Thanks so much for the shout out, and the useful summaries of my thoughts. I will respond in more detail later when I have had the time to digest your comments, but for I now I just want to say Thanks!
Sorry for the late reply. I have been taking some time off.
I appreciate the time you took to read my articles and summarize my thoughts. In general, I think you summarized my main points well.
Below I will respond to a few of your questions. In some cases, it is often hard to tell if they are rhetorical, or you actually want answers.
You ask about fossil fuels. It is important to note that my work is primarily about understanding the causes and origins of human material progress. It is not meant as a prediction of how future societies will be or constructing a utopia.
I believe that widespread use of fossil fuels is an essential precondition to a society to transition from poverty to a state of material progress that benefits most citizens. For the foreseeable future, I do not see an alternative to widespread fossil fuel usage. I am confident that in the coming century a new energy source will be invented that will make fossil fuels obsolete, but that does not exist now.
As for progress, I do not see the trend as a result of “what we want.” We do not vote on progress. I see material progress as the unintended consequences of people making decisions to solve local problems. My guess is that will continue to be largely unintended in the future.
You mention philosophy, which I am not particularly well versed. I do not advocate for utilitarianism. Again, I am trying to understand the past. The past does not need a philosophical defense.
I think that you misunderstand what I mean by “results.” Results are not the same as ends. The “end” is the intended goal, which is very often not achieved. The “means” is what is implemented in the material world to achieve the desired end. Typically, those means do not achieve the desired end.
Results are what actually occurs when we try to implement an idea in reality. Therefore, results include both the “means" and what happens when those means are implemented. This can only be identified after the idea is implemented. I advocate for small-scale experimentation and then scaling up when the results are positive.
Again, my goal is to understand the past.
You ask what the risks are to future material progress. I cannot answer that question, nor can anyone else. I am more concerned about understanding the progress of the past. Our understanding of the future is very, very limited. Risks are equally unknown for any alternative to continuing material progress.
I do not advocate accelerating material progress to the maximum possible extent. I am mainly concerned with rolling back government policies that intentionally or unintentionally undermine material progress. I believe that the benefits of past material progress are reason enough to not undermine the trend.
As for expanding the definition of progress to include non-material aspects, that is fine with me if other people want to do so. But my primary goal is to understand the origins and causes of material progress.
I disagree that “social matters of (in)justice and (in)equality will weigh heavily.” The evidence is overwhelming that the poor, working-class, developing nations, and minorities have benefitted substantially from material progress. Equality is unachievable and likely always will be. And justice can be defined however one wants. Any justice that undermines the above groups is not justice. And given that this progress has lasted for centuries, it is by definition “sustainable.”
Anyway, I think that covers your main points. Thanks again!
1. I appreciated the call out on energy usage vs fossil fuels per se. Having massive amounts of energy available on demand is undoubtedly a precondition of industrialization and rapid advancement. A similar analogy can be made to computer hardware. As our ability to design better chips has increased, and CPU/GPU/memory etc has increased software can advance much more rapidly because it is freed of constraints to innovation. However, although wasting resources is part of how you move quickly, there does come a point when you are not only capable of but obligated to go back and tighten things up. Just because you CAN use a whole CPU or leave the lights on all the time doesn't mean you should once the fundamental innovation as been achieved. In short, yes better energy sources, but also lets stop being so wasteful.
2. I think there is real risk of humans collectively progressing faster than humans individually (psychologically, biologically) can support. Our instincts developed over hundreds of thousands of years in response to relatively stable environmental and social conditions. As those social conditions and environmental conditions rapidly change, we are at risk of outstripping our ability to handle them adequately. For example, the rapid decrease in access to nature has been shown to affect our ability to process time as well as experience contentment. Social media has been shown to affect our attention spans, ability to focus and learn, and social algorithms are rewiring the way we empathize. People living far away from families and without community has caused spikes in depression and loneliness, as recently highlighted by the pandemic. Progress has many good things to offer, but I question at what point increased velocity has more cons than pros.
Wow!
