Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Danila Medvedev's avatar

I think it's helpful to keep the discussion focused on the big questions. What are the important/key/unanswered/hot questions in progress studies? I propose this list (with some answers).

Danila Medvedev

https://danilamedvedev.com/

💬 Key questions about progress and some answers

⛽️ Where does progress come from?

A study of the innovation system gives the answer in terms of the use of science and technology (but it's complicated there and it's broken)

In the economy, progress from cheap energy from coal and oil

🌡 Is there progress now?

It has slowed down (energy turned out to be more important than innovation, IP is broken, ICT is useless)

By a bunch of metrics there is some progress, but not enough, given the ongoing deaths and the risk of civilization collapsing

👑 Who is ensuring progress?

Burya himself claims that individuals (the great founders)

See also "who runs the world" (complicated there)

Bureaucracies fail (see megaprojects, etc.)

Futurologists (new, ours) need to take control

💭 Is strong progress possible?

Yes - TG scenario. Singularity via UI/II, immortality (cryonics, head-grafting, cyborgization), nanotech (ATM), etc. Even space and energy (elevator, thermonuclear)

🎯 What is progress and where to go?

Don't need ALL progress in general, there are important things, there are unimportant

TG/imm - the right values (they are compatible with others). Immortality and upgrade are important

There are many models of the future (complicated there)

Sustainability and utopia would be fun, but little chance of making

Gotta go for the Singularity.

🚧 What would prevent progress?

The main one is an environmental/climatic/resource systemic crisis leading to collapse

Stagnation of the science and innovation system

🔮 How to ensure progress?

Futurology (ours) for long-term world governance (LSTS) - create a new school/institution based on the GFT model and save the world

Restart useful parts of the innovation system

Make intelligence amplification, NeuroCode, thinking about complexity

Urgently make supertechnology, including immortality, nanotech (and thermonuclear)

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Expand full comment
Bill Benzon's avatar

I've been following the Progress Studies movement via the Slack that Jim Crawford set up. One thing that's going on is educating people that there has been progress. This seems to me a good and very useful thing to do. but it doesn't address the issue you've identified.

Progress Studies Slack: https://app.slack.com/client/TLXLF1CP5/CMAV8HYTZ

On a somewhat different tack, I asked some of humanist friends a question on Twitter: "When do people start thinking about the future as something that can and will be significantly changed by human effort? I'm thinking mid to late 19th century." They told me it was a century earlier and it focused on perfecting humans and human society. The focus on technical progress is later and derivative. Where's the talk of human perfectibility in progress studies? It's not there. In techno-futurism human perfectibility has been entirely transferred to AI, the coming Singularity, mind uploads (or is it downloads?), and so forth.

So I wrote a blog post about that: https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2021/07/when-did-future-become-site-for-human.html

As for your issue, I wonder if it isn't just tinkering around the edges of the problem. Our research institutions are built on models that came together in the 19th century. The Santa Fe Institute is somewhat different, which is your point, no? It's also an outlier. What changes would be required for it to be the prototype so that it is no longer an outlier?

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts