Debates on Progress and "Greatness"

Me: I personally think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that humanity is progressing enough that things are getting better for more people in more places. My answers are based on experience and a constant and consistent observation of many news and science outlets.


Anonymous: Then I suggest you look deeper into the issues and problems facing the world today. Over three fourths of the world in the global south are unable, or barely able, to sustain themselves economically, let alone fight for things like civil rights or freedoms. Globalization is, contrary to popular belief, actually making this problem worse as governments in global south countries encourage companies from the developed nations to set up in their countries, rather than encourage domestic growth. While these "insourced" companies provide very mininal economic and infastructural growth, people individually do not reap these benefits - nations that are service oriented (like in the West and Japan) are generally unconcerned about living standards in the global south, as this would spike the cost of manufactured goods in their countries.

In terms of politics and civil rights, there is still no "progress". Perhaps there is a greater sense in Western Countries towards political and civil freedom, but the problem is manifesting these ideas into reality - through legislation and, the harder part, public opinion. Even if this is achieved in the West, there is no reason to believe such a consensus is or will take place other nations - especially as Western countries - the US in particular - are seen as hostile agressors, thus provoking anti-western mentalities. Further, you appartentally assume that Liberal Capitalist Democracies are the best form of government, or, at the very least, a stepping stone to a better form of government. As we can see with, to sight one example among many, Blagojevich, this mixture of Captialism and Democracy (with Plato made note of over two and a half millenia earlier) encourages corruption and moral decay.

As for scientific advances, first and foremost Philosophers like Heidegger would argue that this emphais on technological development destracts and alienates us from nature and Being, and degrades our hummanity by forcing us to turn towards technology to solve our problems. Even if we disgard these kinds of objections, technological development in and of itself is normally not seen innately as good or bad philosophically - see the "Is dystopia possible" thread for reasons why technology can be either seen as progressive, or how it can be used for more sinister purposes.

To assume, or take at face value, the apparent state of the world is a huge mistake. The Modernist quest for a self-perfecting humanity is far from accomplished, nor even on course. Even if Kant and others are correct about this "self perfection" it is naive and foolish to think that in this generation, or in any soon to come, we will accomplish it.


Me: Sustaining economies is still a step above sustaining one's survival. A large portion of the problems we see in many developing countries has to do with ignorance in how to manage resources. The fact that people all over the world are paying others merely to survive and reproduce their ignorant cultures only serves to magnify this problem. Humanitarian aid to many countries certainly needs reprioritizing as I think that education is more vital to existence in the world today with the evaporation of resources than mere sustenance.

Globalization by some is seen as a massive exploitation project but I think that is a gross misconception of the actual reality which is the democratization of information that serves to better humanity, not make it worse off. You translate incorrectly the news media's attention to fear mongering as actual reality.

The very fact that so many countries have now jumped on board the humanitarian band wagon is evidence of a very real progressive cosmopolitan progression of humanity. The U.N. has grown vastly to include nearly every piece of land inhabited by humans, humanitarian efforts have skyrocketed, global awareness has gone through the roof thanks to technology, and so much more progress has taken place than can hardly be addressed here alone.

"In terms of politics and civil rights, there is still no "progress"."

This is completely false.

"to sight one example among many, Blagojevich, this mixture of Captialism and Democracy (with Plato made note of over two and a half millenia earlier) encourages corruption and moral decay."

Corruption is evident in American Democracy as well as every other country in the world. You merely caught the news a few times about a corrupt American official and conflated the idea that since he and a few others have led corrupt administrations that all liberal democracies are inherently bad. The reality is that with the democratization of information through such outlets as the internet the lives of political candidates will be highly scrutinized more so than at any other time in history.

"As for scientific advances, first and foremost Philosophers like Heidegger would argue that this emphais on technological development destracts and alienates us from nature and Being, and degrades our hummanity by forcing us to turn towards technology to solve our problems."

So what if humans utilize technology to better ourselves...in fact if we develop technology isn't it in our human nature to do so?

