A few stray questions (based on the table of content, so apologies if I missed something obvious..)
- As another commenter alluded to, I'd be curious to see how you frame this within the wider living world. Ecosystems are messy, complicated, and crucial for humanity to thrive (at the moment, at least).
- Where does art and culture fit into this, not only as things that benefit *from* material progress, but also as things that can *enable* material progress and shift or question society's standards. (Chapter 4, perhaps?)
- What about bad actors/dual-use technologies? Regulate as now, or do you have other ideas?
Good luck with the book! It'll be interesting to see it take shape.
Looking forward to the book, and hope for a balanced analysis.
What I find slightly problematic is the worsing "mastery over nature" rather than "mastery with nature". IMO keep on doing the first will just perpetuate and accelerate our crises.
I would also love to see how you respond to the thinking of eg Ian McGilchrist, who claims a left brain overuse, leading to rational/materialistic tunnel vision.
Thanks for the question. I give a few examples, based on my notion:
Mastery over nature:
-Humans are more worthy than other living beings and can therefore wreck environmental havoc, if it seems to their benefit
-thinking that we as humans already "know it all", keep optimising for (still too) narrow utility functions, and thereby destroy resources that we did not consider part of the equation (eg biodiversity for a long time; which is still neglected)
Mastery with nature:
-Seeing that technology and nature can enter a regenerative synthesis, with a clear notion of how much material wealth is enough for a good life.
-Rainforests have grown over several thousand years. These are ecosystems which can't be controlled by humans, as all the delicate and complex processes going on are too much for any supercomputer to grasp. These are places of awe/wonder, and they help us have clean air. These are no places to be controlled in any way.
-A farmer that gives animals loads of space to have a fulfilled life, while providing them safety from predators, might be seen as pursuing "mastery with nature". A factory farmer is in the "over" bucket, causing tremendous harm.
I could come up with more, but hope this was a first direction. Would be very curious about your understanding and distinction of the two concepts, plus the role and place of pristine nature in your vision of progress.
Thanks. I think this is a poor framing and something of a false dichotomy. Our choices are not to wreck nature or to submit to it. We can control it for human purposes, and also think long-term, carefully maintaining and even caring for nature. I'll discuss this in Chapter 2.
To go to the relevant part, directly search for "In our quest for control over nature’s slings and arrows, we humans" and see what's written throughout the next couple of paragraphs.
This seems like a useful undertaking, even if I am deeply skeptical about the role technology plays in progress for all.
My skepticism is two-fold. First, inventions cast a moral shadow. That is, they can and usually do have some consequences that are neither benign nor acknowledged. Since the days of the Luddites, technology has been defended as the very embodiment of progress. This can be understood in today’s vernacular as “progress-washing.” Technologists seek to pre-empt critical assessment by first framing “progress” as an inherent good and then technological innovation as an essential means for achieving that positive good.
Of course, many innovations are, on balance, good for all. The problem is that technologists rarely analyze, test or report on all of the negative externalities associated with innovation. Even if they privately understand that such consequences may occur, they vehemently reject responsibility for them. In this, they are hardly uniques; socializing risk and privatizing profit is the core dynamic in late stage capitalism.
But to correctly lay the mantle of progress on the shoulders of technology, innovation must include a fair and detailed understanding of the actual and reasonably likely consequences of the new technology. If no such assessment is made — or if one cannot be attained at present — a new technology cannot yet be said to reflect progress.
Further, the inventor should not only understand the externalities of their technology but be prepared to accept responsibility for them. This notion of personal responsibility has been largely absent from the ranks of technologists, although medical innovations tend to be more carefully vetted, primarily because of regulation and legal liability. The owners of fabric manufacturing plants obviously knew that machines would replace workers — that was the entire point. They took no responsibility for the proximate harm done to textile workers or their families.
