Who is" progress" really progress for?

[donttread]

As animal Mother just pointed out on CAPS thread about AI we tend to do things just because we can. The question arises are we now at the point where we "progress" for progress's sake. Or even against our best interest?
Consider the following examples.
1) We continue to automize everything from production and movement of goods to turning on a fan. Despite the fact that we are too fat , too inactive and grossly underemployed. Progress AGAINST our best interest .
2) We continue to develop industrial farming techniques for mass production which introduced chemicals into our food, use massive amounts of fossil fuels, ruin our bodies , decrease employment and ruin local economies. Progress AGAINST our best interest

Progress has taken on a life of its own and serves only the super rich. Progress, like government no longer serves the people and won't until we are actually represented.

[kilgram]

As animal Mother just pointed out on CAPS thread about AI we tend to do things just because we can. The question arises are we now at the point where we "progress" for progress's sake. Or even against our best interest?
Consider the following examples.
1) We continue to automize everything from production and movement of goods to turning on a fan. Despite the fact that we are too fat , too inactive and grossly underemployed. Progress AGAINST our best interest .
2) We continue to develop industrial farming techniques for mass production which introduced chemicals into our food, use massive amounts of fossil fuels, ruin our bodies , decrease employment and ruin local economies. Progress AGAINST our best interest

Progress has taken on a life of its own and serves only the super rich. Progress, like government no longer serves the people and won't until we are actually represented.
Obviously we live in a capitalist system that favours the capital. The ones that have capital.

Progress is not bad. But we have many advancements that only benefit those with capital. It is fault of the economic and political system that we are living.

[Common]

Eventually the rich will get less richer as they continue to take more and more from the rest of america.

I know conservatives see whats happening, they are NOT stupid. The see the devastation to the middle class. Im sure some of their purists blame the middleclass for everything. I believe many Conservatives know whats really going on.

[donttread]

Obviously we live in a capitalist system that favours the capital. The ones that have capital.

Progress is not bad. But we have many advancements that only benefit those with capital. It is fault of the economic and political system that we are living.

We are only Capitalist in the sense you talk about where Capital rules the day. In the common sense of price competition within a free market , not so much

[Peter1469]

The middle class is being killed by inflation. The dollar is worth 12% less than when QE started.

[Polecat]

It is rumored that one of the goals of the Bilderberg Group is to rid the planet of waste humanity. A quick look around the world will show that most people are not of use as servants to the masters. Most of us are obsolete in the face of progress.

[IMPress Polly]

The term "progress," as historically used by progressives (including Marxists, such as yours truly) refers to the idea that human history features a certain natural directionality wherein, by virtue of being rational creatures, human beings naturally seek the best possible outcomes for the least amount of work (i.e. efficiency) and thus invent new ways of decreasing the burden of labor over time, revolutionizing society over and over again in due season. A political progressive supports policies and systems that go with that flow. A conservative is the logical opposite of a progressive, favoring policies and systems that attempt to block that flow, perhaps out of a belief that old ways are better for people than new ways (a notion with which I certainly disagree).

Progressivism right now, for example, above all means supporting globalization, at least in principle (as in the emergence of a unified world economy and universal freedom of movement together with that as a counterweight against the exploitation of cheap labor), as it is tending to wipe out extreme poverty and level out the differences between the First and Third Worlds, creating a sort of universal Second World standard of living for all, from whence humanity can progress together in a more unified, single-class kind of way. That said, the world economy is currently not progressing in an ecologically sustainable way and said situation must absolutely be remedied.

[Mister D]

The irony being that globalization is a liberal capitalist phenomenon.

[IMPress Polly]

There's no irony to that. Progressivism is not always the same thing as leftism. It's pole is not always the same! A progressive is not at all times and unconditionally a leftist. Personally, I believe that reform-capitalism is the best humanity can do right now. It will not always be that way, but for the time being it is, I believe.

[Mister D]

There's no irony to that. Progressivism is not always the same thing as leftism. It's pole is not always the same! A progressive is not at all times and unconditionally a leftist.

I didn't suggest that they were. I'm sure what you are responding to.

[IMPress Polly]

Oh, it just seemed like you were implying that, for example, the pole of progressivism is necessarily anti-capitalist at all times. Maybe I misunderstood!

[Chris]

Obviously we live in a capitalist system that favours the capital. The ones that have capital.

Progress is not bad. But we have many advancements that only benefit those with capital. It is fault of the economic and political system that we are living.



Free market capitalism and liberal progressivism, you know, that striving for equality, are antithetical.

Progress is nonexistent. It's based on historicism.

