Rob, I am also a member of the Progress Studies community. Personally, I prefer the term “progress” or “material progress” as the terms denote movement in the desired direction rather than a final destination as the term “Abundance” does.
I like how you break down the term Abundance by category and show how they are have different characteristics. That is useful.
I would stress, however, that Medical Care and Pharmaceuticals are not the actual goal, but means toward the goal of Health. Medical care and pharmaceuticals may assist in that goal or they may hinder it. It is really the results that matter, not the means of achieving it.
You might be interested in reading my take on the issue:
Yeah, I’m with you on progress and that health is the real goal, and I sort of got there by the end of the section. My emphasis is always on the concrete steps we can take today to make tomorrow better. I know it won’t fully remedy the problem, but we essentially have the initiative with the problem and are in a position to get lucky with new technology.
And you responded so fast that I didn’t get a chance to add a link to my series of articles that help to define Progress Studies. Comments are welcome.
It’s unfortunate that Progress is so close to “Progressive” and that the far left has taken on that mantle to describe themselves. How do you avoid the perception of deep partisan affiliation in Progress Studies?
For one, I assume anyone spending 10-15 mins reading my stuff is smart enough to figure this out, but I specifically talk about material progress in contrast with social progress. In Teddy Roosevelt's day, they were often one and the same e.g. "let women have jobs" so they took up the mantle Progressives. I joke about bringing back TR's Bull Moose Party just to demonstrate that politically this is some other third thing. Finally, I think focusing on material progress actually breaks deep partisan ideologies, because material progress is grounded in physics and there are objectively better ideas than other ones.
Quite frankly, it pisses me off, but I cannot think of a better word. I think they did it because the term "Liberal" became toxic in the 1980s, so they changed their name. My guess is that they will change their name again when the term "Progressive" becomes toxic. Then, hopefully, true supporters of Progress can appropriate the term.
I know that many people will come in with that misconception. I try to avoid it by having a very clear and non-ideological definition:
“the sustained improvement in the material standard of living of a large group of people over a long period of time.”
I also periodically call it "human material progress" or "material progress" to make it more clear what I mean.
Rob, I am also a member of the Progress Studies community. Personally, I prefer the term “progress” or “material progress” as the terms denote movement in the desired direction rather than a final destination as the term “Abundance” does.
I like how you break down the term Abundance by category and show how they are have different characteristics. That is useful.
I would stress, however, that Medical Care and Pharmaceuticals are not the actual goal, but means toward the goal of Health. Medical care and pharmaceuticals may assist in that goal or they may hinder it. It is really the results that matter, not the means of achieving it.
You might be interested in reading my take on the issue:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-manifesto-for-the-progress-based
Yeah, I’m with you on progress and that health is the real goal, and I sort of got there by the end of the section. My emphasis is always on the concrete steps we can take today to make tomorrow better. I know it won’t fully remedy the problem, but we essentially have the initiative with the problem and are in a position to get lucky with new technology.
Well said.
And you responded so fast that I didn’t get a chance to add a link to my series of articles that help to define Progress Studies. Comments are welcome.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/what-is-progress-studies
I look forward to reading your future articles.
It’s unfortunate that Progress is so close to “Progressive” and that the far left has taken on that mantle to describe themselves. How do you avoid the perception of deep partisan affiliation in Progress Studies?
For one, I assume anyone spending 10-15 mins reading my stuff is smart enough to figure this out, but I specifically talk about material progress in contrast with social progress. In Teddy Roosevelt's day, they were often one and the same e.g. "let women have jobs" so they took up the mantle Progressives. I joke about bringing back TR's Bull Moose Party just to demonstrate that politically this is some other third thing. Finally, I think focusing on material progress actually breaks deep partisan ideologies, because material progress is grounded in physics and there are objectively better ideas than other ones.
You are 100% correct on this.
Quite frankly, it pisses me off, but I cannot think of a better word. I think they did it because the term "Liberal" became toxic in the 1980s, so they changed their name. My guess is that they will change their name again when the term "Progressive" becomes toxic. Then, hopefully, true supporters of Progress can appropriate the term.
I know that many people will come in with that misconception. I try to avoid it by having a very clear and non-ideological definition:
“the sustained improvement in the material standard of living of a large group of people over a long period of time.”
I also periodically call it "human material progress" or "material progress" to make it more clear what I mean.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/what-is-progress-ea7