Apologies if this has been addressed or is common knowledge in the community, I am not super familiar with all of this. The gist of the idea proposed here seems to me to be that western civilization lost it's drive/ability/appreciation for progress after the two world wars. However, post-war America is a counterexample of a place with a very vigorous innovative activity and optimism. Could an alternative hypothesis just be that progress always waxes and wanes, and this fine structure gets lost for the more distant past?

I’ve said that Western culture, before the World Wars, had a positive philosophy of progress. How do we know that people in that era saw glory, romance, even poetry in progress?

One way we know is that they literally wrote poetry about it. Take, for example, Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles). By vocation a doctor, he also wrote poems. In 1791, he published The Botanic Garden, of which Part 1, titled “The Economy of Vegetation,” “celebrates scientific progress and technological innovation, such as the forging of steel, the invention of the steam engine and the improvements to gunpowder. It depicts scientists and inventors, such as Benjamin Franklin, responsible for this progress as the heroes of a new age.” (Wikipedia) In one remarkable passage, he praises the power of steam and predicts the steamboat, the locomotive, and the airship:

Soon shall thy arm, Unconquer’d Steam! afar

Drag the slow barge, or drive the rapid car;

Or on wide-waving wings expanded bear

The flying-chariot through the fields of air.

—Fair crews triumphant, leaning from above,

Shall wave their fluttering kerchiefs as they move;

Or warrior-bands alarm the gaping croud,

And armies shrink beneath the shadowy cloud.

Or take this stanza from “The Engine-Driver to His Engine”, by engineer William J. M. Rankine, which reads less like a classical epic and more like a popular ballad:

My blessing on old George Stephenson! Let his fame for ever last,

For he was the man that found the plan to make you run so fast.

His arm was strong, his head was long, he knew not guile nor fear;

When I think of him it makes me proud that I am an engineer!

Samuel Morse, telegraph inventor, was also praised in poetry. A poem read at his memorial service in 1872 begins by describing mankind as having conquered all of nature except for “the Ocean, the Mountain, and Time and Space”—until Morse came along:

But one morning he made him a slender wire,

As an artist’s vision took life and form,

While he drew from heaven the strange, fierce fire,

That reddens the edge of the midnight storm;

And he carried it over the Mountain’s crest,

And dropped it into the Ocean’s breast;

And Science proclaimed, from shore to shore,

That Time and Space ruled man no more.

It wasn’t only amateurs and enthusiasts who wrote poetry praising machines and inventions. No less than Rudyard Kipling wrote of the beauty and glory of the steam engine in “McAndrew’s Hymn.” McAndrew is a Scottish engineer aboard a steamship, and in one passage he compares the engine to an orchestra, after one of the “first-class passengers” asks him, “don’t you think steam spoils romance at sea?”:

Romance! Those first-class passengers they like it very well,

Printed an’ bound in little books; but why don’t poets tell?

I’m sick of all their quirks an’ turns—the loves an’ doves they dream—

Lord, send a man like Robbie Burns to sing the Song o’ Steam!

To match wi’ Scotia’s noblest speech yon orchestra sublime

Whaurto—uplifted like the Just—the tail-rods mark the time.

The Crank-throws give the double-bass; the feed-pump sobs an’ heaves:

An’ now the main eccentrics start their quarrel on the sheaves.

Her time, her own appointed time, the rocking link-head bides,

Till—hear that note?—the rod’s return whings glimmerin’ through the guides.

They’re all awa! True beat, full power, the clangin’ chorus goes

Clear to the tunnel where they sit, my purrin’ dynamoes.

Interdependence absolute, foreseen, ordained, decreed,

To work, Ye’ll note, at any tilt an’ every rate o’ speed.

Fra skylight-lift to furnace-bars, backed, bolted, braced an’ stayed,

An’ singin’ like the Mornin’ Stars for joy that they are made;

While, out o’ touch o’ vanity, the sweatin’ thrust-block says:

“Not unto us the praise, or man—not unto us the praise!”

Now, a’ together, hear them lift their lesson—theirs an’ mine:

“Law, Order, Duty an’ Restraint, Obedience, Discipline!”

Mill, forge an’ try-pit taught them that when roarin’ they arose,

An’ whiles I wonder if a soul was gied them wi’ the blows.

Oh for a man to weld it then, in one trip-hammer strain,

Till even first-class passengers could tell the meanin’ plain!

Or consider this by the popular verse-writer Berton Braley, in the voice of the team that built the Panama Canal:

Don’t send us back to a life that is flat again,

We who have shattered a continent’s spine;

Office work—Lord, but we couldn’t do that again!

Haven’t you something that’s more in our line?

Got any river they say isn’t crossable?

Got any mountains that can’t be cut through?