"technological development in and of itself is normally not seen innately as good or bad philosophically - see the "Is dystopia possible" thread for reasons why technology can be either seen as progressive, or how it can be used for more sinister purposes."

The truth of the matter is people are living longer and more content lives due to medical and other technological advancements.

"To assume, or take at face value, the apparent state of the world is a huge mistake. The Modernist quest for a self-perfecting humanity is far from accomplished"

No one said anything about perfection let alone the reality of the world as we know it now as being "perfect".


Anonymous: "Globalization by some is seen as a massive exploitation project but I think that is a gross misconception of the actual reality which is the democratization of information that serves to better humanity, not make it worse off. You translate incorrectly the news media's attention to fear mongering as actual reality."

I have no idea what fear mongering (or the news media) has to do with the philosophical issue of whether or not there is innate progress in our current political, economic, and social global climate, or globalization for that matter. I NEVER said that globalization was a "mass exploitation project". The fact of the matter is that within the constructs of an international political capitalist economy whereby there are nearly no regulations that powerful countries are willing to enforce, there is no such aforementioned progress, unless progress is viewed by and for a very small group.

"The very fact that so many countries have now jumped on board the humanitarian band wagon is evidence of a very real progressive cosmopolitan progression of humanity. The U.N. has grown vastly to include nearly every piece of land inhabited by humans, humanitarian efforts have skyrocketed, global awareness has gone through the roof thanks to technology, and so much more progress has taken place than can hardly be addressed here alone."

Wrong. This is a logically fallacy. You assume that simply because nations sign treaties and such in regards to human rights that they will honor them. This is not the case. Secondly, you assume that nations and people are motiaved by some sense of a higher good, insofar as you place a postive value on humanitarian aid, which you claim is increasing. Nations are rational actors, however, and no nation would sign such a treaty IF it posited a threat or loss of utility to that nation. This is simple game theory. Further, the United Nations has proven inept in Rhawanda, the Congo and the Balkans in terms of stopping human rights violations, and the Developed world clearly hasn't made too much of a fuss over it.

Further, how is a system of economics ethical, or even logical, when it relies on altruism? True progress would go towards an economic system whereby all people had a chance to achieve sustianablity - and wouldn't have to rely on altruism. I am not criticizing altruism here, merely stating that it is not a measure of progress; in fact it is a measure of regress. The larger the pool of people ABLe, not willing, to give, rather than recieve, altruistic gifts is a better measure of progress.

""In terms of politics and civil rights, there is still no "progress"."

This is completely false.""

How so? Over the past 50 years, what nations have gone from autocracy to democracy or from any government to any other form of government? Take this example. Eygpt was a British colony. They had a revolution and were granted sovergnity. Instead of putting in place a democracy, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak all ruled with an iron fist, and Eygpt is still not a democracy. So there was a change in governments, but no real progress. This is along the lines of Derrida's criticism of Fukyuana's claim which is very similar to yours - that the world is embracing liberal democracies. The fact is that even if A) liberal democracy is the best form of government and B) there is a growing consensus toward this (point A) globally, we are still far from seeing this embraced in reality.

"Corruption is evident in American Democracy as well as every other country in the world. You merely caught the news a few times about a corrupt American official and conflated the idea that since he and a few others have led corrupt administrations that all liberal democracies are inherently bad. The reality is that with the democratization of information through such outlets as the internet the lives of political candidates will be highly scrutinized more so than at any other time in history."

Your ignorance to critically analyse other's arguments is astounding. Clearly I am not basing my argument solely on Blago (in whom's state I live) but on capitalistic liberal democracies as a whole. The fact that I refrenced Plato proves that I am not merely conflating the stories of the "news media" (with which you appear to have an obession). The reality is that campaign finance laws in nearly, if not ALL, such states are so lax that even the unofficial purchasing of influence is extremely easy. The last statement is completely irrelevant. With laws as lax as they are, and with most politicians being as smart as they are, and with as many fallicious internet news stories as their are, there is the oppertunity for more confusion and dysporia as ever. The internet cannot logically be used as an argument for the reason why, at the politico-socio-economic level "things are getting better." The fact that the POSSIBLITY arises so easily is why the system is flawed; not the actions of individual politicians. Blagojevich was only an example of how the system is flawed. Bill Richardson is another example. The Mayor of Baltimore another. And Detroit. The fact that in the past year there have been AT LEAST four such REPORTED cases proves that this is not as small a problem as you lead us to believe. There no progress in this sense.

