The Illusion of Progress

Part I: False Pretences By: Taylor Webb

Humanity has often been swept up in the idea that technological progress is intrinsically related to an advancement of morality and the improvement of our social interactions, ideas and feelings. The modern manifestation of this sentiment is so commonplace that it is often mistaken for fact, that we are better now than we ever were before. It is this illusion, the illusion of progress that I hope to dispel by illuminating the reality that we are no better off than we were at any point in humanitys shared history. The individual events, memes, and societies involved in historic events and social structures do change, but the essential nature of the conflict between what is morally acceptable and what is not remains the same. I would like to start by clarifying an important intellectual qualification of this work. The very fact that morality is subjective is an essential element of the exploration of historical morality. I will not only be discussing those things which are picked out by modern Western society to be right and wrong, but also the critiques of that very society, and the analysis of other thought patterns so that by comparison and juxtaposition we will overcome the illusion of progress. The subjectivity of morality negates any sort of general progress of Man, or of even one nation, for the progress of one is the downfall of another. Through science there is no way of illuminating a certain authoritative moral truth, and therefore it is impossible to demonstrate moral objectivity. Though there are belief systems in which moral objectivity is claimed, and thus a sense of human progress might be coherent the secular, scientific, academic community cannot support these claims in our current state, and must therefore not support the principle of human progress. I will start by outlining what exactly the illusion of progress is, its roots in the West, its manifestations, and the problems it creates. The illusion of progress in the West is woven tightly into Christian theology, though the two concepts create a sort-of chicken and egg paradox. Many historians will tell you that much of the difference between the Far East and the West is born out of differences in the calendar systems that support each civilization. The Far East is perceived to have a cyclical calendar, cyclical appreciation of time, and an unending metaphysical flow in a wheel, without progress or at least without general progress of humanity. The West, on the other hand has Genesis at the beginning and a definite end, which either creates or is the manifestation of a rudimentary element in the Western mind, that there was one thing, and there will be something else in the future. The basic notion of progress. This underlying theme defines the basic illusion of progress as well. This explanation of the origins of the notion of progress is filled with all the elements that make up the illusion of progress itself. The first element is dichotomy, a choice between two things that cannot both happen at the same time. This first appears in the use of the East and the West as separate identities, and also appears as the choice between two calendar systems. Dichotomy is a plague on the mind of an intellectual. It creates an easy, black and white way of seeing the world that allows one interact with it effectively without having to take the time to truly understand it. The problem is that it is

essentially a binary that is useful when dealing with things that actually have the property of being binary, but easily creates the illusion that something has the property of being binary when it doesnt. Lets take the example of a caveman: when he is going home he simply evaluates whether or not the cave he is looking at is his. This is a dichotomy, either the cave is his or it isnt and the solution is easily worked out. Once he gets there, however things get complicated. The tribe uses a binary social function to divide the meat of a kill. If you actually helped kill the animal you get a share, the cavemen add up all the affirmative binary inputs (number of men who grunt yes, I helped), divide the kill into that many pieces and each take a piece home. Coming home with his piece, however the caveman is confronted by his crippled father and his spouse, who each want a share. If they helped with the kill they deserve an equal share, if not they deserve nothing according to the social system. They claim that they did not help with the kill, but still deserve some of the food. Many people would agree, and many points of view can be taken ranging from they helped raise him to you should share so they dont kill you in your sleep, but the point is that this is no longer a simple dichotomy. Even if it is a series of very complex choices and feelings, there are only 2 possible answers: give something or give nothing. This is the essential illusion of dichotomy, there is a binary choice between two options, but the complexities beneath those options are nearly limitless. When dealing with moral progress the illusion of dichotomy often works its way into view. The common error made is to apply the binary of good and evil onto the collective actions of any group of people. Technological progress is easy to measure and is in fact a binary function. More complex machines only progress out of less complex machines, so the measure of progress in technology is complexity, though it is often mistaken for function. A more sophisticated technological innovation is often aimed at making things less complicated, but this addition of research into functionality can only be applied to an already existing technology, and therefore even these less complicated, more functional technologies are the result of a more complex interaction of research ideas. So technology can be measured as either more or less complex, and can therefore offer a very real picture of change from less complex to more complex, the definition of progress. Ideas of morality, on the other hand, cannot be measured in terms of their complexity. It is not the most complicated, convoluted, or wordy of philosophies that get the social seal of approval, nor is it the philosophy that seems the newest, or that has had the most people contribute their ideas. Morality as a measure of good and evil embodies the illusion created by dichotomy. Either something is good or it is not. Even with the addition of a grey neutral zone the baseline of the measure of good is needed. I dont feel that I need to go into great detail about how complicated this baseline is, for the struggle for its establishment has always been an unresolved priority of Man. Therefore, with this illusionary starting point of morality, all conclusions made about the progress of morality can be nothing but illusions in themselves. Even if a certain baseline is taken to establish the meaning of good and evil the illusionary properties remain, for the question is much more complex anyway when applied to the collective actions of all of humanity; that subject we call history.