Is progress necessary?

[OmniaOne]

Specifically, technological and scientific progress.

Can we say that welfare is relative? It depends on the welfare of other beings and the welfare of our previous self, so it isn't something objective, but depends on the subjective vision of how our welfare compares to other's and to the past. And if welfare is relative, why can't we stop searching for new technologies and just enjoy what we have? Can't we reduce our work to the basic needs and for maintaining our current level of development as a society?

The problem is this one, that starts from a psychological law. If we have more, we want more. Satisfaction doesn't depend on having more, but on apprecianting what we have. There's another law, that is as follows: happiness is reduced the more choices we have (because you'll always be unhappy for not having the other choices). So why continue to chase more and more? Why work hard beyond the preservation of what we have?

Maybe I'll elaborate better later, but I don't think today's level of satisfaction are far better than our ancestor's. I can't prove it though with data.

What do you think of this?

 

[Black Rose]

What you are talking about is the problem of consumerism. Technological progress will happen as long as people keep learning. As with capitalism technology is not equally distributed. Neither is brain power and knowledge. Marx said the means of production should be owned by the labor. But that is outdated.

 

[Cognisant]

Capitalism creates inequality which creates poverty which drives people to try and work their way out of poverty.

You might not think yourself poor but do you own your home, do you have savings for your retirement, are you financially free, or are you going to work five days a week to pay the bills? You save a little in the vain hope that one day you'll achieve financial freedom and possibly even get to enjoy it for a few years, but realistically you know you'll probably have medicals and other expenses so at best you'll get to live somewhat comfortably until you die.

We are the working poor and you don't want to stay that way so you look for opportunities and innovation is the mother of all opportunities.

Maybe I'll elaborate better later, but I don't think today's level of satisfaction are far better than our ancestor's. I can't prove it though with data.

Of course not, if satisfaction has steadily increased over time then even if the rate of increase was incredibly slow after thousands of years of human history we would either all be giddy with happiness all the time or our ancestors were abjectly miserable.

We live pretty awesome lives considering the foods we eat and the entertainments we enjoy but fundamentally we all want to have a feeling of progression, of achievement, of growth, and that's frankly not possible. There's no new colonies, no untamed frontiers, we are forced to participate in society because there are no mountains to flee to, the world has been sold and bought and we must earn money through work if we wish to have even the smallest piece of it for ourselves.

 

[OmniaOne]

Capitalism creates inequality which creates poverty which drives people to try and work their way out of poverty.

Clever. Yeah, it's like preparing for a university test. We could all agree not to study, but then the less smart individual would know he would not pass the test, so to pass it he studies. But then the smart realizes that the less intelligent could surpass him, so he begins studying and so on.
Probably you intended this in a more materialistic way. Here I'm talking about the psychological reasons that may drive one to go out of poverty: having more/being better than others.

Do you think that a fair distribution of wealth could solve the problem? Or, as Animekitty has written, maybe the other sources of inequality (that probably would be less prominent with fair wealth distribution), indipendent from man's will, would translate the problem in new terms?

 

[ummidk]

Basically no for the reasons you've laid out. However it provides value to the people making the progress so it will continue.

 

[scorpiomover]

Is progress necessary?​

Specifically, technological and scientific progress.

Do you know more than you knew yesterday? Of course. Your brain cells remember what happened today and yesterday, while yesterday it only remembered yesterday. So because of our hardware, humans are always learning, always improving and always progressing.

So there's doesn't need to be anything special called 'progress', for progress to happen, because it happens regardless.

Can we say that welfare is relative? It depends on the welfare of other beings and the welfare of our previous self, so it isn't something objective, but depends on the subjective vision of how our welfare compares to other's and to the past. And if welfare is relative, can't we reduce our work to the basic needs and for maintaining our current level of development as a society?

Yes. Farmers only need to work around 4 hours a day to grow plenty of food for themselves. If we were still an agricultural society, we'd only need to work in the morning. Then we'd have the rest of the day for ourselves.

Why can't we stop searching for new technologies and just enjoy what we have?

Because then we would have to manufacture our enjoyment using our minds and our feelings instead of our bodies. It's much easier for a newbie human who doesn't understand his body or mind or emotions, to control his body, than to control his mind or emotions.