The attitude of those inventing and/or deploying technology has changed little in the ensuing 200 years. As a result, government has had to promulgate regulation to require technologists to do at least some of what they ought to have been doing without the need for intervention. Indeed, technology companies devote great effort to reducing regulation and fobbing off liability on their customers and the public.
As you point out, science and technology can promote human well-being. It can also destroy lives, families, communities and the environment to the point of extermination. It is time for externalities to be considered part of technological change. Dr. Edwin Land observed that inventions were actually two inventions — the creation of the product and the creation of the market for it. I would propose that technological innovation understood as involving both the physical or methodological aspect and the means of ensuring that it does no harm, or at least no uncompensated harm. Absent that, new technology is not progress, at least not progress for all.
My other concern is that we have come to define innovation and progress as matters of science, engineering and similar concrete development. Human institutions, however, have not seen much attention and less progress. War, famine, oppression and deep inequality are still plaguing our world. Traditional social structures — governments, religions, cultures, businesses — have not eliminated these dysfunctional aspects of human existence; of course, in many instances, they make them worse.
Instead of devoting most of our best minds and resources to technological progress, why not pursue innovation in human affairs: in how we organize ourselves, in how we communicate, in how we maintain peace and pursue justice? We don’t, in part, because there is no money in it and in part because existing power structures would be threatened. And because such innovation is hard. It is telling that so many technologists favor libertarianism. Not only does that ideology neatly avoid responsibility for externalities but evades the difficult challenge of human progress.
It’s time for homo sapiens to grow up. Technology won’t get us there.
You raise critical points about the double-edged nature of technological progress and the moral responsibilities that come with innovation. The term "progress-washing" aptly captures the tendency to overlook or dismiss the negative externalities of new technologies. I must say that your skepticism is well-founded, especially given the historical and ongoing impacts of technological advancements that prioritize profit over people.
Now the lack of accountability and comprehensive risk assessment in many technological fields is indeed troubling. As you noted, while some innovations bring undeniable benefits, the reluctance of technologists to acknowledge and address potential harms undermines true progress. This calls for a paradigm shift where inventors not only anticipate but also take responsibility for the broader consequences of their creations.
Alas, your second concern about the imbalance between technological and social progress is equally important. Human institutions often lag behind in addressing fundamental issues like inequality, conflict, and systemic injustices. The emphasis on technological solutions at the expense of social innovation can perpetuate existing power structures and overlook the complexities of human well-being.
I find that advocating for a more holistic approach to progress that includes ethical considerations and a focus on improving human institutions is essential. As you suggest, directing our best minds and resources towards social innovation could yield significant benefits, promoting justice, equity, and sustainability.
Thank you for sharing these thought-provoking insights. They do remind us that true progress encompasses not just technological advancements but also the betterment of human society as a whole.
I'd say if you listen to nature, eventually people will know what they need to know. But we are homo hubris and think we know what we don't know. We are true believers. We need more things to believe in. Mmmm. Updated meaning modules. We have been keeping tabs on this narrative for thousands of years. It will be interesting to see how you swerve. [“Techno-humanism” is what I am calling that philosophy, a worldview founded on humanism and agency. It is the view that science, technology, and industry are good—not in themselves, but because they ultimately promote human well-being and flourishing. In short, it is the view that material progress leads to human progress.] Anyways, I'm hoping it's interesting. All the best.
Buliamti, I find that our tendency to believe we know more than we do can indeed lead us astray.
By listening to nature and grounding our innovations in human values, we can ensure that material progress genuinely translates to real human progress.
Though, it will be interesting to see how this philosophy evolves and influences our future!
There is a concept worth looking into here. A concept that invented by physicists that shows progress is built into our genes. It's negentropy. Or negative entropy. For life to exist at all, non-living materials had to coalesce over eons into the first living things. Then those living things slowly evolved and lived longer. New problems were solved, but accidentally. Then one day the human being hit the scene, and even within the short span of the existence of human beings we have solved different problems. It took the emergence of rational consciousness and choice-making to make all other, otherwise, natural problem solving pale in comparison. I have written much more on this, none of it published really. The slogan I give to this, is "Be negentropic." It means to be against chaos, against disorganization. Work for more efficiency, effectiveness, and long life spans. And look for what motivates us to gain more of what we have and to become better and better. Be negentropic. It's rooted in our DNA, but now we are the emergence that must move it forward by choice. It gives a great power, but now we are each individually responsible for it in our own lives.
