Ship of Fools: Progress

Thread: Progress Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024623

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Is history moving inexorably in one direction? Does history have any kind of purpose or end in sight?

It seems to me that, underlying many comments I read in the media and elsewhere, there is a deep-seated and often unspoken belief that the world is on a fixed trajectory of 'progress', which includes not simply technological progress, but some kind of moral and intellectual progress (the latter involving a diminution of religious belief and an increase in acceptance of naturalistic thinking).

And so we have the term 'progressive'. Certain views are deemed to be more 'progressive' than others. "Now in the 21st century, we think in a certain way...", as if human opinions have to keep up with the calendar!

Statistics are pored over, and predictions are made based on extrapolations, which will (so it is claimed), more or less, come to be realised, such as the constant and continuing decline of religious belief in Europe, for example.

This is all surely delusion, isn't it?

If there really is no ultimate purpose to life (as a particular philosophy would have us believe), then surely there is no purpose to history, is there? Human experience, thinking and morality could move in any direction at all, and there is no imperative - chronological or otherwise - that determines anything at all (other than, ironically, a factor from the very world view which is deemed to be in a state of irreversible decline, namely, theism with its doctrine of the sovereignty of God).

Yesterday a colleague told me how he was amazed that, several thousand years ago, inhabitants of (what is now) Scotland, were able to build a well functioning sewage system. I wondered why he was so amazed by this. Human beings were just as intelligent then as they are now, to which the evidence of human language, for example, bears testimony. But I guess he had been brainwashed with the popular idea that people of the distant past (within the time frame of recorded human history) were 'primitive' and therefore intellectually backward. This is an example of the "myth of progress" that we are fed with day after day in a kind of subliminal way, such that this myth is rarely challenged.

I've had my say, so...

What is 'progress', in your opinion?

What does it mean to be 'progressive', and how is this term justified?

[ 20. February 2013, 11:18: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Progress is the measure of the improvements that science, technology and engineering deliver to us.

History is the application of those improvements.

Science and engineering drive history. Science discovers, engineering delivers, politics responds and history records.

[ 20. February 2013, 11:31: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

deano -

You are limiting the definition of progress to technology. But what about morality and philosophy?

After all, you don't need to hold to any moral or philosophical position to be able to enjoy the fruits of technological progress - as the use of the internet shows us!

Is it really true that the term 'progressive' only refers to technology? I think not.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The modernist perspective is that everything is working towards the good. The postmodern perspective is that everything is chaotic, that conflicting trajectories and hybridities are everywhere, with no certain outcome except more uncertainties.

Another school of thought is that we're moving towards the fag end of Western hegemony, and that terminal decadence has set in.

I don't know if it's a sweeping generalisation to say that left wing types are more usually modernist, while right wing types are more convinced by the reality of terminal decline. But postmodernism seems to cheese both of them off equally.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

The typical liberal, Enlightenment picture of progress took a very serious blow during the two World Wars and has only survived in the United States (where the devastation was on a much smaller scale, and victory and progress were synonymous with the course of the wars). Maybe it's come back elsewhere as the memory of the wars has faded.

But here's the thing
1. All Christians I can think of, and many atheists, accept moral realism: that is, we believe that there are objective moral facts of one sort or another. Loving your neighbor is good. Coveting your neighbor's wife is bad. And so on.
2. Some might accept the claim that we can, to some extent, discover these moral truths or have them revealed to us, and actually follow them: not perfectly, but at least partially.

If we accept #1 and #2, even if a bit tenuously, it means that we can over time become more moral as a society/species/etc.

Take slavery as an example. #1 claims that slavery is wrong. Always and everywhere, the institution we now call slavery has been wrong. Simply that. #2 claims that human beings were able (guided either by their own reason and compassion or by the Holy Spirit or both or otherwise) to realize that slavery was wrong, and to make that realization a reality. Is there still slavery? Yes. Is there much less slavery than there used to be? Yes. Is this almost-universally regarded as an improvement? Yes.

Maybe the right-wing narrative would see this as a decline into decadence (no self-respecting Burkean would make that claim, so really this is a straw man), and maybe the post-modernist narrative would tell us we can't make a universal moral judgment that slavery is bad (in which case, I'm not particularly interested in the rest of their argument...)