New tech is what humans do, who have yet to learn how to use their body, their mind and their emotions for their benefit.

Enjoying what we have, is what humans do, who have learned how to use their body, their mind and their emotions for their benefit.

Think of it like this way:

Young guys get a girlfriend.
Then they get bored, dump their girlfriend, and get another one.
Then they get bored, dump their girlfriend, and get another one.
Then they get bored, dump their girlfriend, and get another one.
Then they get bored, dump their girlfriend, and get another one.

Then when they mature, they realise that all the things they did with their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th girlfriends, were all things they could have done with their 1st girlfriend, but without the hassle of having to keep finding a new girlfriend.

So then they get a girlfriend and stay with her for life. Any time they get bored, they realise the problem is not with their girlfriend, but them. So instead of making a lot of effort to get a new girlfriend, they put in a fraction of that effort into finding new and interesting things to do with their current girlfriend, for the same result.

People call that "marriage".

 

[OmniaOne]

Is progress necessary?​

Specifically, technological and scientific progress.

Do you know more than you knew yesterday? Of course. Your brain cells remember what happened today and yesterday, while yesterday it only remembered yesterday. So because of our hardware, humans are always learning, always improving and always progressing.

So there's doesn't need to be anything special called 'progress', for progress to happen, because it happens regardless.

Can we say that welfare is relative? It depends on the welfare of other beings and the welfare of our previous self, so it isn't something objective, but depends on the subjective vision of how our welfare compares to other's and to the past. And if welfare is relative, can't we reduce our work to the basic needs and for maintaining our current level of development as a society?

Yes. Farmers only need to work around 4 hours a day to grow plenty of food for themselves. If we were still an agricultural society, we'd only need to work in the morning. Then we'd have the rest of the day for ourselves.

Why can't we stop searching for new technologies and just enjoy what we have?

Because then we would have to manufacture our enjoyment using our minds and our feelings instead of our bodies. It's much easier for a newbie human who doesn't understand his body or mind or emotions, to control his body, than to control his mind or emotions.

New tech is what humans do, who have yet to learn how to use their body, their mind and their emotions for their benefit.

Enjoying what we have, is what humans do, who have learned how to use their body, their mind and their emotions for their benefit.

So do you think that progress is an inevitable curse, or that in the future with a better knowledge on our mind and emotions we could set it apart or at least mitigate it's negative effects?

 

[gilliatt]

The first question to answer, is man born in bondage, an indentured servant who must keep buying his life by serving the tribe but never acquire it free and clear. Does man have the right to exist for his own sake? But all the questions, the basic issue is only: Is Man Free? In mankind's history, Capitalism is the only system that answers: Yes. Capitalism recognizes individual rights, property rights etc.

 

[gilliatt]

A laissez-faire economy of active competition has a built-in regulator that protects and preserves it. The regulator of competition in a free market is the capital market. So long as capital is free to flow, it will tend to seek those areas which offer the maximum rate of return. When one invested, he is searching for the one that will give him the most earning potential in the area he selects. And another point, the morality of capitalism. It protects the consumer against dishonesty, shaded business practices, unlike the welfare/statism. See, it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings, quality products etc.

 

[BurnedOut]

The problem is this one, that starts from a psychological law. If we have more, we want more. Satisfaction doesn't depend on having more, but on apprecianting what we have. There's another law, that is as follows: happiness is reduced the more choices we have (because you'll always be unhappy for not having the other choices). So why continue to chase more and more? Why work hard beyond the preservation of what we have?

The catch of psychology is that it often precludes the effects of reality and one's own physical needs. Therapy is one thing and prescribing things in the name of psychology is another. Anyway, Daniel Kahneman will explain that better to you. The notion that welfare is relative and it cannot be anything otherwise is a dangerous notion because it will ultimately either lead to ignorance or abandoning the issue altogether because, well, everyone is an ingrate fuck undeserving of anything because they are always going to be wanting more.

Welfare, apart from having proper amenities for living, it is important to know that for overall well being of a person, accessibility to opportunities also count immensely notwithstanding the trappings of privilege.