A brief outline of the evolution of negentropy:
Insentient negentropy: these are the chemical processes that took place for amino acids, the cell, and the first organisms to exist.
Telelogical negentropy: after the first organisms emerged, teleological negentropy emerged as well. It is purpose driven negentropy. A life trying to actively stay alive, whether it knows it or not.
Sentient negentropy: this is the evolution in life that brought about consciousness. It's far more advanced forms of negentropy. Anyone that has watched a large cat hunting has seen this form of negentropy at play.
Rational negentropy: this is the specifically human form of negentropy. It's the choosing that we do, the creation of logic, and the meticulous weeding out of problems of our daily lives as you mention.
There may be a fifth that precedes the 4 just mentioned and it might be called something like physio-chemical negentropy, where the formation of planets, new elements, and new molecules took place. But each builds on the last. And even though the universe might tend towards entropy, it doesn't discount this emergence and progression of the negentropic forms. The biggest challenge to my ideas here is that perhaps entropy doesn't exist. A famous physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder, admonished the lack of coherence and progress with the subject of entropy in physics. For now, I will stop here.
I think what you call progress is an illusion. Humanity has made none.
What you call agency is also an illusion. The majority of humans have had very little agency since the dawning of the agricultural age when our increasing reliance on agriculture for subsistence took us away from a life we had evolved to live for hundreds of thousands of years, and forced us to adopt a life very unsatisfying to us.
Since then things have got only worse. Once the agricultural culture-virus had taken hold, humans increased in number until we rapidly outran the natural carrying capacity of the land. There was now no way back, not only that, but carriers of the agriculture-virus would always outnumber those not infected with it.
As human societies have increased in complexity, more and more of our lives have been devoted learning to navigate that complexity. As human social units have increased in size, power structures have become more elaborate with ever more power over the lives of people concentrated into ever fewer hands. Even the ancient right to walk away from a bad situation is long gone, we are prisoners in our human made constructs of nations, citizenship, wealth and poverty.
Many slave without agency to provide agency to a few.
And this is at the expense not just of humans, but of wider nature and other life-forms. The biosphere is pillaged to provide leisure and agency for a privileged elite.
All this violence was first defended with religion and myth and custom. Now the religions of economics, politics and scientism are the dominant ones. They defend the extraordinary violence of our 'civilization' not through moral imperatives, but simply by presenting it as inevitable. With a blur of mass media Newspeak imagined alternatives are banished and even the past is rewritten as a place of barbarism and labelled as 'primitive'. They apply a salve of imagined 'progress' to the wounds in our souls, but an imagined future cannot compensate for the horrors of today or yesterday.
Interesting! Looking forward to following, especially curious about how techno-humanists theorize democracy.
And progress.
Anyhow, you sure can write very well, Jason Crawford!
Agree.
I'm looking forward to this.
Jason, would you be interested in speaking to the book when it's done on my Future Trends Forum program?
Sure drop me an email!
So excited for this, Jason!!
Also seems fair to say there’s some natural synergy in our book projects 😄: https://x.com/gena_i_gorlin/status/1808563675789471819?s=46&t=vcZ07Dmn3ND4-Uce9xgyhA
So excited to hear about your project too. Just subscribed!
Hi Jason, sounds very interesting!
A few stray questions (based on the table of content, so apologies if I missed something obvious..)
- As another commenter alluded to, I'd be curious to see how you frame this within the wider living world. Ecosystems are messy, complicated, and crucial for humanity to thrive (at the moment, at least).
