It is not too far from my definition, except the following:
"the development and application of ideas" assumes that ideas are what causes flourishing. I do not think a definition should have a cause built into it. We need a clear definition of the desired goal that does not assume what causes it. Cause and effect should be clearly separated, and progress is the effect.
"flourishing" I do now know what that means. I understand that many people want that to be the meaning of progress, but I think that is a mistake. I wrote why in this article:
In general, I believe that Progress is about society, while Flourishing is about the Individual. I seriously doubt that there has ever been a society where everyone flourishes or does not flourish. Progress cannot make an individual flourish.
Whether a person flourishes in a given society will be to a large extent driven by the choices that an individual makes. One can live in a society that experiences Progress and make really bad choices that causes them not to flourish. Not living in a society that has Progress makes it harder to flourish, but one cannot be born into flourishing.
Thanks Michael for your counterpoints for the definition. You make a good argument about causes and effects in definitions. My attempt here was to get at a cause flexible enough to make the assumption innocuous, but perhaps that is going in the wrong direction, and we should just clearly separate the cause and effect, as you say.
I also like your point about progress versus flourishing, and how this maps onto societies versus individuals. I think this is probably the cause of a lot of tension in what people associate with progress. I agree that individual flourishing definitely depends in part (probably a large part for many of us) on our individual choices. But how do you think about going from progress (the societal level) to flourishing (the individual level)? As you say, progress does not imply flourishing, but surely there's some sort of link? I think making that link explicit would also help when talking about progress.
This is a little off-topic, but I am beginning to think that there are three different concepts:
1) "Progress", which I define as the increased standard of living for a large group of people. In the modern world, this is typically nations. That is the topic of my first two books.
2) "Upward Mobility", which is similar to Progress, but it is for individuals. It acknowledges that not all people in society benefit in progress. Certain things need to happen for the individual to benefit from the progress that surrounds them. This is the topic of my third book, which is close to being finished.
3) "Individual Flourishing". This is a concept that I am still thinking about. It is more focused on how people feel. It is related to happiness, but it is deeper than that. There is an entire literature of "Positive Psychology" and "Happiness research" which I think is relevant. I am only vaguely aware of their findings.
I think all three are related, but it is important to keep them conceptually distinct. My hope is that once I finish my third book, I can start focusing on the third.
As for "human flourishing" on a societal level, I am not sure that it exists. I am sure that societies have great variation in the percentage of people who are flourishing as individuals, but I am also confident that even in the most flourishing societies, there are plenty of people who live miserable lives. Because of that, I am skeptical about the term "human flourishing" for entire societies. If evidence comes out that I am wrong, however, I am open to changing my mind. But first we have to:
1) Clearly define human flourishing (and maybe it is the same as self-reported happiness)
2) Be able to measure it today and in historical societies
3) Nail down some of the primary causes of that flourishing.
This is a great comment. I agree that it's worth thinking about the differences in our concepts as they pertain to individuals versus societies at large.
Yes, I am confident that there is a link between material progress on the societal level and flourishing on the individual level. At the very least, we know that self-reporting happiness is linked to material progress.
Having said that, I think it is a mistake to lump them together in our definitions. We need to keep them conceptually separate and use empirical tests to investigation their relationship. We cannot do that if we start out by combining them together.
It is currently about 13 articles now and counting. I would love to have feedback in the comments.
When I started writing this series, I was hoping other members of Progress Studies would join in with their own opinions. I think for us to become a serious field of intellectual inquiry, we need to decide on core issues early on. A failure to do so will really constrain our impact.
As you mentioned in your article, I am a strong proponent of a definition of progress that focuses on the material standard of living of the masses. I believe that a clear definition that can easily be measured makes it much easier to figure out what actually works.
I have no problem with other people focusing on, for example, on scientific progress or technological progress, or medical progress, as long as:
1) The author clearly defines the term. I try to constantly repeat my definition and in my first mention of the term "progress" I say "human material progress." If someone uses the term progress but is really only focused on technological progress, then that is liable to cause confusion which will undermine our ability to develop policies that work.
2) The author should not assume that, for example, scientific progress automatically leads to material benefits. I see this all the time. It should be an empirical question whether each increase in scientific knowledge actually has positive effects. The causality is not obvious.
If our goal is to develop policies and practices that advance progress, we need to be very careful about making assumption about causality. That is a huge risk if we dump all types of progress together and assume that they are all related.
3) In particular, we should be careful of trying to make "progress" as a synonym for everything good. I think that is a driving force in why many people want to expand the definition of progress. For example, "Love" is a wonderful thing and is necessary for human flourishing, but that does not mean that it has anything to do with progress.
I think many of those people are unconsciously trying to develop a new philosophy, religion, or ideology. I see Progress Studies as an applied Social Science, and I think that it is a mistake to try to push it to become more than that.
