Ask HN: Would you make an argument for the peak of human progress? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Would you make an argument for the peak of human progress?

Whenever I read about the Industrial Revolution, there’s often an argument that you would want to unquestionably live after the Industrial Revolution, and that the loss of jobs and culture that occurred is an easy trade off for the gains made after.

But I’m not so sure, there was this change from working jobs like being a blacksmith or other job where you learned skills and owned the lifecycle, contrasted with the types of soul crushing factory jobs that came after.

So in curious if there’s a certain time period that people look to and make an argument that the change wasn’t worth it.

View on HN

The ultimate technology... is the technology of common well-being.

And perhaps populations that we now call "primitive" had a much greater sense of well-being than we do.

We should go slower, not accelerate.

We should enjoy what we have, not build new cravings out of thin air, just for the sake of consumption and GDP growth

The problem is, how do we all agree to slow down? Are there any examples of this working, doesn't have to be a whole country, maybe just a city?

Yes, history showed us that past societies worked quite nicely even with a slower timeframe

Surely the right of an individual to enjoy freedom and live in a democratic world would be the ultimate? Some individuals have aimed for these values but today huge parts of our world don't enjoy those benefits.

Your answer raises sooo many follow up questions that it's hard to know where to start.

But I suppose let's start at the top - What do you mean by Freedom?

Should you be free from community responsibilities? Can you pollute water sources downstream from your collection point? Should you be free to make noise at 2am if that's what you want? Should your freedoms come with social obligations, like taxes? Should you be free to plant your flag, build your house, feed your goat wherever you like?

Do you think freedom for the individual (the US model where you are free to impinge on your neighbor) is better or worse than freedom for the society (the European model, where you are free to live without your neighbor impinging on you)?

Given that a democratic world imposes the view of the majority on the minority, is this really the ultimate form of government? How would you feel as a minority member of this utopia? How would you react if your demographic goes from majority to minority?

If a society voted (as a majority) to euthenase people over 80 (clearly a minority) would that be OK? Would you change you mind when you were 79?

Indeed, can you ever be free in a democratic world? Or would you, by necessity need to suppress your minority self to be one of the majority to keep those freedoms?

If say, the majority voted on your freedom for bodily autonomy, and decided for you what you can and can't do, are you still free?

I ask these questions not with any judgement, but rather for you to explore what you mean by "freedom" and "democracy" and whether these notions can co-exist.

Realizing that freedom is not absolute solves all the confusion you claim. Your freedom stops where somebody else's freedom starts. As long as you are not hurting anybody, do whatever you want.

Progress is not a straight line up and to the right on a graph. Look at the Middle Ages as compared to the Roman Empire, or the failures of Reconstruction for example.

The advancements in medical science alone make the comparison a non-starter. 200 years ago, around 40% of children died before the age of 15±. Any fracture, cold or bruise could devolve into a matter of life and death. And good luck coping with a deteriorating eyesight or tooth pain. Most of your diet consisted of whatever crops didn’t fail that year. Most workers had no rights and only limited ownership: farmers paid rent or labor services to the nobility in exchange for their right to survive off that land! Pre-industrial processing facilities – like a tannery or a forge – were not bound by workplace safety regulations. Before the newspaper and modern means of transportation, you had no way to witness a world different than your immediate sorroundings. Your 'culture' was whatever the village you were born into believed in. If you didn't fit in, you didn't get second chances: your community was your safety net in case of permanent injury or illness. In a way, individualism is a byproduct of the industrial revolution.

± Sweden, 1750-80: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past

> So in curious if there’s a certain time period that people look to and make an argument that the change wasn’t worth it.

Not trying to be a smart-ass, but probably every generation as far back as one can imagine (adjusting for exceptional conditions, such as war, famine etc.).

I'd imagine a certain kind of person (a member of the nobility to start with) would think the peak of civilization was France in 1788 or Japan in 1852.

Unless you consider that many modern conveniences (indoor plumbing, electric lights, refrigeration) that are available to the poorest classes today; were not around in past times to the most rich and powerful.

The alternative to technology is the Malthusian trap. It was made with the assumption that nothing changes, but time by time we've had exponentially effective revolutions.

Also that might have been "peak" from a colonist perspective, but remember that millions lived in colonies then. Plenty of people with relaxed lives ended up being colonized by those with the tech.

Well since all people who suffered from job loss at that period was dead, we can probably brush it away.

Now it's our turn to enjoy progression.

Well, it depends whose lives are we discussing. Slaveowners lives changed less than lives of slaves. Men lives changed less than the lives of females, who used to be treated like a property. Medicine was and still is a big game changer for everyone who's health is not perfect. Weak used to just perish, only strong would survive to the next generation. Capitalism and industrial revolutions brought us the levels of prosperity (in advanced world at least) that were unthinkable before: -your house is expected to be warm now, some even have a/c -you have water access in your house -you have toilet in your house -you can traverse huge distances very quickly with car, airplaine, train, anything -knowledge access is insane now: basically free. Books used to be super expensive 500 years ago. If a library burned, the data was lost forever.

I think that right now it's the best time to be alive, however from the perspective of political systems I think the ultimate solution is model dictated by the original American Constitution with limited government and division of powers. Economically free-markets, lack of central bank, gold standard so that we don't have perpetual inflation that steals our savings and purchasing power. This and of course amendments for equal rights for men, women, all skin colors.

I disagree on the central bank and gold standard. Other than that, I agree.

To me, one of the fundamental, basic changes is indoor plumbing (and with it, clean water). That is a game changer. Heat is a really big deal; getting it from something more efficient than a wood stove that only heats half a room is big plus. Refrigeration for food. Easy transportation. The internet.

Now, you can look at the internet and see that it is not purely a win. Same with cars. Still, would I go back to, say, 1900, or even 1980? No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com