- Where does art and culture fit into this, not only as things that benefit *from* material progress, but also as things that can *enable* material progress and shift or question society's standards. (Chapter 4, perhaps?)
- What about bad actors/dual-use technologies? Regulate as now, or do you have other ideas?
Good luck with the book! It'll be interesting to see it take shape.
I will touch on all these topics, at least a bit, in Part 1
Looking forward to the book, and hope for a balanced analysis.
What I find slightly problematic is the worsing "mastery over nature" rather than "mastery with nature". IMO keep on doing the first will just perpetuate and accelerate our crises.
I would also love to see how you respond to the thinking of eg Ian McGilchrist, who claims a left brain overuse, leading to rational/materialistic tunnel vision.
Wishing you all the best with the writing, Jason!
What is the difference, in your mind, between "mastery over nature" and "mastery with nature"?
Thanks for the question. I give a few examples, based on my notion:
Mastery over nature:
-Humans are more worthy than other living beings and can therefore wreck environmental havoc, if it seems to their benefit
-thinking that we as humans already "know it all", keep optimising for (still too) narrow utility functions, and thereby destroy resources that we did not consider part of the equation (eg biodiversity for a long time; which is still neglected)
Mastery with nature:
-Seeing that technology and nature can enter a regenerative synthesis, with a clear notion of how much material wealth is enough for a good life.
-Rainforests have grown over several thousand years. These are ecosystems which can't be controlled by humans, as all the delicate and complex processes going on are too much for any supercomputer to grasp. These are places of awe/wonder, and they help us have clean air. These are no places to be controlled in any way.
-A farmer that gives animals loads of space to have a fulfilled life, while providing them safety from predators, might be seen as pursuing "mastery with nature". A factory farmer is in the "over" bucket, causing tremendous harm.
I could come up with more, but hope this was a first direction. Would be very curious about your understanding and distinction of the two concepts, plus the role and place of pristine nature in your vision of progress.
Thanks. I think this is a poor framing and something of a false dichotomy. Our choices are not to wreck nature or to submit to it. We can control it for human purposes, and also think long-term, carefully maintaining and even caring for nature. I'll discuss this in Chapter 2.
This article just found its way in my inbox and splendidly introduces the notion I tried to give in starting out (I have only read it today, so was not directly motivated by it; but it seconds my concern): https://aeon.co/essays/why-planetary-problems-need-a-new-approach-to-politics
To go to the relevant part, directly search for "In our quest for control over nature’s slings and arrows, we humans" and see what's written throughout the next couple of paragraphs.
Looks solid, let's go 🚀
I'm looking forward to this too, Jason. Quite the breadth/scope -- with more than a few (inevitably valuable) debates, I'm sure.
So excited to follow this Jason. Especially part 2!!!!
👍 💚 🥃
This is so needed! Can’t wait to follow along.
Will this balance human progress with that of other sentient life? We share these spaces. Can we grow sustainably while still honoring what is theirs?
I'm drafting a section on our relationship to nature now. It will be in Chapter 2.
This seems like a useful undertaking, even if I am deeply skeptical about the role technology plays in progress for all.
My skepticism is two-fold. First, inventions cast a moral shadow. That is, they can and usually do have some consequences that are neither benign nor acknowledged. Since the days of the Luddites, technology has been defended as the very embodiment of progress. This can be understood in today’s vernacular as “progress-washing.” Technologists seek to pre-empt critical assessment by first framing “progress” as an inherent good and then technological innovation as an essential means for achieving that positive good.
Of course, many innovations are, on balance, good for all. The problem is that technologists rarely analyze, test or report on all of the negative externalities associated with innovation. Even if they privately understand that such consequences may occur, they vehemently reject responsibility for them. In this, they are hardly uniques; socializing risk and privatizing profit is the core dynamic in late stage capitalism.
