The Myth of Progress

I look back on my life and income levels...

I earn less now than I have since 1980.
I have less savings, less stuff, and no longer own a home. Yet I live well and am happy.
(Live well in my perspective, not all)

Prior to 1980 I spent months on the road, hitchhiking around, living hand to mouth, working long enough to get some cash and hitch to the next town. Or living on the beach juggling and playing with friends and then juggling at night for coins in a hat to do it all again. No cell phones, no rent, no worries.

In between there was 4 decades of the American dream, wife, 2 kids, home ownership, 2 cars, in ground pool, parties, church every Sunday, 60 hour work week, soccer coach, scout leader, entrepreneur...made a lot of money and spent a lot.

What is progress to me, what is enough to me, what is bliss to me, what is happiness to me, is not progress, bliss, happiness, or enough for all....it is all perspective.

I love a life that others would hate.

In the above chart....there are people in each level of income..who feel as I do. And I guarantee there are more people satisfied with their condition, their lot in life in each of the lower three, than the upper one.

Wealth is not money, it is a life of cultivating family, friends, health, acceptance of reality, of purpose, of small joys...I wish that, this myth of progress for all (who want it)

Peace starts within
 
Last edited:
Ahanu said:
You can still have growing inequality and progress simultaneously. We should be careful not to equate inequality with poverty. For example, if the bottom half still have the same proportion of the wealth as 50% of the poorest a century ago, they are actually far richer since wealth has grown exponentially, so even if inequality is rising, the poorest half are still better off than a century ago..
Click to expand...
Hmm .. something doesn't add up here.
What is wealth? How do you measure it?

How can wealth have increased "exponentially"?
The planet earth is still planet earth. :)

Are we bringing resources back from outer-space or something?
 
Ahanu said:
So what does this growing disparity between the rich and poor growing larger than ever and increasing prove to you and say about progress?
Click to expand...
Nothing, beyond the material dimension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
muhammad_isa said:
Hmm .. something doesn't add up here.
Click to expand...
Okay.

muhammad_isa said:
What is wealth? How do you measure it?
Click to expand...
Well, there are multiple ways to measure wealth. First, we could all agree that wealth is in the number of cowrie shells that an individual owns. For thousands of years humans used cowrie shells as money, so money is whatever humans collectively agree that it is. Cowrie shells themselves do not intrinsically have any monetary value, but, again, they become valuable when we ascribe value to them. Another way is through property. Another way is through assets. A recent example would be in-game assets held on a public blockchain. Previously time spent in games could not be monetized; however, now it can be. This creates yet another new stream of wealth creation that did not exist for previous generations. This is one of many examples of how new wealth is created out of thin air with new technologies.

muhammad_isa said:
How can wealth have increased "exponentially"?

The planet earth is still planet earth. :)
Click to expand...
muhammad_isa said:
Are we bringing resources back from outer-space or something?
Click to expand...
Unlike the past in the days of Jesus and Muhammad, our economic system is built on trust in the future. Money doesn't just represent tangible objects. It now encapsulates future productivity. An imaginary good that does not yet exist can be represented with money we call credit. Currently the world economy is trillions of dollars in debt. The only way for this current economic system to continue without collapsing is for our trust in the future to be realized through increased productivity (e.g., nanotechnology, blockchain, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, precision therapies, and so on). Hence VCs put unimaginable amounts of money into cutting edge scientific research in hopes that the economic pie will grow.
 
Last edited:
Ahanu said:
..Money doesn't just represent tangible objects. It now encapsulates future productivity. An imaginary good that does not yet exist is a money we call credit. Currently the world economy is trillions of dollars in debt. The only way for this current economic system to continue without collapsing is for our trust in the future to be fulfilled through increased productivity (e.g., nanotechnology, blockchain, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, precision therapies, and so on)..
Click to expand...
A bit like 'pyramid sales' .. it's not sustainable.

