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.
15 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 37.7 ms ] threadBut 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.
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
Now it's our turn to enjoy progression.
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.
± Sweden, 1750-80: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
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.
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.
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.).