This is not, however, unidirectional. The fact that some things can get better and better over time does not mean that everything does. This is what makes the argument fallacious that "Oh, people will look back on us in twenty-five years and think this is ridiculous!" Argue for or against something on its merits, not on a combination of a huge assumption about history's future course and this sort of weak Hegelian crap.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:

1. All Christians I can think of, and many atheists, accept moral realism: that is, we believe that there are objective moral facts of one sort or another. Loving your neighbor is good. Coveting your neighbor's wife is bad. And so on.
2. Some might accept the claim that we can, to some extent, discover these moral truths or have them revealed to us, and actually follow them: not perfectly, but at least partially.

If we accept #1 and #2, even if a bit tenuously, it means that we can over time become more moral as a society/species/etc.

I'm not sure that your final sentence follows on naturally from points 1 and 2. Yes, we may believe in theory that being kind is a good thing, yet it wasn't even 100 years ago that the supposedly civilised Christian world was plunged into the worst war the world has ever seen - a war with many negative consequences. It seems to me that we move back and forth when it comes to good deeds,and not entirely with pure motives. Some historians claim that abolishing slave trades may be cloaked in the language of virtue, but it often has as much to do with hard-nosed economic calculations.

quote:
Is there still slavery? Yes. Is there much less slavery than there used to be? Yes.

I've actually read that there are more slaves in the world today than previously.

http://www.alternet.org/story/142171/there_are_more_slaves_today_than_at_any_time_in_human_history

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yesterday a colleague told me how he was amazed that, several thousand years ago, inhabitants of (what is now) Scotland, were able to build a well functioning sewage system. I wondered why he was so amazed by this. Human beings were just as intelligent then as they are now, to which the evidence of human language, for example, bears testimony. But I guess he had been brainwashed with the popular idea that people of the distant past (within the time frame of recorded human history) were 'primitive' and therefore intellectually backward.

And yet the ancient Scots (or Picts, or whoever was living there in this underspecified timeframe) didn't manage to construct an internal combustion engine. That may sound a bit facetious, but it highlights the way that technological progress is a contingent process. New developments don't "just happen", they're dependent upon certain prior developments already having happened. For instance, to build an internal combustion engine requires a certain skill with metalurgy, electricity, chemical refinement of fuel, etc.

I guess the question is whether moral or social development is also contingent. It certainly seems to be. For instance, the question of women's suffrage presupposes the existence of some kind of democratic system where suffrage exists at all.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by EE:

quote:

But I guess he had been brainwashed with the popular idea that people of the distant past (within the time frame of recorded human history) were 'primitive' and therefore intellectually backward.

Seems to me that hubris is the primary sin of this age

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I guess it depends upon what your experience of history is. My own approach to the hobby is via the politics and wars, most of which seem to be driven by new discoveries. When the longbow was created, that changed the way politicians thought about warfare. Same with gunpowder.

Better health care was brought about by a better understanding of science, and that drove the clean air acts, the clean water acts and so on.

In fact the slave trade was abolished in Britain (and to a degree in the US) because it became uneconomical because of technical advances.

I agree that morality has changed over the course of history, but again, I think that is a function of the times we live in now. We can have no practical concept of the moralities and philosophies that drove people before the two world wars, the depression, the advent of nuclear weapons, the internet and so on. We can read books about those people, and their morals but we can’t put ourselves in their place because we are immersed in our own morals and philosophies.

It’s my view that morals and philosophies are a function of our lives at a particular moment in time, and that moment in time is arrived at by science and engineering discoveries.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The problem with defining moral progress is that progress implies a goal, and much of morality is about defining what that goal should be.

We might say that society has improved because we no longer torture heretics, and Torquemada might say society has declined for precisely that reason.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Seems to me that hubris is the primary sin of this age

Just like it was in all the other ages.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I believe that God wants us to progress in the direction of greater love towards eachother. But if we do, it's definitely a process of one step forward, two steps back.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I like Svitlana's point about modernism and post-modernism.

In fact, under post-modernism you could argue that the modernist narrative about progress has a certain limited efficacy, but that there are other narratives which also have efficacy. Thus, for example, you could argue that some tribal societies have been well and truly shafted by the modern age, or even wiped out.

Thus, there are multiple and contradictory narratives about 'progress', since there are multiple points of view. To homogenize these seems quite difficult, and arguably, itself an hegemonic act!

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

There is often confusion between change and progress . Change for the better is presumably what we call progress.

