I am not sure if this is relevant, but there is a new (old?) approach to economic progress that some second world countries rely upon. And that is progress focused authoritarianism. China has been using this approach over the last 30, Russia is using it currently. It works under certain conditions producing impressive economic results. “We don’t need democracy, we don’t need political freedom, we will just promote economic growth through government programs designed by the best and the brightest.” Maybe it only works short-term (as long as society tolerates it), but it does seem to be working. Maybe this approach to progress is also worth studying, especially considering the growing belief in authoritarianism in US.
Yes, it is important to notice that promoting human material progress is not the same thing as Democracy.
Authoritarian regimes can generate progress, particularly if they are willing to copy what works in wealthy Western nations. Singapore is another example. Many other nations achieved long-term economic growth before achieving democracy (Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to name just a few).
I do think that over the long run, however, authoritarian regimes tend to generate bad policies and it is very difficult to get rid of them short of violent revolution, which can lead in very bad directions. I think China's declining economic growth is at least partly due to bad political leadership.
Democracies generally work, not because they follow the will of the people, but because they give the people easy methods to remove bad leaders. And since I believe that human material progress comes from societies, not governments, this is a good thing.
Awesome summary. I will break my comments up by topic.
I think one field that is substantially under emphasized here (and in most progress studies) is Coordination. Progress is a wide scale outcome based upon the combined efforts of a population (preferably humanity in total). We can do infinitely more together than apart, and separately we are prone to interference, conflict and zero/negative sum exploitation. Thus coordination (a much broader term than cooperation), is absolutely essential in progress.
The study of coordination starts with game theory, the study of evolutionary transitions (to higher levels of coordination such as cells, eukaryotes, multicellular life, colonies, etc), and then extends/builds into models of human cooperation, social organization, economics, politics and so forth.
I can provide extensive referrals to the best sources on this topic.
Re-reviewing all your book summaries, you already read many of the major sources that I would point to you. So, I think I just need to clarify that my word "coordination" is just an attempt to use a word that encompasses but is broader than "cooperation". The trouble I keep seeing with cooperation is it has too much of a normative bias built in. Coordination is the word I use to encompass altruism (a very narrow concept of lose/win interactions ), cooperation (a broader concept which includes altruism and mutual benefit), and control. A lot of complex systems, human and other, include controllers or managers of some type, and the manager is not always benevolent.
Examples of non-cooperative or semi-cooperative coordination include DNA building and directing complex molecules, domestication of plants and animals (by ants as well as humans), a nobleman managing his serfs, a manager directing his workers, pharaoh commanding slaves to build a pyramid or wall, captain directing soldiers to storm a trench, producers selling products in a win/win to consumers, drivers coordinating their actions by following common rules of the road, people "sharing" a common language, competitors agreeing to play or compete based upon agreed rules, and so on. Using the word cooperation is just awkward for these types of coordination, and starting our thinking with the term cooperation leads us away from these kinds of solutions to problems.
Thus coordination is where the sum of actions is greater and different than the agents can accomplish alone, with altruism, cooperation, management, harmonizing and constructive competition as sub categories.
The only books I don’t see on your list are those around game theory. Super Cooperators by Novak, and such.
In my framing, coordination is an absolute must in progress. Progress whether defined narrowly as material standards of living or broader as flourishing is a group concept and coordinated groups can do more together, and interfere less with each other than individuals alone. I believe the study of coordination is probably more foundational to progress than the study of technology, yet when people jump into the topic as they have in past few years, we see them go straight to technology.
Yes, I have read Corning as well. As an unrelated side note, after re-reviewing your summaries, I see you read Suddendorf's The Gap. I found that book especially enlightening and a great addition to Henrich's writing.
I am not sure if this is relevant, but there is a new (old?) approach to economic progress that some second world countries rely upon. And that is progress focused authoritarianism. China has been using this approach over the last 30, Russia is using it currently. It works under certain conditions producing impressive economic results. “We don’t need democracy, we don’t need political freedom, we will just promote economic growth through government programs designed by the best and the brightest.” Maybe it only works short-term (as long as society tolerates it), but it does seem to be working. Maybe this approach to progress is also worth studying, especially considering the growing belief in authoritarianism in US.