But to correctly lay the mantle of progress on the shoulders of technology, innovation must include a fair and detailed understanding of the actual and reasonably likely consequences of the new technology. If no such assessment is made — or if one cannot be attained at present — a new technology cannot yet be said to reflect progress.
Further, the inventor should not only understand the externalities of their technology but be prepared to accept responsibility for them. This notion of personal responsibility has been largely absent from the ranks of technologists, although medical innovations tend to be more carefully vetted, primarily because of regulation and legal liability. The owners of fabric manufacturing plants obviously knew that machines would replace workers — that was the entire point. They took no responsibility for the proximate harm done to textile workers or their families.
The attitude of those inventing and/or deploying technology has changed little in the ensuing 200 years. As a result, government has had to promulgate regulation to require technologists to do at least some of what they ought to have been doing without the need for intervention. Indeed, technology companies devote great effort to reducing regulation and fobbing off liability on their customers and the public.
As you point out, science and technology can promote human well-being. It can also destroy lives, families, communities and the environment to the point of extermination. It is time for externalities to be considered part of technological change. Dr. Edwin Land observed that inventions were actually two inventions — the creation of the product and the creation of the market for it. I would propose that technological innovation understood as involving both the physical or methodological aspect and the means of ensuring that it does no harm, or at least no uncompensated harm. Absent that, new technology is not progress, at least not progress for all.
My other concern is that we have come to define innovation and progress as matters of science, engineering and similar concrete development. Human institutions, however, have not seen much attention and less progress. War, famine, oppression and deep inequality are still plaguing our world. Traditional social structures — governments, religions, cultures, businesses — have not eliminated these dysfunctional aspects of human existence; of course, in many instances, they make them worse.
Instead of devoting most of our best minds and resources to technological progress, why not pursue innovation in human affairs: in how we organize ourselves, in how we communicate, in how we maintain peace and pursue justice? We don’t, in part, because there is no money in it and in part because existing power structures would be threatened. And because such innovation is hard. It is telling that so many technologists favor libertarianism. Not only does that ideology neatly avoid responsibility for externalities but evades the difficult challenge of human progress.
It’s time for homo sapiens to grow up. Technology won’t get us there.
You raise critical points about the double-edged nature of technological progress and the moral responsibilities that come with innovation. The term "progress-washing" aptly captures the tendency to overlook or dismiss the negative externalities of new technologies. I must say that your skepticism is well-founded, especially given the historical and ongoing impacts of technological advancements that prioritize profit over people.
Now the lack of accountability and comprehensive risk assessment in many technological fields is indeed troubling. As you noted, while some innovations bring undeniable benefits, the reluctance of technologists to acknowledge and address potential harms undermines true progress. This calls for a paradigm shift where inventors not only anticipate but also take responsibility for the broader consequences of their creations.
Alas, your second concern about the imbalance between technological and social progress is equally important. Human institutions often lag behind in addressing fundamental issues like inequality, conflict, and systemic injustices. The emphasis on technological solutions at the expense of social innovation can perpetuate existing power structures and overlook the complexities of human well-being.
I find that advocating for a more holistic approach to progress that includes ethical considerations and a focus on improving human institutions is essential. As you suggest, directing our best minds and resources towards social innovation could yield significant benefits, promoting justice, equity, and sustainability.
Thank you for sharing these thought-provoking insights. They do remind us that true progress encompasses not just technological advancements but also the betterment of human society as a whole.
It's time for homo sapiens to grow up.
I'd say if you listen to nature, eventually people will know what they need to know. But we are homo hubris and think we know what we don't know. We are true believers. We need more things to believe in. Mmmm. Updated meaning modules. We have been keeping tabs on this narrative for thousands of years. It will be interesting to see how you swerve. [“Techno-humanism” is what I am calling that philosophy, a worldview founded on humanism and agency. It is the view that science, technology, and industry are good—not in themselves, but because they ultimately promote human well-being and flourishing. In short, it is the view that material progress leads to human progress.] Anyways, I'm hoping it's interesting. All the best.