Great piece Jeremy. At Risk & Progress, I combine all three scopes into one. I do not see them as discernably distinct. Material progress helps open up more human capabilities, driven by the application of new technology and acquisition of knowledge. They feed into each other, one reinforcing and enabling the other, in a positive feedback loop.
We saw this happen very clearly when the UN attempted to remove the material aspects of progress from the immaterial "capability approach" when they developed the HDI index: https://www.lianeon.org/p/does-material-progress-matter
It turns out that human capabilities, as best as we can (crudely) measure them, grew neatly alongside material wealth.
Thank you for your comment and sharing this article! I think in the context of studying these concepts, Michael makes a good point that the more we can test these links empirically, the more we can be confident in them (rather than only assuming).
I think that it is important to see them as distinct concepts. You may be correct that they are all linked, but we should not assume that. The relationship between them should be an empirical question, not an assumption.
I take "standard of value" to be roughly equivalent to what you were calling an "effect" in your other comment about my definition. What counts as progress? If we're focusing on material standard of living, then I would say the standard of value is material progress (in other words, you're not talking about flourishing, about new discoveries in science, etc.). To me, "standard of value" is what you use to even start considering if something represents progress. I hope that clears up my meaning! (And sorry for the delay, by the way. I'm slowly working through all of your comments and I will get to them all! I do appreciate them.)
How can you "start considering if something represents progress" if you do not yet have a definition of progress?
I guess my concern is that starting with "standard of value" looks like:
1) Decide what you like
2) Change the definition of "progress" to match #1
That guarantees conflicts with Progress Studies between people with different philosophies, ideologies, and religions. We already have enough academic disciplines that have been corrupted by ideological and philosophical assumptions, I would hate to see the same thing happen to Progress Studies.
That is the point I was trying to make in this article:
Social scientists can investigate something even if they do not like it, and different social scientists can have different views on how much they like a phenomenon.
For example, a political scientist should not decide whether they like a State before defining what a State is. A State is a State, and regardless of whether you like it, it is still worth investigating cause and effect.
This is a fair point. I guess I would argue that you can choose a "standard of value" without it necessarily being something you like. Perhaps "value" is misleading here. I'm thinking of how you want the definition of progress to be able to distinguish between periods/groups in history that did experience progress versus those that didn't. The way you do this (to me) requires a standard of value.
I definitely agree that there's a danger in what you highlight, which is to change the definition of progress to something you like. But it seems difficult to establish a definition without any kind of ideological or philosophical assumptions, right? I guess we simply want to minimize how easily this can corrupt a field.
Well, I fully acknowledge that part of the reason that I focus on material standard of living for the masses is because I think it is very beneficial for humanity. I also fully acknowledge that others will value it less than I do, but that we can still have a reasonable discussion on causality and how it changes over time. We just need to be clear on our definitions and means of measurement.
Perhaps “standard of comparison” or “measurement method” captures what you want while being less tied to values?
I am not sure that I understand the paragraph that starts with "Let me share a thought experiment"
Someone can desire a specific standard of living, but that does not mean that material progress is impossible or desirable beyond that point. I could ask a person in the Congo for their desired material standard of living. It will probably be lower than what tens of millions of people now have.
Nor would I assume that if someone achieved a desired SofL at Time A, they would be satisfied forever.
And I personally would be ecstatic if "we’ve saturated any improvement in material standard of living that people care about." Not sure why that is a problem.
As an aside, I do not think thought experiments about potential future states are very helpful in Progress Studies. I see Progress Studies as the study of the past to see what worked by some measurable metric. Then we should try to implement a variation of what worked in the past to see if it has the same results today.
Imagining a potential future state does not get us there, and it has a great danger of Utopianism that typically leads to dystopian outcomes.
Fair enough. For the thought experiment, I was trying to come at the idea of "progress is more than material progress" from a different angle. I agree with you that it would be amazing if we could achieve any material standard of living people would want. I'm not saying that this in itself is a problem. Rather, I was thinking the definition of progress should extend beyond, into other realms that people would consider progress.
I do think you have an intriguing point about future versus past states. I think I'd broadly agree with you that it's worth studying the past to see what worked. What I would say in favour of thinking of future scenarios is what you mention: "...we should try to implement a variation of what worked in the past to see if it has the same results today." To me, thinking about the future is how you create that "variation" (to take into account present context and possible outcomes).
Regarding the definition in bold in Scope 3:
It is not too far from my definition, except the following:
"the development and application of ideas" assumes that ideas are what causes flourishing. I do not think a definition should have a cause built into it. We need a clear definition of the desired goal that does not assume what causes it. Cause and effect should be clearly separated, and progress is the effect.
