Comments on: The End Of Progress http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2008/02/10/the-end-of-progress/ Don't Be So Serious Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:13:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Ron Traver http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2008/02/10/the-end-of-progress/#comment-159 Ron Traver Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:02:54 +0000 http://www.fabianschonholz.com/2008/02/10/the-end-of-progress/#comment-159 I recall reading Asimov's The Last Question when I was very young and enjoying the questions it raises about infinity, and how to make sense about there being an end to everything. I had forgotten how it started with the first questions being asked by drunks. I like the way this detail is woven into your essay. I agree that it is conflict rather than harmony that results in change. Much is written daily about how we must all come together to save ourselves and the planet, and yet in a very real sense we need passionate conflict to effect real change. I also agree that conflict is our natural state. I think it is a good thing to embrace that part of our nature and a waste of time trying to suppress it, individually or with utopian social systems. It is interesting to consider whether fallen civilizations like the Mayans vanished because they dissolved in self-destructive conflict or because they could not change and went on over that cliff. While either is possible, I think most of us have a gut feeling that it is the latter. I recall reading Asimov’s The Last Question when I was very young and enjoying the questions it raises about infinity, and how to make sense about there being an end to everything. I had forgotten how it started with the first questions being asked by drunks. I like the way this detail is woven into your essay.

I agree that it is conflict rather than harmony that results in change. Much is written daily about how we must all come together to save ourselves and the planet, and yet in a very real sense we need passionate conflict to effect real change. I also agree that conflict is our natural state. I think it is a good thing to embrace that part of our nature and a waste of time trying to suppress it, individually or with utopian social systems.

It is interesting to consider whether fallen civilizations like the Mayans vanished because they dissolved in self-destructive conflict or because they could not change and went on over that cliff. While either is possible, I think most of us have a gut feeling that it is the latter.

]]> By: fschonholz http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2008/02/10/the-end-of-progress/#comment-158 fschonholz Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:49:19 +0000 http://www.fabianschonholz.com/2008/02/10/the-end-of-progress/#comment-158 I agree with Hume (and apparently with you as well) about induction, but here I am using probability. The sun is very likely to come up tomorrow from the East because it came up yesterday and every day before ever since before recorded history, also from the East. So the likelihood that tomorrow the sun will again come up on the East is very high. Similarly, if a majority of historical events that have led humanity to the 21st century are based on control and dominance, my money then is in that we have not learnt a thing and we have not mature as a specie beyond perfecting tools of control and dominance - including intellectual tools. I can see however, how you get induction from the post. I will address the issue of induction on the next related post. Good catch, thank you. I very carefully did not define progress. I did not want the confines of a definition yet. But you are right. The answer can not just be about technological progress. I did open up a little when I wrote "With more time, inclined and “illuminated” people could educate themselves and “study”. And with the pursuit of intellectuality “thinking progress” takes place." Again, it is left to be more precisely defined on a follow up post. I do not agree with your self preservation argument. First of all there are plenty of examples from our past where civilizations self destructed. The Mayans for example - and we still know very little about them and what exactly happen, but we do know that they sort of imploded. Second of all you are assuming a level of mind maturity that I do not share. Yes, I think that most of humanity is just a tad above Chimpanzees as far as their intelligence goes. I would not hold my breath on self preservation. It is VERY disappointing to read the news and see what we do to each other. It is even more disappointing when I start looking at justifications. I would start agreeing with you if your brought the argument down to individuals. As individuals we are hyper tuned to self preservation. That is were Darwinism takes place. And again, Darwinism is about probability and not induction. I agree with Hume (and apparently with you as well) about induction, but here I am using probability. The sun is very likely to come up tomorrow from the East because it came up yesterday and every day before ever since before recorded history, also from the East. So the likelihood that tomorrow the sun will again come up on the East is very high. Similarly, if a majority of historical events that have led humanity to the 21st century are based on control and dominance, my money then is in that we have not learnt a thing and we have not mature as a specie beyond perfecting tools of control and dominance - including intellectual tools.

I can see however, how you get induction from the post. I will address the issue of induction on the next related post. Good catch, thank you.

I very carefully did not define progress. I did not want the confines of a definition yet. But you are right. The answer can not just be about technological progress. I did open up a little when I wrote “With more time, inclined and “illuminated” people could educate themselves and “study”. And with the pursuit of intellectuality “thinking progress” takes place.” Again, it is left to be more precisely defined on a follow up post.

I do not agree with your self preservation argument. First of all there are plenty of examples from our past where civilizations self destructed. The Mayans for example - and we still know very little about them and what exactly happen, but we do know that they sort of imploded. Second of all you are assuming a level of mind maturity that I do not share. Yes, I think that most of humanity is just a tad above Chimpanzees as far as their intelligence goes. I would not hold my breath on self preservation. It is VERY disappointing to read the news and see what we do to each other. It is even more disappointing when I start looking at justifications. I would start agreeing with you if your brought the argument down to individuals. As individuals we are hyper tuned to self preservation. That is were Darwinism takes place. And again, Darwinism is about probability and not induction.

]]> By: Maury http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2008/02/10/the-end-of-progress/#comment-157 Maury Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:55:08 +0000 http://www.fabianschonholz.com/2008/02/10/the-end-of-progress/#comment-157 Your premise pre-supposes that if an event did not happened in history, or for that purpose – if it always happened in history - it will or will not happen in the future, see your comment "Our history, starting with prehistory, is all about control and dominance..." Hume suggested (which I agree) that induction is not a reason to suppose or assume anything, we have no assurances that the sun will rise tomorrow based on the fact that it always does. The issue whether people can get together and stop progress has to be addressed without induction - all revolutions defies the induction premise - revolution always happen for the first time when they happen... So - can humanity decide to stop progress? Before you do it you have to define progress I believe, and it is not technical progress but the ability to decide anything like common laws etc that is analogous to a common decision, if humanity is driven by self preservation – probably they WILL stop progress if they conclude that it is destructive, same as deciding to have common laws to be able to survive in a community (too awhile though…) More later Your premise pre-supposes that if an event did not happened in history, or for that purpose – if it always happened in history - it will or will not happen in the future, see your comment “Our history, starting with prehistory, is all about control and dominance…”

Hume suggested (which I agree) that induction is not a reason to suppose or assume anything, we have no assurances that the sun will rise tomorrow based on the fact that it always does. The issue whether people can get together and stop progress has to be addressed without induction - all revolutions defies the induction premise - revolution always happen for the first time when they happen…
So - can humanity decide to stop progress? Before you do it you have to define progress I believe, and it is not technical progress but the ability to decide anything like common laws etc that is analogous to a common decision, if humanity is driven by self preservation – probably they WILL stop progress if they conclude that it is destructive, same as deciding to have common laws to be able to survive in a community (too awhile though…)
More later

]]>