We to like to credit ourselves with our progress . Yet take the changes for the better that have occurred over the last 100 yrs for example . Much of this has happened due to the exploitation of oil.

Had this versatile energy source not existed then progress would have been much less . Moreover if something dramatic was to blow out the, somewhat artificial, easy living of today then all our cherished progress would be blown out with it . No different from previous civilisations like the Mayans.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Thank God for modern dentistry.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

EE, I would put your friend's comments on the Picts down to how poorly ancient and medieval history is taught in the UK [Biased]

Even a cursory glance at say, the Ancient Greeks or Ancient Chinese would demonstrate that ancient civillisations made huge technological progress. I consider myself to be a progressive but not because I think that ancient people were universally primitive, because I don't actually think human nature changes at all. It is the system that has changed (in good and bad ways) over time, not people.

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

This is a question that has fascinated me for years. In the nineteenth century we were promised that we would reap the benefits of progress. The latter being defined principally in terms of material progress, including medicine, but also particularly though universal education we were promised major social and moral advances.

With the development of the electronic age, we were promised something roughly along the same lines. The key question of that time was what were we going to do with all our leisure time?

So my question is where did it all go wrong? Let me leave aside Big Issues of international conflict, war, pestilence, famine and so on. Let me take the simple case of ordinary middle class suburban life; we have stress, isolation, break down of relationships, addiction, you supply the rest of the list yourself.

This is amongst people who compared with their great grandparents have an incredible standard of living, health, amusements, education and security. According to our Victorian forebears by now we should all be skipping around folk dancing, when not attending university extension courses - but we isn’t.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

History is very much a construct, and as an academic subject focuses on the written word. Sometimes we confuse it with what happened in the past! History often provides more satisfying explanations of what happened when it is combined with other disciplines, archaeology say, paleontology, geology or even cosmology. 'Progress' is clearly not the given that people thought it was at the beginning of the 20th Century, but there's plenty of evidence for the material advance of the human race, uneven though it may be. Spiritual and moral ideas have had to evolve alongside this trend, and it's mainly our collective ideas and practice in this area, rather than individual, that have shown progress. I find the biblical account of who we are and where we are going very convincing in explaining individual human behaviour, and I see the marxist view of history as complementing the biblical view of collective human behaviour. Whatever modern philosophy may say, I am a sucker for grand theories, whether it's the Toynbeean view of how civilizations behave, or the application of 'Total history'. I quite like this, sponsored by Microsoft as it were:
https://course.bighistoryproject.com/en/Sign-In

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

The Bible predicts great things in the future. Humanity starts in a beautiful Garden, goes through hard times, and by the end is in a much bigger garden in the middle of a fabulous city. [Angel]

That's the biblical trajectory. The rest is details.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

If you look at the sweep of the history of human civilisation, you see that there has indeed been a tremendous sense of progress from the first hunter-gatherers today. This progress can be seen in every aspect of life - from science to morality. It is difficult to think of a single thing where we can honestly say "we've gone backwards."

BUT - that progress is not steady. There have been giant leaps forward and then descents into dark ages. And sometimes the gigantic leaps forward in one area of life (such as science) have not been matched by similar leaps in morality.

I think we're in such a position at the moment. We have seen an amazing leap forward in our understanding of genetics and our ability to manipulate DNA. I don't think that (as a society) we have even started to properly consider the necessary leap forwards in our considerations of the moral issues that this raises.

I also think that the Church has, for the most part, been caught completely off-guard by the leap forward in thinking about such matters as sexuality. Far too many Christians are still living with a 1950's mindset, whilst others are proudly clinging on to a 1980's mindset. The reality is that both are now obsolete and there is a new game in town.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If you look at the sweep of the history of human civilisation, you see that there has indeed been a tremendous sense of progress from the first hunter-gatherers today. This progress can be seen in every aspect of life - from science to morality. It is difficult to think of a single thing where we can honestly say "we've gone backwards."

That depends on which direction you think "forwards" is, doesn't it? If, for example, you think racism and sexism are totally right and correct then you'll think that the changes in morality and society over the last few centuries have been a massive step backwards. If you think in terms of the natural beauty and health of the planet, then all our industrial activities over the last few centuries have been a massive step backwards.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Or if you live in a tribal society, menaced by logging or oil exploration, your hunting rights in peril from habitat destruction, your old way of life threatened, you might not be so ecstatic about progress. You might even complain about the potential genocide of your people.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

On the other hand, I have had three children, I still have three children and their mother is still alive. The odds of that being the case just 100 years ago are quite low. None of them stands a realistic chance of starving to death, or being required to work 14 hours shifts down some mine somewhere from the age of 7 - this would not have been the case 200 years ago. Nor could any of them be hung for a minor offence - this was not the case 200 years ago. They are also not likely to be beaten until they bleed by some sadistic schoolmaster - again, this was not the case just 50 years ago.