"flourishing" I do now know what that means. I understand that many people want that to be the meaning of progress, but I think that is a mistake. I wrote why in this article:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-progress-is-not-human-flourishing
In general, I believe that Progress is about society, while Flourishing is about the Individual. I seriously doubt that there has ever been a society where everyone flourishes or does not flourish. Progress cannot make an individual flourish.
Whether a person flourishes in a given society will be to a large extent driven by the choices that an individual makes. One can live in a society that experiences Progress and make really bad choices that causes them not to flourish. Not living in a society that has Progress makes it harder to flourish, but one cannot be born into flourishing.
Thanks Michael for your counterpoints for the definition. You make a good argument about causes and effects in definitions. My attempt here was to get at a cause flexible enough to make the assumption innocuous, but perhaps that is going in the wrong direction, and we should just clearly separate the cause and effect, as you say.
I also like your point about progress versus flourishing, and how this maps onto societies versus individuals. I think this is probably the cause of a lot of tension in what people associate with progress. I agree that individual flourishing definitely depends in part (probably a large part for many of us) on our individual choices. But how do you think about going from progress (the societal level) to flourishing (the individual level)? As you say, progress does not imply flourishing, but surely there's some sort of link? I think making that link explicit would also help when talking about progress.
This is a little off-topic, but I am beginning to think that there are three different concepts:
1) "Progress", which I define as the increased standard of living for a large group of people. In the modern world, this is typically nations. That is the topic of my first two books.
2) "Upward Mobility", which is similar to Progress, but it is for individuals. It acknowledges that not all people in society benefit in progress. Certain things need to happen for the individual to benefit from the progress that surrounds them. This is the topic of my third book, which is close to being finished.
3) "Individual Flourishing". This is a concept that I am still thinking about. It is more focused on how people feel. It is related to happiness, but it is deeper than that. There is an entire literature of "Positive Psychology" and "Happiness research" which I think is relevant. I am only vaguely aware of their findings.
I think all three are related, but it is important to keep them conceptually distinct. My hope is that once I finish my third book, I can start focusing on the third.
As for "human flourishing" on a societal level, I am not sure that it exists. I am sure that societies have great variation in the percentage of people who are flourishing as individuals, but I am also confident that even in the most flourishing societies, there are plenty of people who live miserable lives. Because of that, I am skeptical about the term "human flourishing" for entire societies. If evidence comes out that I am wrong, however, I am open to changing my mind. But first we have to:
1) Clearly define human flourishing (and maybe it is the same as self-reported happiness)
2) Be able to measure it today and in historical societies
3) Nail down some of the primary causes of that flourishing.
4) Then we can see if there are societal causes.
This is a great comment. I agree that it's worth thinking about the differences in our concepts as they pertain to individuals versus societies at large.
Yes, I am confident that there is a link between material progress on the societal level and flourishing on the individual level. At the very least, we know that self-reporting happiness is linked to material progress.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/does-material-progress-lead-to-happiness
Having said that, I think it is a mistake to lump them together in our definitions. We need to keep them conceptually separate and use empirical tests to investigation their relationship. We cannot do that if we start out by combining them together.
I was very excited to see this article. Thanks for the shout out!
For those who are not aware, the series of articles that I wrote about Progress Studies starts on this page:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/what-is-progress-studies
It is currently about 13 articles now and counting. I would love to have feedback in the comments.
When I started writing this series, I was hoping other members of Progress Studies would join in with their own opinions. I think for us to become a serious field of intellectual inquiry, we need to decide on core issues early on. A failure to do so will really constrain our impact.
As you mentioned in your article, I am a strong proponent of a definition of progress that focuses on the material standard of living of the masses. I believe that a clear definition that can easily be measured makes it much easier to figure out what actually works.
I have no problem with other people focusing on, for example, on scientific progress or technological progress, or medical progress, as long as:
1) The author clearly defines the term. I try to constantly repeat my definition and in my first mention of the term "progress" I say "human material progress." If someone uses the term progress but is really only focused on technological progress, then that is liable to cause confusion which will undermine our ability to develop policies that work.
2) The author should not assume that, for example, scientific progress automatically leads to material benefits. I see this all the time. It should be an empirical question whether each increase in scientific knowledge actually has positive effects. The causality is not obvious.
If our goal is to develop policies and practices that advance progress, we need to be very careful about making assumption about causality. That is a huge risk if we dump all types of progress together and assume that they are all related.
3) In particular, we should be careful of trying to make "progress" as a synonym for everything good. I think that is a driving force in why many people want to expand the definition of progress. For example, "Love" is a wonderful thing and is necessary for human flourishing, but that does not mean that it has anything to do with progress.