..so, as I see it, we are depleting the world's resources at an ever-increasing rate, and it
appears as if people generally are 'more wealthy than ever', but in reality, we are creating
more problems than we are solutions. :(
 
muhammad_isa said:
as I see it, we are depleting the world's resources at an ever-increasing rate
Click to expand...
Can we deplete matter? Are we depleting resources? Or wasting them? How much solar energy are we missing out on capturing or utilizing each day? Is the world done making oil? Is any gold or platinum gone? (Well to space...we do send stuff off planet)

Some of that tongue in cheek...
 
Einst haben die Kerls auf den Bäumen gehockt,
behaart und mit böser Visage.
Dann hat man sie aus dem Urwald gelockt
und die Welt asphaltiert und aufgestockt,
bis zur dreißigsten Etage.

Da saßen sie nun, den Flöhen entflohn,
in zentralgeheizten Räumen.
Da sitzen sie nun am Telefon.
Und es herrscht noch genau derselbe Ton
wie seinerzeit auf den Bäumen.

Sie hören weit. Sie sehen fern.
Sie sind mit dem Weltall in Fühlung.
Sie putzen die Zähne. Sie atmen modern.
Die Erde ist ein gebildeter Stern
mit sehr viel Wasserspülung.

Sie schießen die Briefschaften durch ein Rohr.
Sie jagen und züchten Mikroben.
Sie versehn die Natur mit allem Komfort.
Sie fliegen steil in den Himmel empor
und bleiben zwei Wochen oben.

Was ihre Verdauung übrigläßt,
das verarbeiten sie zu Watte.
Sie spalten Atome. Sie heilen Inzest.
Und sie stellen durch Stiluntersuchungen fest,
daß Cäsar Plattfüße hatte.

So haben sie mit dem Kopf und dem Mund
Den Fortschritt der Menschheit geschaffen.
Doch davon mal abgesehen und
bei Lichte betrachtet sind sie im Grund
noch immer die alten Affen.

Erich Kästner (1932)

Sorry, it's German.
 
RabbiO said:
Out of curiosity I plugged in a dollar amount for theoretical income, I’m in the US, that for a family of 2 adults and 2 children is so low that survival without help from an outside source would be virtually impossible. The website tool, however, announced how wealthy I am in comparison to most of the world. Without taking into consideration other factors, such as what it costs to live where one lives, the tool is of no consequence.
Click to expand...
There's an absolute dimension of salary, concerning luxury or economic power, e.g. the liberty of travel abroad or to invest in technology.
It tells a lot on the opportunity of average people to act on the international market. You will need the same amount of money to buy a knitting machine to produce pullovers, but for an average employee in Switzerland, it's 10% of the yearly income, but for an average employee in Pakistan it's 3 years income.
But there's also an important local aspect, as with £10000 a year, you are the king of the village in Somaliland, but you would have to live without shelter in Switzerland (but you would get public social welfare to get a place to live).
 
muhammad_isa said:
A bit like 'pyramid sales' .. it's not sustainable.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, it's unsustainable if technologies like artificial intelligence do not increase our productivity. I would suggest watching the video below, starting around the 40 min mark, because the speaker gives vivid examples of how artificial intelligence provides everyone with a personalized expert in fields like education and healthcare. It's mindboggling how transformative it could be.

 
Ahanu said:
.. starting around the 40 min mark, because the speaker gives vivid examples of how artificial intelligence provides everyone with a personalized expert in fields like education and healthcare.
Click to expand...
At the moment, I think it is very defective (I have not used it, ChatGPT, etc.). It will repeat what is already there on internet, including pure BS.
 
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
Indeed ... but these are always subject to change. Freud was all the rage at one point, now not so much ... psychology as a science is a mixed bag.
Click to expand...
Psychology as a science is young, so I guess it can seem like a mixed bag.

Thomas said:
No, I accept that. A change in material circumstance (for better or worse) can broaden or narrow, increase or limit the potential, but that does not necessarily change the essential nature.
Click to expand...