Thanks so much for the shout out, and the useful summaries of my thoughts. I will respond in more detail later when I have had the time to digest your comments, but for I now I just want to say Thanks!
Sorry for the late reply. I have been taking some time off.
I appreciate the time you took to read my articles and summarize my thoughts. In general, I think you summarized my main points well.
Below I will respond to a few of your questions. In some cases, it is often hard to tell if they are rhetorical, or you actually want answers.
You ask about fossil fuels. It is important to note that my work is primarily about understanding the causes and origins of human material progress. It is not meant as a prediction of how future societies will be or constructing a utopia.
I believe that widespread use of fossil fuels is an essential precondition to a society to transition from poverty to a state of material progress that benefits most citizens. For the foreseeable future, I do not see an alternative to widespread fossil fuel usage. I am confident that in the coming century a new energy source will be invented that will make fossil fuels obsolete, but that does not exist now.
As for progress, I do not see the trend as a result of “what we want.” We do not vote on progress. I see material progress as the unintended consequences of people making decisions to solve local problems. My guess is that will continue to be largely unintended in the future.
You mention philosophy, which I am not particularly well versed. I do not advocate for utilitarianism. Again, I am trying to understand the past. The past does not need a philosophical defense.
I think that you misunderstand what I mean by “results.” Results are not the same as ends. The “end” is the intended goal, which is very often not achieved. The “means” is what is implemented in the material world to achieve the desired end. Typically, those means do not achieve the desired end.
Results are what actually occurs when we try to implement an idea in reality. Therefore, results include both the “means" and what happens when those means are implemented. This can only be identified after the idea is implemented. I advocate for small-scale experimentation and then scaling up when the results are positive.
Again, my goal is to understand the past.
You ask what the risks are to future material progress. I cannot answer that question, nor can anyone else. I am more concerned about understanding the progress of the past. Our understanding of the future is very, very limited. Risks are equally unknown for any alternative to continuing material progress.
I do not advocate accelerating material progress to the maximum possible extent. I am mainly concerned with rolling back government policies that intentionally or unintentionally undermine material progress. I believe that the benefits of past material progress are reason enough to not undermine the trend.
As for expanding the definition of progress to include non-material aspects, that is fine with me if other people want to do so. But my primary goal is to understand the origins and causes of material progress.
I disagree that “social matters of (in)justice and (in)equality will weigh heavily.” The evidence is overwhelming that the poor, working-class, developing nations, and minorities have benefitted substantially from material progress. Equality is unachievable and likely always will be. And justice can be defined however one wants. Any justice that undermines the above groups is not justice. And given that this progress has lasted for centuries, it is by definition “sustainable.”
Anyway, I think that covers your main points. Thanks again!
Thank you, Michael, for the long and thorough reply! I think I will write a regular post in response to keep the conversation going.
A couple (rather random) comments:
1. I appreciated the call out on energy usage vs fossil fuels per se. Having massive amounts of energy available on demand is undoubtedly a precondition of industrialization and rapid advancement. A similar analogy can be made to computer hardware. As our ability to design better chips has increased, and CPU/GPU/memory etc has increased software can advance much more rapidly because it is freed of constraints to innovation. However, although wasting resources is part of how you move quickly, there does come a point when you are not only capable of but obligated to go back and tighten things up. Just because you CAN use a whole CPU or leave the lights on all the time doesn't mean you should once the fundamental innovation as been achieved. In short, yes better energy sources, but also lets stop being so wasteful.
2. I think there is real risk of humans collectively progressing faster than humans individually (psychologically, biologically) can support. Our instincts developed over hundreds of thousands of years in response to relatively stable environmental and social conditions. As those social conditions and environmental conditions rapidly change, we are at risk of outstripping our ability to handle them adequately. For example, the rapid decrease in access to nature has been shown to affect our ability to process time as well as experience contentment. Social media has been shown to affect our attention spans, ability to focus and learn, and social algorithms are rewiring the way we empathize. People living far away from families and without community has caused spikes in depression and loneliness, as recently highlighted by the pandemic. Progress has many good things to offer, but I question at what point increased velocity has more cons than pros.