"So what if humans utilize technology to better ourselves...in fact if we develop technology isn't it in our human nature to do so?"

How does a television better oneself? Perhaps from a Foucauldian standpoint the internet provides a pathway to gaining more information hence knowledge hence power, but it also enables the speading of faulty or confused information, so with a detailed analysis it is impossible to tell. Many of our current technologies have devastating enviromental impacts, which directly relates to how much longer our species will be able to "progress" on this planet.

"No one said anything about perfection let alone the reality of the world as we know it now as being "perfect"."

Then you are being illogical. Progress is progress TOWARDS SOMETHING. What else can it be but perfection? Aimless progress is not progress - it is merely change. By taking the stance that the world is progressing, I assumed you were taking the same stance as Kant and Hegel; hence the "self-perfecting" comment.


Me: "The fact of the matter is that within the constructs of an international political capitalist economy whereby there are nearly no regulations that powerful countries are willing to enforce, there is no such aforementioned progress, unless progress is viewed by and for a very small group."

Powerful capitalistic countries are usually the first to develop such regulations (concerning humanitarian issues) and much progress has been made in the international arena with the development of universal human rights and international environmental law. Since globalization is still growing these subjects can only be expected to expand.

"You assume that simply because nations sign treaties and such in regards to human rights that they will honor them. This is not the case. Secondly, you assume that nations and people are motiaved by some sense of a higher good, insofar as you place a postive value on humanitarian aid, which you claim is increasing...Further, the United Nations has proven inept in Rhawanda, the Congo and the Balkans in terms of stopping human rights violations, and the Developed world clearly hasn't made too much of a fuss over it.

I don't assume that nations will honor all treaties they sign. Your position is to conclude that no progress has been made simply because humanity hasn't reached some international harmony with other nations and that some mistakes and atrocities still occur. This is a perfectionist fallacy. Universal human rights have made it into the policies of many nations and some nations honor them a lot of the time, some most of the time, some a little less, others very little, and you get the idea. The very fact that universal human rights laws or international environmental laws are being followed a mere fraction of the time is still progress in that sense.

"Take this example. Eygpt was a British colony. They had a revolution and were granted sovergnity. Instead of putting in place a democracy, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak all ruled with an iron fist, and Eygpt is still not a democracy. So there was a change in governments, but no real progress."

I don't view democracy as the pinnacle of "good" government. Progress has been made through many different types of governing systems through out history. I accept a political system as provisionally "good" but can easily understand the future of politics as favoring some other form of government entirely or possibly none at all depending upon the circumstances inherent in a constantly changing environment. Progress depends on the paradigm.

"Then you are being illogical. Progress is progress TOWARDS SOMETHING. What else can it be but perfection?"

Perfection isn't the goal, it is the model. Good enough is the goal. The history of humanity is the history of what is merely good enough. Why would you need perfection when you could settle for what is sufficient?

Anonymous: I have never been to Africa, but I hear it is nice... I have to admit it's getting better, a little better all the time. Getting so much better all the time. I also hear that Russia, China, and North Korea are super as well, and let us not forget the grinding poverty in India, Pakistan and large portions of the middle east. If I am not mistaken, over half of the world"s population subsists on lest than $1 a day.


Me: If you look at a current map of the HDI then you'll notice that China and Russia are in the green and that most countries are in yellow or better. Most of Africa is obviously doing poorly as are Pakistan and India but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been progress. Going from terrible, to less terrible is still progress.


Anonymous: Please enumerate on the "sufficient evidence" you have from news and science outlets.


Me: A captivating lecture. This should be sufficient.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html