Plenty of progress, IMNAAHO.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This reminds me of Lenin - who whom? Progress for many in the West, yes. I'm not sure about other parts of the world - no doubt they are grateful for modern dentistry and obstetrics. Maybe not, for the logging company or the oil company which is trashing the habitat, and gradually adding to the mass extinctions we are witness to today.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This reminds me of Lenin - who whom? Progress for many in the West, yes. I'm not sure about other parts of the world - no doubt they are grateful for modern dentistry and obstetrics. Maybe not, for the logging company or the oil company which is trashing the habitat, and gradually adding to the mass extinctions we are witness to today.

This is so, but opinion is generally, taken over the last 50 years or so, moving away from the assumption of an automatic right of the developed world to exploit the rest of it. It's a work incomplete.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If, for example, you think racism and sexism are totally right and correct then you'll think that the changes in morality and society over the last few centuries have been a massive step backwards.

Not sure what point you're making here. Whilst there may be some people who will defend sexism, racism et al, the movement is quite clearly AWAY from such attitudes and it is difficult to defend them coherently. That seems like progress to me. There will always be people who refuse to change or who resist progress. That doesn't diminish the progress that most reasonable people can perceive.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you think in terms of the natural beauty and health of the planet, then all our industrial activities over the last few centuries have been a massive step backwards.

But the fact that we are now concerned about the impact that we have made upon our world is surely a sign of progress? In the past, humans have done whatever they wanted with little regard for how it affected other species or the natural resources (other than in a very "selfish" sense of "if I kill all the fish now, my family won'r have anything to eat next year"). We have "progressed" in that we are now able to see what effect we are making on our world and are beginning to question the morality of it, rather than simply seeing the world as something to be exploited completely for our own purposes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This reminds me of Lenin - who whom? Progress for many in the West, yes. I'm not sure about other parts of the world - no doubt they are grateful for modern dentistry and obstetrics. Maybe not, for the logging company or the oil company which is trashing the habitat, and gradually adding to the mass extinctions we are witness to today.
This is so, but opinion is generally, taken over the last 50 years or so, moving away from the assumption of an automatic right of the developed world to exploit the rest of it. It's a work incomplete.

They'd better hurry up, as the 'rest of world' may be environmentally trashed, and the people driven off their ancestral lands, and their ancient way of life gone, by the time the work is complete!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Well indeed; there are some vested interests who are very much against progress in this area.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Not sure what point you're making here.

I imagine that it was a statement on the fact that progress is subjective to the individuals point of view - which is, IMO, not too far from the truth, although there are societal opinions too (but then they come from the individual opinions being the majority pov in a society, so the point still remains, progress is in the eye of the beholder, so to say.

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But the fact that we are now concerned about the impact that we have made upon our world is surely a sign of progress?

WE needent have been so concerned with these issues if 'progress' hadn't occured in the first place. Responsible care and husbandry of the environment is a key feature of many 'indigeounous' cultures that still cling on (just IMO) scattered around the globe, and even several hundred years ago before the explosion in world population (brought about by supposed 'progress') in the west such was the majority case. It was the 'progress' of the c.19th and c.20th that harmed the planet to the point that it had not been harmed before. Taken from an ecological point of view, everythign that has happened in the last two-three hundred years has not been progress but exploitation and damage with future regressions...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Not sure what point you're making here. Whilst there may be some people who will defend sexism, racism et al, the movement is quite clearly AWAY from such attitudes and it is difficult to defend them coherently. That seems like progress to me. There will always be people who refuse to change or who resist progress. That doesn't diminish the progress that most reasonable people can perceive.

The point is that those things seem like progress to you only because society has moved towards your position. But there's nothing to say that your position actually is the correct one (if such a thing exists) - and if you're wrong, then what you think of as society getting better is actually society getting worse.

Or to put it another way, just because society is moving in one direction doesn't say anything about whether that direction is good or bad.