[Chris]

Eventually the rich will get less richer as they continue to take more and more from the rest of america.

I know conservatives see whats happening, they are NOT stupid. The see the devastation to the middle class. Im sure some of their purists blame the middleclass for everything. I believe many Conservatives know whats really going on.



As long as politicians in government support and protect the rich, the middle and poor classes will continue to be gutted to enrich the rich.

[Chris]

The term "progress," as historically used by progressives (including Marxists, such as yours truly) refers to the idea that human history features a certain natural directionality wherein, by virtue of being rational creatures, human beings naturally seek the best possible outcomes for the least amount of work (i.e. efficiency) and thus invent new ways of decreasing the burden of labor over time, revolutionizing society over and over again in due season. A political progressive supports policies and systems that go with that flow. A conservative is the logical opposite of a progressive, favoring policies and systems that attempt to block that flow, perhaps out of a belief that old ways are better for people than new ways (a notion with which I certainly disagree).

Progressivism right now, for example, above all means supporting globalization, at least in principle (as in the emergence of a unified world economy and universal freedom of movement together with that as a counterweight against the exploitation of cheap labor), as it is tending to wipe out extreme poverty and level out the differences between the First and Third Worlds, creating a sort of universal Second World standard of living for all, from whence humanity can progress together in a more unified, single-class kind of way. That said, the world economy is currently not progressing in an ecologically sustainable way and said situation must absolutely be remedied.


A "The term "progress," as historically used by progressives (including Marxists, such as yours truly) refers to the idea that human history features a certain natural directionality"

B "wherein, by virtue of being rational creatures, human beings naturally seek the best possible outcomes for the least amount of work (i.e. efficiency) and thus invent new ways of decreasing the burden of labor over time, revolutionizing society over and over again in due season."

While B is true, it simply does not, cannot entail A. Why? Because B is about change. Things change. You can't step in the same river again. And included in that change is change of direction, thus there can be no directionality. B in fact contradicts the possibility of A.

[Chris]

As animal Mother just pointed out on CAPS thread about AI we tend to do things just because we can. The question arises are we now at the point where we "progress" for progress's sake. Or even against our best interest?
Consider the following examples.
1) We continue to automize everything from production and movement of goods to turning on a fan. Despite the fact that we are too fat , too inactive and grossly underemployed. Progress AGAINST our best interest .
2) We continue to develop industrial farming techniques for mass production which introduced chemicals into our food, use massive amounts of fossil fuels, ruin our bodies , decrease employment and ruin local economies. Progress AGAINST our best interest

Progress has taken on a life of its own and serves only the super rich. Progress, like government no longer serves the people and won't until we are actually represented.



Progress doesn't recognize the natural limitations of man and society that conservatism does.

Progressives speak of progress as something natural when driven solely by reason, ignorant of tradition, it is unnatural, artificial, and self-defeating.

[Mister D]

Oh, it just seemed like you were implying that, for example, the pole of progressivism is necessarily anti-capitalist at all times. Maybe I misunderstood!

no, it's just that you (a Marxist) give a very positive assessment of what is essentially a liberal capitalist phenomenon. Moreover, it's sustained by capitalism.

[Mister D]

Progress doesn't recognize the natural limitations of man and society that conservatism does.

Progressives speak of progress as something natural when driven solely by reason, ignorant of tradition, it is unnatural, artificial, and self-defeating.

Right. It's the secularized Christian theme of salvation and the Kingdom of God.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
While B is true, it simply does not, cannot entail A. Why? Because B is about change. Things change. You can't step in the same river again. And included in that change is change of direction, thus there can be no directionality. B in fact contradicts the possibility of A.

Ah, but here's where you make your mistake: While historical back-and-forths do occur, the overall picture is one of continual advancement. For example, the Dark Ages (as they're known here) were an economic, political, and cultural receding period for Western Europe, but human knowledge and technological advancement did not collapse as a result. Instead, the focus of human progress simply shifted eastward somewhat, to the Middle East. Then it shifted back to Western Europe again with the Renaissance. Today it is shifting eastward to China and India. Overall, human beings continue to advance in an uninterrupted way over the course of history. When an empire becomes decadent, it recedes into obsolescence. That's what's happening to us right now in the United States, for example. But human beings are progressing regardless in an overall sense. More and more people are being lifted out of poverty all the time. The global wealth gap is shrinking. Technology is advancing. None of that changes with the closing of this or that age of imperial extravagance. So while history may appear to be largely stalled in one area, it is advancing rapidly in another at all times, to the benefit of the species overall.