Buliamti, I find that our tendency to believe we know more than we do can indeed lead us astray.
By listening to nature and grounding our innovations in human values, we can ensure that material progress genuinely translates to real human progress.
Though, it will be interesting to see how this philosophy evolves and influences our future!
Well said.
Would love you to read my thoughts on this !https://medium.com/@dhruvghulati/the-ai-punk-manifesto-reimagining-humanitys-role-in-an-ai-driven-future-63e556611f37
There is a concept worth looking into here. A concept that invented by physicists that shows progress is built into our genes. It's negentropy. Or negative entropy. For life to exist at all, non-living materials had to coalesce over eons into the first living things. Then those living things slowly evolved and lived longer. New problems were solved, but accidentally. Then one day the human being hit the scene, and even within the short span of the existence of human beings we have solved different problems. It took the emergence of rational consciousness and choice-making to make all other, otherwise, natural problem solving pale in comparison. I have written much more on this, none of it published really. The slogan I give to this, is "Be negentropic." It means to be against chaos, against disorganization. Work for more efficiency, effectiveness, and long life spans. And look for what motivates us to gain more of what we have and to become better and better. Be negentropic. It's rooted in our DNA, but now we are the emergence that must move it forward by choice. It gives a great power, but now we are each individually responsible for it in our own lives.
A brief outline of the evolution of negentropy:
Insentient negentropy: these are the chemical processes that took place for amino acids, the cell, and the first organisms to exist.
Telelogical negentropy: after the first organisms emerged, teleological negentropy emerged as well. It is purpose driven negentropy. A life trying to actively stay alive, whether it knows it or not.
Sentient negentropy: this is the evolution in life that brought about consciousness. It's far more advanced forms of negentropy. Anyone that has watched a large cat hunting has seen this form of negentropy at play.
Rational negentropy: this is the specifically human form of negentropy. It's the choosing that we do, the creation of logic, and the meticulous weeding out of problems of our daily lives as you mention.
There may be a fifth that precedes the 4 just mentioned and it might be called something like physio-chemical negentropy, where the formation of planets, new elements, and new molecules took place. But each builds on the last. And even though the universe might tend towards entropy, it doesn't discount this emergence and progression of the negentropic forms. The biggest challenge to my ideas here is that perhaps entropy doesn't exist. A famous physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder, admonished the lack of coherence and progress with the subject of entropy in physics. For now, I will stop here.
I think what you call progress is an illusion. Humanity has made none.
What you call agency is also an illusion. The majority of humans have had very little agency since the dawning of the agricultural age when our increasing reliance on agriculture for subsistence took us away from a life we had evolved to live for hundreds of thousands of years, and forced us to adopt a life very unsatisfying to us.
Since then things have got only worse. Once the agricultural culture-virus had taken hold, humans increased in number until we rapidly outran the natural carrying capacity of the land. There was now no way back, not only that, but carriers of the agriculture-virus would always outnumber those not infected with it.
As human societies have increased in complexity, more and more of our lives have been devoted learning to navigate that complexity. As human social units have increased in size, power structures have become more elaborate with ever more power over the lives of people concentrated into ever fewer hands. Even the ancient right to walk away from a bad situation is long gone, we are prisoners in our human made constructs of nations, citizenship, wealth and poverty.
Many slave without agency to provide agency to a few.
And this is at the expense not just of humans, but of wider nature and other life-forms. The biosphere is pillaged to provide leisure and agency for a privileged elite.
All this violence was first defended with religion and myth and custom. Now the religions of economics, politics and scientism are the dominant ones. They defend the extraordinary violence of our 'civilization' not through moral imperatives, but simply by presenting it as inevitable. With a blur of mass media Newspeak imagined alternatives are banished and even the past is rewritten as a place of barbarism and labelled as 'primitive'. They apply a salve of imagined 'progress' to the wounds in our souls, but an imagined future cannot compensate for the horrors of today or yesterday.