[ 21. February 2013, 11:41: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I guess it depends upon what your experience of history is. My own approach to the hobby is via the politics and wars, most of which seem to be driven by new discoveries. When the longbow was created, that changed the way politicians thought about warfare. Same with gunpowder.

Better health care was brought about by a better understanding of science, and that drove the clean air acts, the clean water acts and so on.

....
It’s my view that morals and philosophies are a function of our lives at a particular moment in time, and that moment in time is arrived at by science and engineering discoveries.

Well, yes, to an extent.
Longbow, for instance; not different in principle from the bow-and-arrow that had been in use for millenia, although of course much developed from this. What was different was the social organisation that made possible the constant practice need to develop the skill and massive strength needed to use this fearsome weapon. And which came first, the weapon or the military strategy? arguably, there was a perceived need for more effective archery which drove the development of the longbow - or did the two go hand-in-hand?

And gunpowder artillery appeared during the Hundred Years' War. Henry 8's warship Mary Rose carried both cannon and longbow archers. So the two co-existed for a long time. The question I find hard to answer is why the longbow died out, given that in range, accuracy and rate-of-fire it is far superior to the musket.

So technical knowledge and development is undoubtedly important, but there are other factors too.

Science and medicine had a lot to do with efficient sewers and clean water, but perhaps not so much as is commonly believed. Drinking polluted water is unpleasant. The real driving force for the London sewer system came when sewage dumped in the Thames drifted upstream as far as the Houses of Parliament during one hot summer, and the stench could not be ignored even by politicians. There was also a public outcry when a paddle steamer capsized in the sewage-laden Thames, and even strong swimmers perished.

After all, even the Romans had clean drinking water and efficient sewers. Evidently we had regressed a bit ...

And what aspects of morals and philosophy (in which I don't count post-modernism, whatever (if anything at all) that might be) were not around, at least in embryo, before the development of the infernal combustion engine?

Blackbeard C Eng

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This reminds me of Lenin - who whom? Progress for many in the West, yes. I'm not sure about other parts of the world - no doubt they are grateful for modern dentistry and obstetrics. Maybe not, for the logging company or the oil company which is trashing the habitat, and gradually adding to the mass extinctions we are witness to today.
This is so, but opinion is generally, taken over the last 50 years or so, moving away from the assumption of an automatic right of the developed world to exploit the rest of it. It's a work incomplete.
They'd better hurry up, as the 'rest of world' may be environmentally trashed, and the people driven off their ancestral lands, and their ancient way of life gone, by the time the work is complete!

This raises the concern that the rise in our standard of living in the West is dependent upon people in other parts of the world being willing to accept a lower standard of living. This should surely give us pause for thought, as it undermines our claim that everyone in the world will be able to live like us simply because that's the natural outcome of events.

http://www.lagunabeachbikini.com/index.php/2011/07/15/could-the-whole-world-live-like-the-us/

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Svitlana

Yes, I thought it had been shown that it's impossible for the whole world to live as affluently as Europe does - haven't got the refs to hand.

I'm not sure whether affluence in one areas depends on exploitation in another area or not - e.g. stuff being made in China for rock-bottom wages.

Of course, there is also the issue of the environment - presumably, if the whole world were to become affluent, there would be no nature left!

I think we are in the middle of a mass extinction now, unavoidable, and caused by humans.

Of course, this doesn't deny the vast improvements made to health, education, and so on, in the West. But how are the tribal societies faring? I suppose you could argue that it's worth destroying them, so that they get better dentistry and flat-screen TVs!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

This response doesn't produce any ideas different from my other posts generally, but I have enjoyed sitting and thinking about it. thank you, EE.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Is history moving inexorably in one direction?

Since history is just a word to enable us to talk about what has happened before now and is unalterably behind us, we can see that it has happened in only one 'direction' and hasn't sometimes reversed in any way as it is obviously impossible to undo anything..

quote:
Does history have any kind of purpose or end in sight?

May I ask why you chose the word 'history' here? I think I'd say 'the universe' and/or 'life'; and I'd include any life on other planets too.
Since, in order to have purpose, there must be a mind to think about purpose, then decidedly, there is no purpose, other than the ones we humans make for ourselves. In my opinion, this should underpin confidence, not undermine it.

quote:
It seems to me that, underlying many comments I read in the media and elsewhere, there is a deep-seated and often unspoken belief that the world is on a fixed trajectory of 'progress', ...