Being privileged or not so privileged is a rather natural thing that can never be changed but it practical to provide everyone a shot at a 'more privileged life'. For example, let us compare Somalia with France. If Somalia is able to secure its children proper basic education and basic colleges, it can still provide the kids with an opportunity of helping the country prosper or go outside and seek their fortune. If people there are able to defeat malnutrition, their productivity will increase and that will give them a chance at having a better government. In other words, welfare is giving practical hope to someone. Again, I am already assuming that welfare incorporates all the basic amenities required for a life.

Welfare is thus not relative. Most people do not aspire much to change in their lifestyles and not everyone wants 10000 inch LED TVs in their homes. They are fine with their poorness or richness but one thing nobody can accept is that they are denied all opportunities to a certain goal. Therefore, if welfare is the goal, building things for them that will last and help them build something of themselves in their lives will do the job.

Do remember that poor people do not always ask to become richer, they ask for a chance to be rich. It is the 'chance' that really counts.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Humanity has fallen.

We are progressing off a cliff.

 

[sushi]

have you read the book the time machine by HG wells

i think its funny we become advanced civlization and then we devolve back into tribal idiots eons later

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

have you read the book the time machine by HG wells

i think its funny we become advanced civlization and then we devolve back into tribal idiots eons later

No but I think there will be a technological fallout which will wipe out, eventually, most if not all the human population.

So whoever survives will be in a less advanced society. We will likely be even worse off because of humanities fall. When we were actually tribal, let's say 5 to 10 thousand years ago, humanity was in a purer state.

The good news is though, we have the divine love now! Two thousand years of divine love!

Most haven't chosen it, but we will continue working until the kingdom of God is completed and the possibility is open for all. Then we will do the new work, whatsoever that may be.

 

[scorpiomover]

So do you think that progress is an inevitable curse, or that in the future with a better knowledge on our mind and emotions we could set it apart or at least mitigate it's negative effects?

I think progress is like anything else. It can be positive or negative. It only depends on if it would be a good idea for that progress in that situation or not.

IMHO, controlling the human desire for progress, and learning to discern when progress is a good thing, would probably determine whether it was beneficial or not.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Human progress is not just necessary its survival need.
If people think that we are so advance that progress is no longer a priority they made a fatal mistake. Our existence and survival are based on progress whether scientific or technological. Looking back into the past and thinking all we need is sticks and stones to survive is wrong.
No we don't just need sticks and stones. We need a lot of technology.
Do only way we would not need progress is if we kill all the extra billions of people who are dependent on the technology.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nope don't need progress.

Simple question: When is enough progress? The statement itself is untenable.

Sometimes I let Gandalf explain things:

What matters is you, not some overgeneralized piece of history or achievement- The existentialists didn't suffer and battle the systemizers of philosophy for us to believe in something so worthless! Come on!

For Nietzsche, for Kierkegaard, for one eyed Sartre!!

 

[gilliatt]

To succeed is better than failure, to live is better than to die. Progress is happiness, failure is devouring the soul, devouring the world, a zero soul might choose failure. A happy man, life, wealth, is better for the mind. A poor, ragged man is not a pretty site!

 

[Daddy]

It's all leading up to ---> THE FINAL SOLUTION

 

[Beliefofmine]

In short, yes.

The society model that we've created is based on growth, in all aspects. With limited resources we need to spend more and more time, money and manpower to extract resources than the year previous. We need more people to pay into tax systems and social security systems next year because we have interest payments to make.

Technology and scientific progress are part of that equation. We need progress so that there's increased efficiency. Because if the population grows, we eventually run out of space to grow food to feed everyone, but if you're scientific progress allows you to get twice the yield in the same space you've temporarily answered the shortage of land issue. Etc etc. This is how science and technology will continue to be needed and advanced to solve problems we create.

Additionally, we become used to the technological and scientific advancements. Whose giving up internet and cellphones? Whose giving up air conditioning and refrigeration? People won't willingly accept a reversal of progress.

I know it's demonized by modern society as a "manifesto" but if you read "Industrial society and it's future" by Theodore Kaczynski, it makes a lot of rational predictions and arguments. However, there's no solution to the advancements.