Progress Studies School
progressstudies.school
progressstudies.school
I respect Patrick Collison, but this curriculum worries me. Our understanding of progress already de-emphasizes the nasty parts (eg slavery) by hyper-focusing on innovation. I think this curriculum, which seemingly leaves out critical analysis of labor practices, etc., will worsen our understanding of technological progress.
For example, the improvement of infant mortality is one of the major accomplishments of the last couple centuries. We could focus on the role innovation in the improvement of women's health. But I believe that expressly leaving out the exploitation along the way (eg experimentation on enslaved women[1]), leads to understanding history worse, not better.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/17/603163394...
No, they didn't. In some cases productivity gains may have been a necessary prerequisite, but it was never the proximate cause—labor action to wrest better conditions from capital was always the proximate factor.
That's, just, like, your opinion, man.
If the labor movement is considered one way of fighting for human rights, then, it's been around a long time, my friend.
Think: serfdom, indentured service, slavery.
But I think we all agree that laws against child labor are good, that laws requiring a weekend are good, and that basic safety laws in dangerous environments like meatpacking plants are good.
And we'd all agree that those things fall somewhere on the spectrum of "human rights".
And, if someone doesn't agree then that's an entirely conversation that needs to be had.
But for those of us that do, well, all those things came from organized labor. So --- organized labor, imperfect as it is, like all human institutions, has been and is one of the ways in which people have fought for their rights over time.
Period.
I was meaning to respond to the idea in the conversation that I read as "the gains in human rights and labor standards, had only been possible because of productivity improvements" I think it's worth considering instead whether investment in 'productivity' has been undermined by poor human rights. Could the roman empire have mechanised, industrialised, but that the cruelty and oppression that was fundamental made it uneconomical, when the capital cost was compared to the cheap labor cost of buying slaves. I have a friend who debates with me about the problems that flow from the high cost of labor and environmental standards, and I argue back that the greater problem is the low cost of labor, the low enforcement of human rights and environmental standards, because these de-incentivise the upfront 'activation energy ' investment in any efforts that would make our civilisation more sustainable and equitable.
At the same time I don't think we should instrumentalize human rights -- human rights are important because their human rights, not because of their potential to increase productivity.
And I'm not saying you're saying anything like that at all -- moreso, I'm responding to the logical implications of the discussion : ).
The importance and value is of human rights is unrelated to their positive or negative impact on productivity.
Some people might like to throw in a "what if" at this point about limited resources, etc. And sometimes in life (like in medical triage situations) people have to make difficult or terrible decisions, but if we believe in human life having an inherent value then that shouldn't be the basis or starting point of our moral reasoning.
So, like I said previously “...productivity gains may have been a necessary prerequisite, but it was never the proximate cause—labor action to wrest better conditions from capital was always the proximate factor.”
What pushed this social progress was collective labour action in the form of unions and socialist parties engaging in direct action.
No, and that's not GP's claim either. It's entirely reasonable (and historically accurate) to say that socialists have consistently pushed for improved labour rights in capitalist countries. That doesn't make any comment as to their achievements (or lack of) in "socialist" countries.
Also, an introduction course to CS should mention algorithms.
But this isn't an introduction to history course. It's a course about the "story of unprecedented human progress in the modern age".
I don’t see what you think connects these threads together.
For substantially longer we just hung out with our buddies, banged, and picked up food right from the ground when we were hungry.
https://condensedscience.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/life-expec...
Still bad, but much better than 3 in 20.
What connects pc to this, other than that he's a speaker?
"This program will explore: what problems, challenges and hardships in life and work were faced by people in earlier generations and centuries? And how did we solve those problems through science, technology, and invention?
Learn about manufacturing from blacksmiths to assembly lines; about power from water wheels to combustion to electricity; about food from famine to industrial agriculture and genetically modified crops; about disease from basic sanitation to scientific medicine—and the struggles and circumstances of the men and women who worked to bend the arc of humanity upward."
The problem with this presentation is that it will almost invariably fall upon an implicitly political angle, using thought experiments made to further political points; for example, blacksmiths to assembly lines could well be explained with the Pin Factory analogy borrowing from Smith, but neglecting his role as a political economist, and likely the more abstract and philosophical criticisms from political economists after him (such as Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa, etc.). The course will likely not delve into these points, upon which the whole theory stands or falls, because objections to it are viewed as 'political' rather than 'objective', despite the original view and its assumptions already being political - just part of dominant political positions which persist.
Further, how does a course like this avoid the sense of teleological technological determinism which Marx was accused of? I would hope that it includes a section on the philosophy of progress, history, and technology (of which there is a lot written), but I'm skeptical that it will be included. The quote from Steven Pinker at the bottom of the page leaves me doubly skeptical - there are several key criticisms of Pinker's work (and indeed the sort of graphs displayed at the top of the page) - a comprehensive overview is available in "Pinker and Progress" by Ronald Aronson (History and Theory Vol. 2, 2013) and Liberalism, Capitalism, and the Conditions of Social Peace: A Critique of Steven Pinker’s One-Sided Humanism by Noonan (2019).
Are there billionaires without an agenda? (Or non-billionaires, while at it.) Hint: the state is often a billionaire with the biggest agenda.