It is not only because I am presently running a seminar on progress that I write about it here, although it has inspired me. Economic progress is a subject that has interested me for my entire career, and much of my research and writing is devoted to it. But progress is an idea that goes far beyond economics. It is, for example, related to politics, which is from where we hear the term “progressive.” But is progress progressive?
What does progress even mean? People say that obscenity or pornography is difficult to define but that one “knows it when one sees it.” Progress is kind of the opposite. Its different components seem easy enough identify or define, but can we actually observe it in the most general sense? Whatever it is, is it something that has happened continuously through history?
The ancients didn’t think so. The Greeks, for example, believed that the world would experience “cycles” of progress and regress. While early Christianity did see human progress toward some defined end, it defined it as the afterlife (after which, presumably, progress came to and end). The idea of ongoing, indefinite progress is a modern, secular notion.
So, is a “progressive” someone who believes in progress? It depends. If we look at today’s politically polarized landscape, it seems fairly clear that the progressives (generally associated with the Democratic party) tend more to believe in scientific progress and objective facts. But what about economic progress?
In the sense of supporting an endlessly growing economy, progressives are little different from many of the populists who backed Trump. Neither camp would, for the most part, impugn consumer capitalism. And this is where things get ambiguous. Many would say that a true conservative probably has more old-fashioned values (including conserving the environment) and is less comfortable with the rapid pace of change we see almost everywhere.
The news media label Reagan, the Bushes, and Trump as “conservatives,” but all three subscribe to the same notion of progress as most Democrats, and many Americans. All mostly believe in the religion of GDP growth. Even Marx – and many Marxists – believe capitalism to be a “progressive” force that inevitably leads to something better (hint: not capitalism) at some point in the future.
Yet thinking people, left and right, are by now aware that the consumer capitalist juggernaut is running up against the boundaries of the global environment. In the not-too-distant-future we will all need to revise our expectations. But a promised reduction in material living standards does not necessarily mean an end to progress, if indeed progress even accurately describes the past few centuries.
While I am with those who believe that progress in science, and especially medicine, is beyond debate, as an economist I also believe in diminishing returns. Most of the major discoveries of meaningful impact to humans have probably already been made. The lion’s share of scientific research these days goes into applied technologies and products, not basic research that could be game changing. Worse, our blind faith in science and the Enlightenment has led us to mistakenly believe in numbers as representations of objectivity. Here starts a rant that I scarcely have time or space for, but one of my longer pieces in the near future will address the problem. And William James’s quip, that a scientific worldview “conceals a childish desire for certainty” anyway says it better than I ever could.
We indeed “desire certainty” all the more as the world grows increasingly complex. In an earlier piece I mentioned the work of archaeologist Joseph Tainter. He is best known for articulating a theory relating social and economic complexity to eventual collapse. But he has also written about at least one historical example (the Eastern Roman Empire) where mass “simplification” of the social and institutional order helped stave off collapse.
I realize that I might be sounding conservative, even reactionary, so let me be clear: I do not advocate going back to live on farms or in the hills. I do, and I always have, questioned change merely for its own sake. If resisting superficial changes makes me a conservative, so be it. Today’s challenge for humanity is to imagine a radically different manner of going forward.
What do I mean? Again, space is limited. But here are a few prerequisites; the list is far from exhaustive.
(1) Less impactful technology. I’m not convinced that renewable energy is a panacea, and more likely the reduced impact will need to come from a reduction (voluntary or mandatory) in our material living standards.
(2) Racial justice. No real elaboration necessary, except to say that the racial system in which we live needs to be overthrown or at least cleansed. I’m not just talking about educating people with racist views.
(3) Restore dignity of work. Restructure the economy and society in a way that people can once again exhibit their creative energy in a way that can make them proud of their ideas or their craft. Sorry, there are too many people sitting at desks doing bullshit.
(4) More spirituality. I don’t believe in “capital g” God, and never have. But I am also not a strict atheist. I don’t believe in preaching religion or atheism to anyone because it is a matter of personal taste. But I do think that we all progress as a species if we take more time out of our day to reflect, to meditate, even just to wonder about the many things that we seem incapable of understanding.
I am not saying that any of this is likely in the near term. But we get nowhere without at least laying out some of our desired criteria for a better future. If you have some other ideas, I’d love to hear from you!