[Chris]

Ah, but here's where you make your mistake: While historical back-and-forths do occur, the overall picture is one of continual advancement. For example, the Dark Ages (as they're known here) were an economic, political, and cultural receding period for Western Europe, but human knowledge and technological advancement did not collapse as a result. Instead, the focus of human progress simply shifted eastward somewhat, to the Middle East. Then it shifted back to Western Europe again with the Renaissance. Today it is shifting eastward to China and India. Overall, human beings continue to advance in an uninterrupted way over the course of history. When an empire becomes decadent, it recedes into obsolescence. That's what's happening to us right now in the United States, for example. But human beings are progressing regardless in an overall sense. More and more people are being lifted out of poverty all the time. The global wealth gap is shrinking. Technology is advancing. None of that changes with the closing of this or that age of imperial extravagance. So while history may appear to be largely stalled in one area, it is advancing rapidly in another at all times, to the benefit of the species overall.


Sorry, but continual advancement, your A, is impossible because advancement itself changes, your B. B contradicts A. You cannot go around that logic.

[donttread]

My OP was referring to technological progress

[Chris]

My OP was referring to technological progress

Is it progressive? No. If it were, manual labor would have advanced (never has) rather than being replaced by machines, buggies would have continued to advance rather than being replaced by automobiles, land-line phones would have continued to advance rather than being replaced by cellphones.

No, what you see instead is innovation.

[donttread]

Is it progressive? No. If it were, manual labor would have advanced (never has) rather than being replaced by machines, buggies would have continued to advance rather than being replaced by automobiles, land-line phones would have continued to advance rather than being replaced by cellphones.

No, what you see instead is innovation.

Semantics Chris. The point is we keep getting fatter, lazier and less employed because we create things to do our work for us. Perhaps should stop?

[Mini Me]

Obviously we live in a capitalist system that favours the capital. The ones that have capital.

Progress is not bad. But we have many advancements that only benefit those with capital. It is fault of the economic and political system that we are living.

This is a lot of what the student protests were about during the late 60's.
Universities were doing so much gov't and corporate research supporting the Vietnam War funded with taxpayer dollars.

Like: Agent Orange, and other dangerous herbicides and chemicals which defoliated much of Vietnam and caused great harm to our soldiers there. Dow Chemical, DuPont(who backed the Nazis) and numerous banks exploited the war, for massive profits, and the ROTC recruiting centers on campus for cannon fodder were detested.

[Chris]

Semantics Chris. The point is we keep getting fatter, lazier and less employed because we create things to do our work for us. Perhaps should stop?

Fatter and lazier, or with more leisure time? We're more unemployed now because of politics meddling in economy, but on the bigger picture more and more are employed. I did see a survey of executives who seemed to think we were getting dumber and dumber.

[Mini Me]

Eventually the rich will get less richer as they continue to take more and more from the rest of america.

I know conservatives see whats happening, they are NOT stupid. The see the devastation to the middle class. Im sure some of their purists blame the middleclass for everything. I believe many Conservatives know whats really going on.

Sure, many of them know. But many are vested in war profit industries, and Big Pharma & Med as shareholders.

And many get taken in by the emotionally overloaded wedge issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun nuttery, and "free stuff' and hatred against minorities and Obama. It overrides their thinking, and real issues tack a back seat, and are rarely discussed on RW media, which corporations dominate, and control the narrative.

[Chris]

Semantics Chris. The point is we keep getting fatter, lazier and less employed because we create things to do our work for us. Perhaps should stop?

Fatter and lazier, or with more leisure time? We're more unemployed now because of politics meddling in economy, but on the bigger picture more and more are employed. I did see a survey of executives who seemed to think we were getting dumber and dumber.


The semantics has to do with two sense of progress, actually opposing meanings, as I showed in polly's post.

[Common]

Fatter and lazier, or with more leisure time? We're more unemployed now because of politics meddling in economy, but on the bigger picture more and more are employed. I did see a survey of executives who seemed to think we were getting dumber and dumber.


The semantics has to do with two sense of progress, actually opposing meanings, as I showed in polly's post.

I agree with you chris except for one point, america is unemployed because of outsourcing all decent jobs and cutting employees to increase bottom line.

[Mini Me]

Progress is just an illusion.

Basing progress on material things and wealth is sheer folly.

We have regressed back into the dark ages of spirituality, and do not know the core essense of our being or who we are.

We worship false idols and practice bad religion, and the only thing that matters anymore is $$$$.

[Peter1469]

I agree with you chris except for one point, america is unemployed because of outsourcing all decent jobs and cutting employees to increase bottom line. and regulations that caused the bottom line to shrink in the US.

[Chris]

I agree with you chris except for one point, america is unemployed because of outsourcing all decent jobs and cutting employees to increase bottom line.

That's part of it, but just as other crisis have been driven by government, so too is outsourcing by overtaxing and overregulating.

[decedent]

Progress never helps. It needs to be stopped. Kids these days think it's cool but look where it's got us!

[donttread]

Fatter and lazier, or with more leisure time? We're more unemployed now because of politics meddling in economy, but on the bigger picture more and more are employed. I did see a survey of executives who seemed to think we were getting dumber and dumber.

Actually I think the work week, counting those of us with two or more jobs, hasn't really decreased much in decades, unless you count forced underemployment . We even are lazier in our leisure time. Nobody drags a deer anymore , they go get a 4-wheeler. Gardens even small ones are roto-tilled, not dug, parking lot shuttles at amusement parks, etc

[Chris]

Actually I think the work week, counting those of us with two or more jobs, hasn't really decreased much in decades, unless you count forced underemployment . We even are lazier in our leisure time. Nobody drags a deer anymore , they go get a 4-wheeler. Gardens even small ones are roto-tilled, not dug, parking lot shuttles at amusement parks, etc

I dig my garden. Well, did when I had one. I'm now digging up the front yard, xeriscaping. Manual labor feels good, even if tomorrow every bone in my body will ache.

[Chris]

Ah, but here's where you make your mistake: While historical back-and-forths do occur, the overall picture is one of continual advancement. For example, the Dark Ages (as they're known here) were an economic, political, and cultural receding period for Western Europe, but human knowledge and technological advancement did not collapse as a result. Instead, the focus of human progress simply shifted eastward somewhat, to the Middle East. Then it shifted back to Western Europe again with the Renaissance. Today it is shifting eastward to China and India. Overall, human beings continue to advance in an uninterrupted way over the course of history. When an empire becomes decadent, it recedes into obsolescence. That's what's happening to us right now in the United States, for example. But human beings are progressing regardless in an overall sense. More and more people are being lifted out of poverty all the time. The global wealth gap is shrinking. Technology is advancing. None of that changes with the closing of this or that age of imperial extravagance. So while history may appear to be largely stalled in one area, it is advancing rapidly in another at all times, to the benefit of the species overall.


Sorry, but continual advancement, your A, is impossible because advancement itself changes, your B. B contradicts A. You cannot go around that logic.

Happened across this just now, a fuller citation of a famous quote from George Santayana, The Life of Reason:

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[donttread]

I dig my garden. Well, did when I had one. I'm now digging up the front yard, xeriscaping. Manual labor feels good, even if tomorrow every bone in my body will ache.

Exactly. Plus that connection to the earth. I dug sunchoke and groundnut tubers yesterday ( wild potatos)

[PolWatch]

I don't want to sound like an ageist (?) but I wonder how many younger people actually do things like plant a vegetable garden. I think I'm the only person in my neighborhood who actually weeds my own flowerbeds. We cut our lawn, trim hedges, etc...the same schedule as before retirement. Our neighbors have lawn service companies that do that. They are 30 - 40...we are both 65+. Do I just live in a neighborhood of lazy people or is this common?

[Chris]

Exactly. Plus that connection to the earth. I dug sunchoke and groundnut tubers yesterday ( wild potatos)


"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."
― Henry David Thoreau, Walden: Or, Life in the Woods

[Mister D]

I don't want to sound like an ageist (?) but I wonder how many younger people actually do things like plant a vegetable garden. I think I'm the only person in my neighborhood who actually weeds my own flowerbeds. We cut our lawn, trim hedges, etc...the same schedule as before retirement. Our neighbors have lawn service companies that do that. They are 30 - 40...we are both 65+. Do I just live in a neighborhood of lazy people or is this common?

Common enough. I'm 38 and my friends/tenants are mid 30s. no way will I spend a dime on a lawn service for routine work. A lot of folks around here do though.

[Common]

I don't want to sound like an ageist (?) but I wonder how many younger people actually do things like plant a vegetable garden. I think I'm the only person in my neighborhood who actually weeds my own flowerbeds. We cut our lawn, trim hedges, etc...the same schedule as before retirement. Our neighbors have lawn service companies that do that. They are 30 - 40...we are both 65+. Do I just live in a neighborhood of lazy people or is this common?

I always did my own lawns and flowerbeds and Ive done extensive landscaping for myself over the years.
The property I have requires a riding mower and the guy that cuts my lawn does the entire block.
He charges such a reasonable price that I just let him do it now. Yes its half a lazy thing.