We should not confuse humanist and scientific discovery with greed and making money at all price. Look at AI, for example. AI can certainly do some amazing things, but if we let it take over arts and literature, that is anti-
progress. It will lead to more repeated crappy Netflix series and filtering out what authoritarian governments don’t want, like in Orwell’s 1984 , Annex C, where even the word science is banned. Why would authoritarian governments want science when technology ( and its capital gains) does everything they want. Be careful what we wish for. The word progress can be propaganda for things we do not at all want.
That may be true for some. However artists and other creatives have a lot of reasons for not considering AI as progress. Allowing someone to steal from you is not progress. Allowing pornopedophiles to “undress” photos of women and children or transform videos into porn is not progress. It’s technology sure, but humanly speaking, it is a regression.
I wonder if the comparatively fewer revolutions in the 1970-2020 half-century have to do with a point you made earlier in the video about how people just assumed moral and ethical progress would ride the coattails of scientific and technological progress. Perhaps this relative stall in revolutions has more to do with a cautious approach to progress beget by grappling with the moral ramifications of our earlier leaps and bounds in scientific progress.
Some examples: 1. The exploration of the Americas broadening our scope and beliefs of human potential quickly followed by the mass displacement and genocide of indigenous peoples, 2. The Industrial Revolution creating technologies that have caused the Climate Crisis we are facing today, as well as the instruments of mass wars you mentioned in your video.
At the same time, this recent chapter of history has seen incredible (albeit backsliding) movements in American civil rights, legal protections of the LGBT community, strides in the implementation of environmentally sustainable products, technologies, and practices, and land acknowledgments and collaboration with indigenous nations. So, to reiterate, perhaps the perspective of slowing progress only shows progress in terms of its product, whereas there has been greater discourse around approaches to morally-bound and sustainable progress, more so now than before, trying to learn from the mistakes of the past. In my view, I see this as a greater emphasis on our intention than a stalling of our progress.
Very engaging story, but full of flaws—a perfect example of “technowashing.” This techno-optimism is precisely what’s driving us toward civilization’s collapse.
Technology is never neutral: its funders have agendas. Once developed and adopted, technology serves the elites, who exploit others, hoard power, and ravage the environment.
In Western countries, we live comfortably and have more than we need—yet we feel miserable, disconnected, and lost. What’s the point of progress if it strips us of purpose and values quantity over quality?
Humanity’s future should focus on having just enough to live well, recognizing our limits, and finding happiness within them—rather than chasing endless, pointless and unreachable achievements.
That's a good question, not easy to answer. This is the most challenging question we might ever pose ourselves.
There are some interesting intents to answer it considering that secure space for life on earth is within the ceiling of planet boundaries and the social "foundations". I recommend to check the Doughnut Economy for further information for this discussion. It is not the answer but it leads to formulate the right questions.
The revolutions in biology (genetics), computational algorithms (machine learning), technological enhancements (cochlear implants, brain implants) and other technological paths take us to the edge of our conception of being human. There’s a fear and revulsion to that and ideas of surpassing being human; to ideas like transhumanism. There isn’t a paradigm to hold as a butterfly emerging.
Another word for progress is techno-capitalism.
We should not confuse humanist and scientific discovery with greed and making money at all price. Look at AI, for example. AI can certainly do some amazing things, but if we let it take over arts and literature, that is anti-
progress. It will lead to more repeated crappy Netflix series and filtering out what authoritarian governments don’t want, like in Orwell’s 1984 , Annex C, where even the word science is banned. Why would authoritarian governments want science when technology ( and its capital gains) does everything they want. Be careful what we wish for. The word progress can be propaganda for things we do not at all want.
You might be interested in this chapter of The Techno-Humanist Manifesto where I talk about human well-being as the north star for true progress: https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/the-life-well-lived-part-1
Related, this older essay: “What is progress?” https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/what-is-progress
That may be true for some. However artists and other creatives have a lot of reasons for not considering AI as progress. Allowing someone to steal from you is not progress. Allowing pornopedophiles to “undress” photos of women and children or transform videos into porn is not progress. It’s technology sure, but humanly speaking, it is a regression.
I wonder if the comparatively fewer revolutions in the 1970-2020 half-century have to do with a point you made earlier in the video about how people just assumed moral and ethical progress would ride the coattails of scientific and technological progress. Perhaps this relative stall in revolutions has more to do with a cautious approach to progress beget by grappling with the moral ramifications of our earlier leaps and bounds in scientific progress.
Some examples: 1. The exploration of the Americas broadening our scope and beliefs of human potential quickly followed by the mass displacement and genocide of indigenous peoples, 2. The Industrial Revolution creating technologies that have caused the Climate Crisis we are facing today, as well as the instruments of mass wars you mentioned in your video.
At the same time, this recent chapter of history has seen incredible (albeit backsliding) movements in American civil rights, legal protections of the LGBT community, strides in the implementation of environmentally sustainable products, technologies, and practices, and land acknowledgments and collaboration with indigenous nations. So, to reiterate, perhaps the perspective of slowing progress only shows progress in terms of its product, whereas there has been greater discourse around approaches to morally-bound and sustainable progress, more so now than before, trying to learn from the mistakes of the past. In my view, I see this as a greater emphasis on our intention than a stalling of our progress.
Very engaging story, but full of flaws—a perfect example of “technowashing.” This techno-optimism is precisely what’s driving us toward civilization’s collapse.
Technology is never neutral: its funders have agendas. Once developed and adopted, technology serves the elites, who exploit others, hoard power, and ravage the environment.
In Western countries, we live comfortably and have more than we need—yet we feel miserable, disconnected, and lost. What’s the point of progress if it strips us of purpose and values quantity over quality?
Humanity’s future should focus on having just enough to live well, recognizing our limits, and finding happiness within them—rather than chasing endless, pointless and unreachable achievements.
I wonder, how much exactly do you think is “just enough to live well”? And why that much and no more?
That's a good question, not easy to answer. This is the most challenging question we might ever pose ourselves.
There are some interesting intents to answer it considering that secure space for life on earth is within the ceiling of planet boundaries and the social "foundations". I recommend to check the Doughnut Economy for further information for this discussion. It is not the answer but it leads to formulate the right questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_Economics:_Seven_Ways_to_Think_Like_a_21st-Century_Economist
The revolutions in biology (genetics), computational algorithms (machine learning), technological enhancements (cochlear implants, brain implants) and other technological paths take us to the edge of our conception of being human. There’s a fear and revulsion to that and ideas of surpassing being human; to ideas like transhumanism. There isn’t a paradigm to hold as a butterfly emerging.
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒅 𝒂𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒈 some 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝒕𝒐𝒐 𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒆𝒓𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒏❜ 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑲𝒆𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒅𝒚 𝒑𝒖𝒔𝒉 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒈𝒐𝒕 𝒖𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑴𝒐𝒐𝒏, 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒍: 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒅𝒐.
𝑶𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒊𝒓𝒕𝒚 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚, 𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒅𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔 𝒐𝒓 𝒂 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒐𝒇 𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒑 𝒖𝒔.
𝑵𝒐𝒘 𝒃𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒔𝒕,𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒂𝒃𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒇𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔𝒏❜𝒕 𝒎𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒇𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒍𝒆𝒇𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒅 - 𝒂𝒕 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒕 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒚𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒍𝒆 𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒓 𝒑𝒐𝒐𝒓 … 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒐𝒏-/𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒐𝒏-/𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒐𝒏/𝒌𝒂𝒋𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒐𝒏-𝒂𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒔 𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒍𝒚. 𝑵𝒐 𝒃𝒖𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈, 𝒉𝒊𝒈𝒉 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒅𝒆𝒆𝒑… 𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒅: 𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉,
𝑵𝒐 𝑭𝑶𝑶𝑫, 𝑬𝑵𝑬𝑹𝑮𝒀 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝑾𝑨𝑻𝑬𝑹 𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒍𝒚, 𝑵𝒐 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒚 𝑺𝑨𝑭𝑬 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒖𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔, 𝑵𝒐 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒈𝒖𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒎𝒎𝒐 𝒐𝒓 𝒑𝒓𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒈𝒖𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒂𝒕 𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉 𝑵𝒐𝒐𝒏, 𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒕𝒐𝒐 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒖𝒏/𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔.
𝑶𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒆, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝐲 𝒘𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒉𝒚 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝐔𝐒 𝒃𝒊𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒊𝒕𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒍𝒚.
“𝑵𝒐 𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒎 𝒗𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒊𝒕𝒚,” 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒅𝒓𝒖𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒏𝒚𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒊𝒔 𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒅𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒂𝒏-𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔 𝒐𝒓 𝑻𝑽 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒘𝒔, 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒔𝒂𝒊𝒅 𝒅𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄 𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒖𝒃𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒐𝒓 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒖𝒏𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒈𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒏; worse‽ 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒖𝒃𝒕𝒆𝒙𝒕 𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒅𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒂 𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 — 𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒑𝒔 𝒈𝒐𝒏𝒆, 𝒎𝒂𝒅 𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕❜𝒔 𝒆𝒔𝒄𝒂𝒑𝒆𝒅 𝒗𝒊𝒓𝒖𝒔𝒔, 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒔 𝒕𝒐𝒐 𝒉𝒖𝒈𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑱𝒖𝒑𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒐𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒖𝒔, 𝒆𝒕 𝒄𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒂 — ; 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑪𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒔…
The biggest problem is that progress is mostly looked at from a technological angle and stuff that gives us comfort and is 'out there'.
People have reached the point where their basic instincts transcend their innovation. In other words, we are too dumb to progress further.