Whatever the belief, it is a human one and something which can help towards a feeling of order and pattern in our lives; which seems to be something we need to survive.
A trajectory implies a particular end point of the parabola, doesn't it? Where would it have started? It can only be forward, can't it? Progress has always been more knowledge in the long run, but many setbacks and reversals on the way, with people forgetting, records being made only in comparatively recent history; and always weapons to prevent other groups from suppressing the one with the more efficient killing wepons.

quote:
...which includes not simply technological progress, but some kind of moral and intellectual progress (the latter involving a diminution of religious belief and an increase in acceptance of naturalistic thinking).

Morals and the changes therein is an aspect far more difficult to assess, I think. Definitely not a straight line progress from one to another! They have obviously overall, good or not so good, worked, since our species has survived successfully throughout the gradual changes in our separation and evolution from our common ancestor ape. Whatever the superstitious beliefs were, they developed into ideas of gods, but I certainly hope that naturalism, or whatever people call it, will become widely and strongly enough accepted to replace the god beliefs. (And yes, I know that's me being repetitive! [Smile]

) And no, I don't think it will happen, even to being a minority, in this century.

quote:
And so we have the term 'progressive'. Certain views are deemed to be more 'progressive' than others. "Now in the 21st century, we think in a certain way...", as if human opinions have to keep up with the calendar!

I think the word 'progressive' doesn't get used so often nowadays in the same way that it did when I was young. People have access to the facts behind what is called 'progressive' and the means to challenge it if necessary.

quote:
Statistics are pored over, and predictions are made based on extrapolations, which will (so it is claimed), more or less, come to be realised, such as the constant and continuing decline of religious belief in Europe, for example./[QUOTE]
Yes, and that is not in any way a fact which should cause any kind of fear or dis comfort. Once people realise that everything that has ever been thought, or said, or done by humans has been from an idea originating in our evolved brains, then maybe greater steps 'forward' in the way of better laws, justice, technological, medical improvements, etc etc can be made.
Of course there will be too many who will use the knowledge for nefarious purposes, but not enough to cause the extinction of the species, I think. Annihilation of huge numbers is possible, but however humans survived, they would have the will to survive and pass on genes. Obviously, some of my genes make me the incurable optimist I am!
[QUOTE]This is all surely delusion, isn't it?

If there really is no ultimate purpose to life (as a particular philosophy would have us believe), then surely there is no purpose to history, is there?

There was never a purpose to history, though. Things happened and there are records of what happened. Any perceived purpose is only with hindsight.

quote:
Human experience, thinking and morality could move in any direction at all, and there is no imperative - ...

There is the evolutionary, biological imperative.

quote:
...chronological or otherwise - that determines anything at all (other than, ironically, a factor from the very world view which is deemed to be in a state of irreversible decline, namely, theism with its doctrine of the sovereignty of God).

But the longer time goes on with 'evidence' being entirely subjective, the less likely this will be perceived to be a 'good thing'.

quote:
Yesterday a colleague told me how he was amazed that, several thousand years ago, inhabitants of (what is now) Scotland, were able to build a well functioning sewage system. I wondered why he was so amazed by this. Human beings were just as intelligent then as they are now, to which the evidence of human language, for example, bears testimony. But I guess he had been brainwashed with the popular idea that people of the distant past (within the time frame of recorded human history) were 'primitive' and therefore intellectually backward. This is an example of the "myth of progress" that we are fed with day after day in a kind of subliminal way, such that this myth is rarely challenged.

Agree with most of this, but I think the challenges are increasing.

quote:
What is 'progress', in your opinion?

What does it mean to be 'progressive', and how is this term justified?

And of course, I really don't know. Am I 'progressing', I ask myself, and the answer is, I suppose, not really. Will what I have done in my life have helped towards any improvement in the human condition? Not really, but as a teacher, I hope I encouraged children to do the best they could. I am very lucky to be fit and well now, but I am moving towards my inevitable life's end; and that's progress! I'll make a space on the planet, as every other person has done. [Smile]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

You used to hear the phrase 'Nothing must stand in the way of progress'.

You don't hear that so much these days . Many in the developed are becoming genuinely fearful of where humanity is being taken by it's own progress.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:

... The question I find hard to answer is why the longbow died out, given that in range, accuracy and rate-of-fire it is far superior to the musket.

Blackbeard C Eng

I don't know the answer, but I can give you a clue where to look. The question was raised towards the end of the 16th Century, about 1598 I think, when English armies were fighting Spain, particularly in the Netherlands. An enquiry - possibly a Parliamentary Committee - was set up, specifically to decide which was the better weapon, and the conclusion, after rigorous tests and discussion, was that the musket was better. My only excuse for knowing this obscure fact is that I taught 'A' level Tudor history for many years.

I believe 'The Gannet', a Fleet Air Arm anti-submarine monoplane in the 1950's, was chosen in preference to a bi-plane aircraft which would have been more efficient.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I remember one of my college professors expressing surprise that people began using muskets in battle. Apparently you had to stand up to load an early musket, and the process took about a minute. During that minute you were extremely vulnerable.

Moo

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Wasn't the musket a later improvement on the Chinese invention of "fire tubes", the first sort of rifle which took two persons and a long time between shots but nevertheless ended the Khan dynasty?

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
.......and the conclusion, after rigorous tests and discussion, was that the musket was better. ...
I believe 'The Gannet', a Fleet Air Arm anti-submarine monoplane in the 1950's, was chosen in preference to a bi-plane aircraft which would have been more efficient.

I don't know, but maybe it's possible, that the decision on muskets was influenced by a shortage of archers. You can use a musket with comparatively little training, but to use a longbow takes years of practise.
Also, muskets do have one advantage - a musket ball, which is quite heavy and moving at roughly the speed of sound, can smash its way through any armour. (Recoil must have been something special.) A longbow arrow can be defeated by the heaviest plate armour, but in medieval times only the richest could afford it. Maybe technology had advanced to the point where ordinary soldiers, as opposed to noble knights, could be equipped with the (now, easier and cheaper to produce in quantity) plate armour. So the apparently simple question "why muskets?" has to do with social factors affecting archers' training, and armour-producing technology.

It's a possibility, anyway. Though I still can't help thinking how eighteenth-century warfare, with highly disciplined ranks of soldiers firing at each other at close range, might have been changed by a company of longbow archers ...

The Gannet (aircraft), which operated from aircraft carriers, could fold its wings in a manner similar to that of the Gannet (bird). This made the most of the valuable space within the carrier. Might have been more difficult with a biplane; much of the advantage of the biplane is that the wings form a lightweight rigid box structure which won't fold. So it might not have been just a question of aerodynamics. Maybe.

Interesting stuff.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
This is a question that has fascinated me for years. In the nineteenth century we were promised that we would reap the benefits of progress. The latter being defined principally in terms of material progress, including medicine, but also particularly though universal education we were promised major social and moral advances.

And we have had them. People are living longer, and healthcare free at point of delivery is expected. As is listening to most people, gay rights, and a lot of other things.

quote:
With the development of the electronic age, we were promised something roughly along the same lines. The key question of that time was what were we going to do with all our leisure time?

Remind me, where do you live? I'm in Britain and have never knowingly met you face to face.

quote:
So my question is where did it all go wrong? Let me leave aside Big Issues of international conflict, war, pestilence, famine and so on. Let me take the simple case of ordinary middle class suburban life; we have stress, isolation, break down of relationships, addiction, you supply the rest of the list yourself.

This is amongst people who compared with their great grandparents have an incredible standard of living, health, amusements, education and security. According to our Victorian forebears by now we should all be skipping around folk dancing, when not attending university extension courses - but we isn’t.

It's one of those cases where the first 90% takes 90% of the work and the last 10% takes 90% of the work. We've better lives - but there's a difference between that and Pollyanna.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

@Justinian. I must confess I found your last post almost breathtaking in both its naïveté and parochialism. Perhaps you should take a broader view of the world.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Justinian. I must confess I found your last post almost breathtaking in both its naïveté and parochialism. Perhaps you should take a broader view of the world.

@Drewthealexander, I find your claim of naivity ironic. Possibly you should read a little more history and even read the article you yourself linked. In specific the sentence "A report published by Oxfam last year found that the UK is rapidly returning to Dickensian levels of inequality." Note those two words "Returning to". We got away from it. And even Dickensian levels of inequality weren't either mass slavery or mass serfdom, but they are used as a go-to for a nightmare situation.

This isn't to say we can't do better or that we shouldn't. And isn't to say that progress is uniform. It's not. But even compared with 100 years ago the world is almost unrecognisably better. We need to keep it that way (and it's threats to this the report outlines) and to improve it still further.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0