to Sebastopol, CA

I am really not sure why you consider this an argument against progress. People being able to move to different areas is a benefit of progress. My guess is that all these people have cars, electronics, and household appliances.

Plus the overall population of Sebastopol, CA in 2021 is lower than in 2000, so this is clearly not a trend.

So here’s my next heretical question: What does it tell us about progress if the most influential technological innovation of the century is clearly destroying lives on a massive scale?

Question 5: Smart phones destroying lives

I think “destroying lives” is a great exaggeration. I spend a great deal of time reading books and Substack on my tablet.

Yes, smart phones have negative side effects, but I think the reason why people use it is because it is useful. I don’t doubt that people with mental and personality disorders are worse of from smart phones. A lot more is going on than just smart phones.

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-are-people-still-unhappy-in-a

Here’s my next heretical question: All the experts tell me that AI is the biggest leap of progress of our time, and nothing else is even close—so why do companies that use AI hide it? Why do consumers hate it? Don’t people want progress?

Question 6: What experts say about AI

No one ever knows what effect a society will have before it is implemented.

Do not listen to the experts. They do not know.

So here’s my final heretical question: Is it really progress if technological innovation degrades the listening experience, erases all the supporting information about the music, and impoverishes the artists who create the songs in the first place?

Question 7: Your childhood audio system

If you like your audio system, great. I prefer digital. Both are benefits of progress. I ditched my vinyl albums for CDs decades ago. And then I ditched my CDs for digital.

You can still buy vinyl albums if you want to, but the vast majority of people choose not to due to longevity, portability, and cost.

That is progress.

Progress should be about improving the quality of life and human flourishing. We make a grave error when we assume this is the same as new tech and economic cost-squeezing.

Radical Hypothesis 1: Human flourishing

Again, you completely miss what progress is. There is no goal. It is an unintended outcome of millions of actions.

It is up to the individual to make wise choices that enable their own flourishing and the flourishing of their families. You cannot expect that to be given to you by some abstract “progress.” Modern progress makes it easier, but it still must be earned by you.

There was a period when new tech improved the quality of life, but that time has now ended. In the last decade, we’ve seen new tech harming the people who use it the most—hence most so-called innovations are now anti-progress by any honest definition.

Radical Hypothesis 2: Quality of life has ended; most innovations are now anti-progress

Evidence?

Other than cell phones you give none.

My guess is more a statement of your age than anything else. People get used to technologies from their childhood and at some age want change to stop.

There was a time when lowering costs improved quality of life—raising millions of people out of poverty all over the world. But in the last decade, cost-squeezing has led to very different results, and is increasingly linked to a collapse in the quality of products and services. Some people get richer from these cost efficiencies, and a larger group move into more intensely consumerist lifestyles—but none of these results (crappy products, super-rich elites, mass consumerist lifestyles, etc.) deserve to be called progress.

Radical Hypothesis 3: More of the same

Evidence?

Other than cell phones you give none.

Cost-squeezing lowers the cost of goods so more people can afford to buy them. This benefits the poor, working class, and developing nations.

The discourse on progress is controlled by technocrats, politicians and economists. But in the current moment, they are the wrong people to decide which metrics drive quality of life and human flourishing.

Radical Hypothesis 4: Controlled discourse

I am not controlled by technocrats, politicians, and economists. Are you?

Substack gives me the ability to not care what they think. This is about freedom of speech, not progress.

And no one “decides which metrics drive quality of life and human flourishing.” You keep making this elementary mistake.

Real wisdom on human flourishing is now more likely to come from the humanities, philosophy, and the spiritual realms than technocrats and politicians. By destroying these disciplines, we actually reduce our chances at genuine advancement.

Radical Hypothesis 5: Real wisdom on human flourishing

This is hardly radical. This is what people have been saying for centuries.

And we are not destroying these disciplines, although academia is likely destroying itself.

Again, you seriously overestimate how much technocrats and politicians control progress. No one controls it.

Things like music, books, art, family, friends, the inner life, etc. will increasingly play a larger role in quality of life (and hence progress) than gadgets and devices.

Radical Hypothesis 6: music, books, art lead to quality of life

I don’t disagree, but music, books and art are technologies that progress gave us.

Over the next decade, the epicenter for meaningful progress will be the private lives of individuals and small communities. It will be driven by their wisdom, their core values, and the courage of their convictions—none of which will be supplied via virtual reality headsets or apps on their smartphones.

Radical Hypothesis 7: Over the next decade, the epicenter for meaningful progress will be the private lives of individuals and small communities.

Sure, but material progress makes that easier.

Try doing it when you are struggling to survive.

We ultimately need to make wise lifestyle choices for flourishing. It is not going to be handed to us by “progress” or anyone else.

That is the end of my comment.

P.S. I do not bear Ted any ill will. I just think that he handled the situation poorly. I seriously doubt that he even read my comments before banning me and calling me “shameless” multiple times in Notes.

I am still open to debating him, but I seriously doubt that he wants that.

And I request all my readers to treat Ted with respect. I am more concerned with promoting an awareness and understanding of progress, than about Ted.

The Honest Broker

Ted Gioia

Here are a few of my articles that get to the heart of the matter in my discussion with Ted: