The inevitability of progress

[trundler]

Do you think such a thing exists? That in the grand scheme of things, we are obliged by nature or some other mechanism to progress forward. In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari thinks so. He outlines how the works has and continues to amalgamate smaller tribes and city states into nations, eventually leading to a global piece. He believes things progress as per a defined pattern that always leads to net progress. A sort of evolutionary determinism, I would term this. He believes progress is ordained by self-preservation.

In contrast, Carlin believes humans are just another biological cul-de-sac. He takes an apathetic, if not pessimistic, stand. That humans are essentially stupid and would eventually wipe themselves off the planet with their stupidity. This suggests the there is no such inevitability of progress. Nature is chaotic and entropy is always increasing.

Random rambling. Not sure if coherent. Do share your views. Define progress as you will.

 

[StephenZA]

Sounds like somebody has a book report to write?

 

[trundler]

Nah, mate. Was watching Carlin and his bit on climate change got me thinking. What book report would this nonsense be for, haha.

 

[sledger]

The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[trundler]

The more things change the more they stay the same.

A truly centrist thing to say.

 

[silentstriker]

See: Dark Ages.

 

[harsh.ag]

We don't know yet. Let's see how we handle climate change.

 

[weldone]

Nah progress happens only with effort. Sit idle and nothing happens. Obviously this can't be realised at a macro level (because all the people in the world won't be lazy at the same time) but look at particular fields that lacked effort, funding, resources - and those sectors have seen slow/no growth for decades in different countries.

 

[sledger]

A truly centrist thing to say.

Only if nihilism = centrism. Which maybe it does, who knows.

 

[Dan]

I think the assumption of a linear scale from 'not progress' to 'progress' (or, more functionally in debates on here, 'uneducated' to 'educated') is fundamentally flawed, as it always seems to align perfectly with the theoristposter's very specific view of what is good/correct.

 

[trundler]

Only if nihilism = centrism. Which maybe it does, who knows.

There's 2 kinds of nihilism though. A hopeless one and optimistic absurdism.

 

[trundler]

I think the assumption of a linear scale from 'not progress' to 'progress' (or, more functionally in debates on here, 'uneducated' to 'educated') is fundamentally flawed, as it always seems to align perfectly with the theoristposter's very specific view of what is good/correct.

Well, the post isn't about my view if progress at all, since I'm going by Harari's book.

 

[sledger]

There's 2 kinds of nihilism though. A hopeless one and optimistic absurdism.

Yes, perhaps I should have said "fatalism" instead.

My PhD supervisor accused me of being too fatalist the other day. It is my new favourite word.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards crushing sledger

 

[Flem274*]

Expedient will no longer be sledgers word of the day?

I'm not sure his posts will ever be the same

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Everyone of us is designed with a lens so as to see how the world should be.

Inevitability of progress depends on who or what is the majority in different parts of the world. We tend to have non-homogeneous beliefs. If we ought to unite as a global community, then it has to be because of something catastrophic happening on a global scale. Something that threatens our species.

Technology and truth have to play a part. Truth is subjective. That's where the complexity begins. We are crazy beings.

Is progress a mechanism towards peace? Of course it is.

Our greatest hero is yet to come.