You have yet to define what our essential nature is, or I missed your excellent explanation somewhere in all these posts.

I guess an imperfect but useful analogy would be a toolkit. Our various tools within represent our predispositions/essential nature. A competitive environment makes it more likely that I would reach for the "greediness/competition" tool, but a cooperative one makes it more likely that I would reach for the "generosity/cooperation" tool.

Long-term changes could change the tools in the toolkit. If a specific environment continuously favors traits that in some way promote cooperation, genes associated with those traits might become more widespread in the population over time. This could gradually shift the balance within the toolkit. It would make "generous/cooperative" behaviors more likely.

Then you have complex cultural and technological influences on the toolbox. The question for me is whether or not new tools could be introduced into the toolkit in the long-term because of these new developments. As I mentioned earlier, many new technologies increase the number of non-zero-sum games in the world, and this shifts human behavior in a certain moral direction. To quote Robert Wright again: "If you asked me, you know, why am I not in favor of bombing Japan, well, I'm only half-joking when I say they built my car. We have this non-zero-sum relationship, and I think that does lead to a kind of a tolerance to the extent that you realize that someone else's welfare is positively correlated with yours -- you're more likely to cut them a break." Although capitalism is far from perfect, Robert Wright notes that capitalism has created an environment with more non-zero-sum games that, through a vast web of interconnectedness with our technologies, have made us kinder - relatively speaking to the ancient world's standards of kindness - by broadening our moral circle. On a similar note, one economist notes: "If the tailor goes to war with the baker, he must henceforth bake his own bread." Our capitalist environment decreases the likelihood of reaching for the "revenge" tool with the aim to murder in relation to someone from the ancient world.

In my opinion, this gradual change in expression of behavior is a subtle form of collective spiritual progress - that is, awakening to the realization that more and more people that are different from myself are in the same boat. A potential shift towards values like compassion, understanding, and interconnectedness could be interpreted as a sign. Of course, this pendulum could swing the other way, but after the correction, the question is whether or not we will continue trending towards moral progress from a broader perspective with the long-term in mind. All I see are critics simply missing the forest for the trees, focusing on short-term setbacks while ignoring long-term trends.
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
Yep, and some say the effects so far are positive, and others say negative, and others that the brain has the ability to adapt, which is part of its nature, so it's just within the existing potential – rather than signifying a change of nature, it's a change within nature?
Click to expand...

Human nature means many things to many people.

Xunzi likened our human nature to a crooked piece of wood, but one that could be straightened with force from the outside. Here's his definition:

"That which is used as it was from birth is called human nature. The part of human nature that . . . resonates and responds spontaneously and without interference is also called human nature. The likes, dislikes, happiness, anger, sorrows, and joys of human nature are called emotions.

When the emotions are thus, and the mind acts [wei] upon them and makes choices, this is called thinking. When the mind thinks and is able to act [wei] and act upon its thoughts, this is called artifice."

Rousseau would disagree.

Are we inherently good or bad? Is morality something we learn or something innate? Both have different answers, because both have different views of human nature.
 
 
RJM said:
Or perhaps not ...
Click to expand...
No kid ran down the stairs..."mommy mommy there are angels under my bed"

The human condition somehow dkctates when we approach the unknown we make up the worst. Ain't heard from someone who didn't make their regular rounds? They are sick, or injured or in the hospital...nah, you just forgot they were on vacation in Hawaii...or.they forgot to tell you.

The future is so bright we are gonna need shades!

Heck...trucks are.now backing up right under hitches by themselves, cars are parallel parking... life is good.and gonna get better!
 
RJM said:
@Ahanu Doesn't this also frighten you?
Click to expand...
Sure. China could easily monitor and track the movement of your child's eyes in public schools as they are reading. Mix this with a social credit score and surveillance AI could have tremendous ethical implications down the road.

Does anything excite you about AI?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top