Is progress real?

[Ibrahim]

Are we really better of with 2 Girls 1 Cup?

well, at least you have a point-that flick was just..wrong (I never saw it, but I knwo the story)


anyways: "Progress" in so far as science** and technology is concerned, is real. problem is that it trickles down, from the scientists to the laymen, and it does so in a way that laymen can't observe the change, often because it takes years for that trickling to be complete.

for example, I still get people who think Diplodocus mated/lived underwater (wth?), or that Coelurosaurs weren't feathered; one guy called me an idiot for telling him (correctly) that tyrannosauroids have been found with feathers-I of course wipped him like a baby for that reply, and he canned it and clsed his account (it was that bad). recently some of you rember my rebuking of another member for mentioning-even jokingly, that dinosaurs are cold-blooded.

and of course, some people still can't accept evolution and/or punctuated equilibrium.

now I know that I'm using paleontology related things to explain this, but its all I care about

whether progress is "evil" or "good": well for science, its definitely good, as it opens up new potential for improvement and technology. in technology's case, its neither. now one can argue that progress in science is neutral, since bad can also come of it (e.g atom bomb), but I lump that with technology, which is the systematic application of science. either interpretation is fine.

thus, to me, the ideas and theories science produces are good, but the application is ambiguous, and highly dependant.

as to social progress/progress outside science: that concept is complete bull. afterall, we are making the same exact mistakes/decisions our forefathers have made (heck, even socialism* is older than Marx). thus, in this regard, I do not think there is social "progress"; only social change, and of course natural tendencies in our history, both combined. whether this change/tendencies is good or bad depends on the society it occurs in. why not call it progress? because it can be bad as well as good.


thus, in science I am linear, and in other matters a cyclist. or in short: I find the entire concept of "progress" in the west to be meaningless.


*whther that is a mistake or not is up to you.
**this include medicine, and from their, life expectancy/its quality.

[Cyclops]

Moral progress is highly debatable, but "Progress" (sic) makes more people, who get to live longer, eat more and work less, so they can debate morality.

...anyways: "Progress" in so far as science** and technology is concerned, is real. problem is that it trickles down, from the scientists to the laymen, and it does so in a way that laymen can't observe the change, often because it takes years for that trickling to be complete...

**I would note that the narrower idea of scientific progress is based on free sharing of information: the Internet is the most powerful tool yet in this progress, and ideas of copyright remain one of its greatest threats (along with fundamentalist teaching that truth comes from only one guy or one book).

Does the modern paradigm of progress has its roots in the 18th century enlightenment? When the study of God was well and truly sidelined in favour of the study of Man?

Certainly the European culture of contestable systematic though that really took off in 17th century Europe created an awareness of an increasing body of checkable knowledge, as opposed to the Medieval idea that there was an available pool of God-given texts-The End.

This idea of a sequence of events leading up to "the best of all possible worlds" was projected onto British history by whig historians ("our regime is not the result of a series of unfortunate accidents, it was meant to be!") and coincided with the material plenty of the industrial revolution.

The notion of progress (including moral, material, politcal and scientific improvement) seemed/seems to fit the times especially in Britain and France. Its a very empowering idea that we are inevitably moving toward a better state of things: it inspired complacent superiority (eg ignoring the economic effects of European industrialisation/colonialism on say India and China) but also some really good things like banning slavery and real medical improvements.

We're still riding the wave of science, popular politics and capitalism. Its not all good. There have been disasters, throwbacks, alternative experiments and plenty of horror, but the basic mission statement of us as a species (reproduce) is being met better than ever. It remains to be seen if we will overcome all other obstacles only to reproduce ourselves to death.