Why Progress is not human flourishing
Though it is related to it.
This article is part of my ongoing series on Progress Studies. You can read more on the topic in the following posts:
In my last post, I argued that Progress Studies needs to agree on a clear, useful definition of “Progress” if we want to make any real contributions. I also argued in favor of the definition that I used in my From Poverty to Progress book series:
“Progress is the sustained improvement in the material standard-of-living of a large group of people over a long period of time.“
I also briefly examined other potential definitions to explain why they were too narrow to be useful:
Progress is the advancement of scientific knowledge
Progress is technological innovation
Progress is technological innovation on the leading edge.
In this post, I want to deal with a completely different definition of progress:
Progress is human flourishing
First of all, let me start by saying that I do believe that human material progress leads to human flourishing. I also believe that promoting human flourishing is a noble goal. I have grave concerns, however, at adopting it as a definition of the concept of “Progress” within the Progress Studies field.
“Human flourishing” does meet some of the criteria that I mentioned in my previous post. Human flourishing:
Is useful as a concept (although see below).
Is flexible enough to apply to many different times, places, societies, technologies, and industries.
Based on outputs, not inputs
Easily communicated in informal settings
My concerns can be summed up with the following questions:
How do we measure “human flourishing” (other than the metrics of human material progress)?
How do we falsify “human flourishing”?
How do we make the concept of “human flourishing” specific enough that one can realize that the definition has been misapplied?
How do we compare levels of “human flourishing” so that we can compare Time A with Time B?
I do not believe that these questions can be answered satisfactorily.
To illustrate the problem, imagine that the following people are hanging out in a bar (no, this is not the start of a joke):
One is a Progress Studies researcher
One is a devout Christian
One is a devout Muslim
One is a devout Buddhist
One is a devout Taoist
One is a committed Atheist
One is a committed Communist
One is a committed National Socialist
One is a committed Fascist
One is a committed Conservative
One is a committed Libertarian
One is a committed Radical Feminist
One is a committed Radical Environmentalist
One is a proponent of Confucian philosophy
One is a proponent of Aristotelian philosophy
One is a proponent of Platonic philosophy
One is a proponent of Kantian philosophy
One is a proponent of Hegelian philosophy
One is a Hadza tribesman
One is a Yanomami chief
Yes, this is a very interesting bar!
After a few rounds of drinks, the subject turns to “Progress.” Likely the Progress Studies researcher brings it up, and then everyone else groans, and says “There he goes again!” But our intrepid Progress Studies researcher pushes on despite the protestations. He promises to buy the next round of drinks if everyone can agree on a working definition of progress.
Does anyone think that the group can get anything like an agreement on what “human flourishing” is? If not, then it is impossible to understand the origins of progress, the causes of progress, and how progress works in our daily lives. Then it is impossible to establish policies that progress.
Does anyone think that the group can get anything like an agreement on what “the sustained improvement in the material standard-of-living of a large group of people over a long period of time” is?
I admit that this is a very challenging audience, but I think that with discussion (and the incentive of free beer), they might reach some points of agreement. I do not doubt that the majority of them will protest that human material progress is less important than their own religious and ideological views.
Remember that Progress Studies does not assume that progress is the most important thing in this or any other world: only that it is important enough to study rigorously.
I am confident that, despite frequent interruptions and detours, we can get most of the tipsy imbibers to agree that the metrics of human material progress are measuring something real and something important. And in a more sympathetic audience, I think that we can get some real consensus on the issue.
I chose this “thought experiment” because I think that it is important for Progress Studies to adopt a definition of progress that is convincing to people of many different ideological, religious, philosophical, and cultural backgrounds. None of them have to agree that a sustained improvement in the material standard of living is the most important thing; only that it matters enough to study it rigorously.
Now imagine that the Progress Studies researcher insisted that progress = human flourishing. What can possibly be resolved? Nothing.
Every person in the bar would just fall back on their prior convictions based on ideology, religion, philosophy, or culture and the discussion degenerates into the same old discussions that they always have. Eventually, a fight breaks out (yet again) and the bartender kicks everyone out of the bar. Then they all agree to meet in the bar the next evening.
I am afraid that if the Progress Studies movement adopts “human flourishing” as its definition of Progress, we will become like that bar. Enjoyable to watch or participate in, perhaps, but ultimately accomplishing nothing.
This article is part of my ongoing series on Progress Studies. You can read more on the topic in the following posts:
I would regard “material standard of living” as subset of “human flourishing”. It does not include many things that are essential to human flourishing: love, friendship, character, sex, compassion, knowledge, community, etc.
"Remember that Progress Studies does not assume that progress is the most important thing in this or any other world: only that it is important enough to study rigorously."
Please be sure to remind us of this limitation occasionally! :-)
As I read your four bullets of concern, I was looking for one saying something along the lines of "who decides and what definition do we use?" and of course the rest of the post addressed that. Read minds much? Not one of my strongest skills. :-(