> The opposite view is that progress is a matter of luck. If the progress of the last few centuries was a random windfall, then pessimism is logical: our luck is bound to run out. How could we get that lucky again? If the next century is an average one, it will see little progress. But if progress is a primarily matter of agency, then whether it continues is up to us.

Or perhaps: progress is subjective and transient and often comes with unknown costs, so we don’t need to make a big deal of it either way.

The author seems really caught up in some private neurosis about how they relate to progress, but surely they’d have more resources to contribute to their vision of progress if they stepped back a little and stopped trying to relate themselves to some conflict between “optimists” and “pessimists”.