Yes, it is important to notice that promoting human material progress is not the same thing as Democracy.
Authoritarian regimes can generate progress, particularly if they are willing to copy what works in wealthy Western nations. Singapore is another example. Many other nations achieved long-term economic growth before achieving democracy (Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to name just a few).
I do think that over the long run, however, authoritarian regimes tend to generate bad policies and it is very difficult to get rid of them short of violent revolution, which can lead in very bad directions. I think China's declining economic growth is at least partly due to bad political leadership.
Democracies generally work, not because they follow the will of the people, but because they give the people easy methods to remove bad leaders. And since I believe that human material progress comes from societies, not governments, this is a good thing.
Awesome summary. I will break my comments up by topic.
I think one field that is substantially under emphasized here (and in most progress studies) is Coordination. Progress is a wide scale outcome based upon the combined efforts of a population (preferably humanity in total). We can do infinitely more together than apart, and separately we are prone to interference, conflict and zero/negative sum exploitation. Thus coordination (a much broader term than cooperation), is absolutely essential in progress.
The study of coordination starts with game theory, the study of evolutionary transitions (to higher levels of coordination such as cells, eukaryotes, multicellular life, colonies, etc), and then extends/builds into models of human cooperation, social organization, economics, politics and so forth.
I can provide extensive referrals to the best sources on this topic.
What you are saying sounds a little like this:
https://techratchet.com/2020/02/26/book-summary-the-principles-of-social-evolution-by-andrew-bourke/
Thanks for the comment. I have come across some similar ideas, but I have not heard the term “coordination.” It sounds like complexity theory.
Yes, please post a few links of what you think are the best introductions on the subject.
Sorry for lengthy pause….
Re-reviewing all your book summaries, you already read many of the major sources that I would point to you. So, I think I just need to clarify that my word "coordination" is just an attempt to use a word that encompasses but is broader than "cooperation". The trouble I keep seeing with cooperation is it has too much of a normative bias built in. Coordination is the word I use to encompass altruism (a very narrow concept of lose/win interactions ), cooperation (a broader concept which includes altruism and mutual benefit), and control. A lot of complex systems, human and other, include controllers or managers of some type, and the manager is not always benevolent.
Examples of non-cooperative or semi-cooperative coordination include DNA building and directing complex molecules, domestication of plants and animals (by ants as well as humans), a nobleman managing his serfs, a manager directing his workers, pharaoh commanding slaves to build a pyramid or wall, captain directing soldiers to storm a trench, producers selling products in a win/win to consumers, drivers coordinating their actions by following common rules of the road, people "sharing" a common language, competitors agreeing to play or compete based upon agreed rules, and so on. Using the word cooperation is just awkward for these types of coordination, and starting our thinking with the term cooperation leads us away from these kinds of solutions to problems.
Thus coordination is where the sum of actions is greater and different than the agents can accomplish alone, with altruism, cooperation, management, harmonizing and constructive competition as sub categories.
The only books I don’t see on your list are those around game theory. Super Cooperators by Novak, and such.
In my framing, coordination is an absolute must in progress. Progress whether defined narrowly as material standards of living or broader as flourishing is a group concept and coordinated groups can do more together, and interfere less with each other than individuals alone. I believe the study of coordination is probably more foundational to progress than the study of technology, yet when people jump into the topic as they have in past few years, we see them go straight to technology.
Did this help any?
Yes, thanks.
> "Thus coordination is where the sum of actions is greater and different than the agents can accomplish alone."
This sounds very similar to Peter Corning's concept of "Synergy." He uses it to tie together Big History into a general theory.
https://techratchet.com/2020/04/13/book-summary-natures-magic-by-peter-corning/
Yes, I have read Corning as well. As an unrelated side note, after re-reviewing your summaries, I see you read Suddendorf's The Gap. I found that book especially enlightening and a great addition to Henrich's writing.