I think many of those people are unconsciously trying to develop a new philosophy, religion, or ideology. I see Progress Studies as an applied Social Science, and I think that it is a mistake to try to push it to become more than that.
Any way, that is my take.
These three points are really good! I'm going to keep them in mind with my own writing. Thanks for laying them out here.
Great piece Jeremy. At Risk & Progress, I combine all three scopes into one. I do not see them as discernably distinct. Material progress helps open up more human capabilities, driven by the application of new technology and acquisition of knowledge. They feed into each other, one reinforcing and enabling the other, in a positive feedback loop.
We saw this happen very clearly when the UN attempted to remove the material aspects of progress from the immaterial "capability approach" when they developed the HDI index: https://www.lianeon.org/p/does-material-progress-matter
It turns out that human capabilities, as best as we can (crudely) measure them, grew neatly alongside material wealth.
Thank you for your comment and sharing this article! I think in the context of studying these concepts, Michael makes a good point that the more we can test these links empirically, the more we can be confident in them (rather than only assuming).
I think that it is important to see them as distinct concepts. You may be correct that they are all linked, but we should not assume that. The relationship between them should be an empirical question, not an assumption.
I am not sure that I understand what you and Ryan mean by "standard of value."
I take "standard of value" to be roughly equivalent to what you were calling an "effect" in your other comment about my definition. What counts as progress? If we're focusing on material standard of living, then I would say the standard of value is material progress (in other words, you're not talking about flourishing, about new discoveries in science, etc.). To me, "standard of value" is what you use to even start considering if something represents progress. I hope that clears up my meaning! (And sorry for the delay, by the way. I'm slowly working through all of your comments and I will get to them all! I do appreciate them.)
How can you "start considering if something represents progress" if you do not yet have a definition of progress?
I guess my concern is that starting with "standard of value" looks like:
1) Decide what you like
2) Change the definition of "progress" to match #1
That guarantees conflicts with Progress Studies between people with different philosophies, ideologies, and religions. We already have enough academic disciplines that have been corrupted by ideological and philosophical assumptions, I would hate to see the same thing happen to Progress Studies.
That is the point I was trying to make in this article:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-progress-is-not-human-flourishing
Social scientists can investigate something even if they do not like it, and different social scientists can have different views on how much they like a phenomenon.
For example, a political scientist should not decide whether they like a State before defining what a State is. A State is a State, and regardless of whether you like it, it is still worth investigating cause and effect.
This is a fair point. I guess I would argue that you can choose a "standard of value" without it necessarily being something you like. Perhaps "value" is misleading here. I'm thinking of how you want the definition of progress to be able to distinguish between periods/groups in history that did experience progress versus those that didn't. The way you do this (to me) requires a standard of value.
I definitely agree that there's a danger in what you highlight, which is to change the definition of progress to something you like. But it seems difficult to establish a definition without any kind of ideological or philosophical assumptions, right? I guess we simply want to minimize how easily this can corrupt a field.
Well, I fully acknowledge that part of the reason that I focus on material standard of living for the masses is because I think it is very beneficial for humanity. I also fully acknowledge that others will value it less than I do, but that we can still have a reasonable discussion on causality and how it changes over time. We just need to be clear on our definitions and means of measurement.
Perhaps “standard of comparison” or “measurement method” captures what you want while being less tied to values?
Yes, I would say your two suggestions get at what I was referring to!
I am not sure that I understand the paragraph that starts with "Let me share a thought experiment"
Someone can desire a specific standard of living, but that does not mean that material progress is impossible or desirable beyond that point. I could ask a person in the Congo for their desired material standard of living. It will probably be lower than what tens of millions of people now have.
Nor would I assume that if someone achieved a desired SofL at Time A, they would be satisfied forever.
And I personally would be ecstatic if "we’ve saturated any improvement in material standard of living that people care about." Not sure why that is a problem.
As an aside, I do not think thought experiments about potential future states are very helpful in Progress Studies. I see Progress Studies as the study of the past to see what worked by some measurable metric. Then we should try to implement a variation of what worked in the past to see if it has the same results today.
Imagining a potential future state does not get us there, and it has a great danger of Utopianism that typically leads to dystopian outcomes.
Fair enough. For the thought experiment, I was trying to come at the idea of "progress is more than material progress" from a different angle. I agree with you that it would be amazing if we could achieve any material standard of living people would want. I'm not saying that this in itself is a problem. Rather, I was thinking the definition of progress should extend beyond, into other realms that people would consider progress.
I do think you have an intriguing point about future versus past states. I think I'd broadly agree with you that it's worth studying the past to see what worked. What I would say in favour of thinking of future scenarios is what you mention: "...we should try to implement a variation of what worked in the past to see if it has the same results today." To me, thinking about the future is how you create that "variation" (to take into account present context and possible outcomes).