Just read the article. The assumption is that we will soon be in a world with no physical or intellectual challenges, so we will become unhappy. If that assumption is incorrect, the entire argument falls apart.
I find the assumption highly unlikely in the near future. I am not worried about the distant future.
Institutions also have to be reformed to serve their individual purpose instead of promoting a political agenda . First and foremost movies should value entertainment,scientists and media should value truth, and teachers should value critical thinking and political neutrality . Until those things happen any grassroots movement is facing an uphill battle.
Yes, I agree with you on that one. I see it more as a means to an end rather than a goal unto itself, but it is still very important.
I have been planning an article on that topic for a while, but I have not gotten around to it yet.
The summary of my view is:
1) All organizations were founded to offer a solution to a problem.
2) The reason that organization is still around is because enough people agreed that it was a problem worth solving
3) To give a great solution, the organization has to focus relentlessly on it.
4) Adding more goals for the organization only makes it worse at doing its main job.
5) The goals of Equality, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion undermine all other goals, particularly Merit. All organizations need to hire, fire and promote based on Merit to achieve their primary goal
Or as that great moral philosopher once said "Everything Woke turns to Shit!"
I like my thoughtful response better, but he probably said it better.
The problem with a movement founded on the principles you describe is that it will devolve into promoting whatever policies support short term progress while ignoring all second order effects.
Person A: "Yes, this policy promotes progress, but look at this problem."
Person B: "Sounds like you haven't made progress your first priority, you are hereby kicked out of the movement."
I am trying to keep the movement on the rails. That is the point of the article.
I think it is a better use of your time to focus on movements that are already off the rails. We have plenty of them today, and I have written many articles on the topic.
Getting all wound up about a group that wants to promote economic growth seems a little off-target.
No hard feelings, though. You have been a loyal reader, and I appreciate your efforts.
> I see no evidence that vivisection has anything to do with promoting long-term widely shared material progress.
Look up Unit 731. Judging by the sweetheart immunity deal the perpetrators got in exchange for their data, they appear to have contributed to progress.
I specifically state that the goal is "long-term widely-shared material progress."
I never claimed that we should ignore second-order effects. That is part of Results.
I agree that this is possible, but I don't think that it is a problem in practice.
First of all, let me differentiate between my personal opinion and what I think the Progress movement should make as official policy prescriptions.
There are many policy stands that I believe in that have nothing to do with progress.
As for the Progress movement, I think it should take no stand on policies that have little to no impact on material progress. We should take a "broad tent" approach on all other issues, so Left and Right are welcome.
As for my personal views, I am not opposed to policies that focus on policies that promote secondary goals. I am opposed to policies that undermine material progress.
If a policy solves a secondary problem without undermining material progress, I can support it.
And to use your example, the downstream effects are part of the results that I believe that the Progress movement should focus on. A policy that leads to mass death, human rights violations, or violation of the constitution is a bad policy as far as I am concerned.
And I am not trying to kick anyone out of the movement. I am just trying to make sure the Progress movement keeps the focus and does not get taken over by an ideological movement.
> I never claimed that we should ignore second-order effects.
The problem is that's not how the norm you're proposing is likely to play out.
> As for the Progress movement, I think it should take no stand on policies that have little to no impact on material progress.
The problem is that practically every policy will have a long term effect on material progress. It's just that people don't agree on what that effect is.
Would you rather Leftists continue to try to change the definition of "Progress," so it is about redistribution and bigger government?
Because that is how it is playing out right now...
> It's just that people don't agree on what that effect is.
That is exactly why we need to make identifying which policies and practices promote long-term widely shared economic growth a key goal of the movement. And we need to stop having people use their previous ideology to determine what is good and bad.
And I disagree that "practically every policy" will have an effect. I think the vast majority of the issues have very limited effect.
The Progress Studies movement has nothing to do with the Progressive Left or early 20th Century Progressive reformers. They coopted the word "Progress" and I am trying to win it back.
That was their definition of "Progress" not mine.
And as far as I know, you are not in the Progress movement to begin with, so why do you care?
And you really want the Leftists to destroy the Progress Studies movement?
You're a mensch!
I’ve been wanting to reply in length to this post, but have been otherwise occupied.
In the meantime, I was wondering if you saw and/or would be interested in this…
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/is-progress-always-good-a-response/comments?utm_source=substack%2Csubstack&publication_id=828904&post_id=149280603&utm_medium=email%2Cemail&isFreemail=true&comments=true&utm_campaign=email-half-magic-comments&action=post-comment
Just read the article. The assumption is that we will soon be in a world with no physical or intellectual challenges, so we will become unhappy. If that assumption is incorrect, the entire argument falls apart.
I find the assumption highly unlikely in the near future. I am not worried about the distant future.
No, thanks for the tip. I subscribe to them, and often comment, but I have not yet checked my email.
Institutions also have to be reformed to serve their individual purpose instead of promoting a political agenda . First and foremost movies should value entertainment,scientists and media should value truth, and teachers should value critical thinking and political neutrality . Until those things happen any grassroots movement is facing an uphill battle.
Yes, I agree with you on that one. I see it more as a means to an end rather than a goal unto itself, but it is still very important.
I have been planning an article on that topic for a while, but I have not gotten around to it yet.
The summary of my view is:
1) All organizations were founded to offer a solution to a problem.
2) The reason that organization is still around is because enough people agreed that it was a problem worth solving
3) To give a great solution, the organization has to focus relentlessly on it.
4) Adding more goals for the organization only makes it worse at doing its main job.
5) The goals of Equality, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion undermine all other goals, particularly Merit. All organizations need to hire, fire and promote based on Merit to achieve their primary goal
Or as that great moral philosopher once said "Everything Woke turns to Shit!"
I like my thoughtful response better, but he probably said it better.
The problem with a movement founded on the principles you describe is that it will devolve into promoting whatever policies support short term progress while ignoring all second order effects.
Person A: "Yes, this policy promotes progress, but look at this problem."
Person B: "Sounds like you haven't made progress your first priority, you are hereby kicked out of the movement."
Do you have a better primary goal for the Progress movement?
I just don't think a norm of "make progress your #1 priority or your out is necessarily a good idea".
So what is a better primary goal for the Progress Studies movement?
You cannot just complain without offering an alternative.
You can simply choose not to join, which, as far as I know, you never were a member in the first place.
So why do you care?
> So why do you care?
Because movements that go off the rails can be dangerous even to those who don't join them.
I am trying to keep the movement on the rails. That is the point of the article.
I think it is a better use of your time to focus on movements that are already off the rails. We have plenty of them today, and I have written many articles on the topic.
Getting all wound up about a group that wants to promote economic growth seems a little off-target.
No hard feelings, though. You have been a loyal reader, and I appreciate your efforts.
I think the best time to keep a movement on the rails is before it goes off them.
Well, why would anyone join a movement based on promoting material progress if they did not think that it was the most important goal?
There are plenty of other movements to join that focus on other objectives.
And you never gave me a different primary goal...
They think it's an important goal, just not necessarily the most important goal.
To take an, admittedly extreme, illustrative example: would you allow your child to be vivisected in the name of progress?
I feel like you are trying to tell me something, but you are not doing so directly.
Why do you care what a movement that you are not a member of thinks?
Who is the "they" in your first sentence?
If it is potential members, then they should join a different movement or no movement at all.
I see no evidence that vivisection has anything to do with promoting long-term widely shared material progress.
Therefore, the Progress movement should not take a stand on the issue.
As for me personally, they would have to get past my dead body to do it.
The Progress movement can never be about taking a stand on every issue. It is not an ideology. It needs to have a very specific purpose.
if you don't agree with that purpose, fine, don't join.
Since I have never heard you declare that you are a member of the Progress movement or want to be, I am not so sure why you care so much.
> I see no evidence that vivisection has anything to do with promoting long-term widely shared material progress.
Look up Unit 731. Judging by the sweetheart immunity deal the perpetrators got in exchange for their data, they appear to have contributed to progress.
I specifically state that the goal is "long-term widely-shared material progress."
I never claimed that we should ignore second-order effects. That is part of Results.
I agree that this is possible, but I don't think that it is a problem in practice.
First of all, let me differentiate between my personal opinion and what I think the Progress movement should make as official policy prescriptions.
There are many policy stands that I believe in that have nothing to do with progress.
As for the Progress movement, I think it should take no stand on policies that have little to no impact on material progress. We should take a "broad tent" approach on all other issues, so Left and Right are welcome.
As for my personal views, I am not opposed to policies that focus on policies that promote secondary goals. I am opposed to policies that undermine material progress.
If a policy solves a secondary problem without undermining material progress, I can support it.
And to use your example, the downstream effects are part of the results that I believe that the Progress movement should focus on. A policy that leads to mass death, human rights violations, or violation of the constitution is a bad policy as far as I am concerned.
And I am not trying to kick anyone out of the movement. I am just trying to make sure the Progress movement keeps the focus and does not get taken over by an ideological movement.
> I never claimed that we should ignore second-order effects.
The problem is that's not how the norm you're proposing is likely to play out.
> As for the Progress movement, I think it should take no stand on policies that have little to no impact on material progress.
The problem is that practically every policy will have a long term effect on material progress. It's just that people don't agree on what that effect is.
Do you have a better norm?
Would you rather Leftists continue to try to change the definition of "Progress," so it is about redistribution and bigger government?
Because that is how it is playing out right now...
> It's just that people don't agree on what that effect is.
That is exactly why we need to make identifying which policies and practices promote long-term widely shared economic growth a key goal of the movement. And we need to stop having people use their previous ideology to determine what is good and bad.
And I disagree that "practically every policy" will have an effect. I think the vast majority of the issues have very limited effect.
> Would you rather Leftists continue to try to change the definition of "Progress," so it is about redistribution and bigger government?
Yes, because an earlier generation kicked the classical liberals out for "putting freedom above progress".
An earlier generation of what?
The Progress Studies movement has nothing to do with the Progressive Left or early 20th Century Progressive reformers. They coopted the word "Progress" and I am trying to win it back.
That was their definition of "Progress" not mine.
And as far as I know, you are not in the Progress movement to begin with, so why do you care?
And you really want the Leftists to destroy the Progress Studies movement?
Seriously?