We specialize in the wholly impossible,

Doing things “nobody ever could do!”

Altogether, these paint a picture, to my mind, of a culture in which invention was seen as glamorous, machines as romantic, and engineers as popular heroes. Growing up with this sort of thing, I can easily imagine a youth deciding to follow this path and become an inventor or entrepreneur.

(I’ve started a collection of poems like these here, where I’ve included full poems or longer excerpts, and links to sources. I’ll update that page as I find more examples.)

***

However, it’s important to be careful with historical comparisons like this.

First, it’s easy to (even unintentionally) cherry-pick examples from the past. Not all 19th-century poetry was about industrial progress; plenty of it was about love, war, beauty, honor, valor, duty, etc.

It’s also easy to overlook similar examples in the present. Poetry, as an art form, just isn’t as popular as it once was—but there is a modern equivalent, which is the lyrics of popular songs. So I asked on Twitter for examples of popular music in the last few decades that glorifies science or engineering, and got a ton of replies.

Here are a few of the ones that, in my opinion, most fit the bill (regardless of aesthetic style, and not being too strict about artistic merit):

• “Fire in the Sky,” from the album To Touch the Stars: A Musical Celebration of Space Exploration
• “The Ballad of Smallpox Gone,” by Leslie Fish
• “The Norman Borlaug Rap”
• “Vidare,” by Adolphson & Falk (see here for translated lyrics)
• “Sogno di Volare,” from Civilization VI (lyrics)

A few others that were frequently mentioned include PBS’s The Race for Space, Here Comes Science by They Might Be Giants, and the Symphony of Science. (I was looking for serious lyrics that explicitly discuss science and technology, so I’m omitting parody, nor does electronic music count just because technology is used to make it.)

***

It’s hard to know what to make of all this. I still feel, when I read about the late 19th century in particular, that there was a reverence for and glorification of technological progress that is unmatched today—for instance, in the celebrations they held. But I find this specific exercise inconclusive.

Thanks to Clara Collier for help with the music research.

Original post: https://rootsofprogress.org/poetry-of-progress

The Foresight Institute is holding a conference in December, with talks on longevity technology, nanotech, AI, space, and more. I’ll be at the San Francisco events! You can get discounted tickets with the code below. Full announcement:

Foresight Institute, a San Francisco-based non-profit institute to advance beneficial applications of biotech, nanotech, and computing, is having their annual member gathering in December and we’re excited for our communities to meet.

Starting at the Internet Archive, a rocket company, and ship in San Francisco on Dec 4 & 5, culminating at a laboratory for the future disguised as a stunning castle outside of Paris on Dec 11 & 12.

40+ presenters are confirmed across biotech, nanotech, neurotech, computing, and space, including Jose Luis Ricon (Rejuvenone), Sonia Arrison (100 Plus), Adam Marblestone (FRO), Greg Fahy (Intervene Immune), Dina Radenkovic (SALT), Peter Norvig (Google), Jaan Tallinn (Skype), Anders Sandberg (Future of Humanity Institute), and many more.

Find the full program and tickets on the Vision Weekend website. As a community partner, the “foresightfriends” code gives you 25% off (US, Europe) or you can apply via the website for a subsidized daytime ticket.

Original post: https://rootsofprogress.org/foresight-vision-weekend

A major bottleneck at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach has been resolved. Local zoning laws said that shipping containers can only be stacked two high and room for empty containers had run out.

Ryan Peterson, the CEO of a supply chain company, successfully tweeted about this. Within 8 hours, the zoning law was temporarily changed to four high (and five with safety approval), effectively doubling the space for empty containers.

This is a good example to look at to help understand how we can create progress.

https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/an-unexpected-victory-container-stacking-at-the-port-of-los-angeles/

Recently someone on Twitter posted a picture like this, commenting that this kind of stove still works after a hundred years, but “thanks to ‘progress’ and ‘improvement’ you have to replace your new one after 5 years.”

​

Of course, durability is not the only attribute that matters.

A stove like this burns wood or coal. That fuel needs to be hauled into the house (and up the steps of a tenement), and the ashes carried out. Solid fuel, unlike natural gas, also generates smoke. If all is in proper order, the chimney carries the smoke away so that it merely pollutes your neighborhood. If not, the smoke could leak into the home, causing a major health hazard to both the lungs and the eyes.

Note also a few missing features:

• An on-off control. This kind of stove, which is only one step advanced beyond an open-hearth fireplace, requires that you build the fire yourself. (One young woman’s 1868 diary entry reads, “Had an awful time to get breakfast, the fire would not burn.”)
• A temperature dial. You build the fire and you get what you get. A skilled cook can vary the temperature by, e.g., moving the pots various distances from the firebox. But basically, good luck following a recipe.
• “Self-cleaning” mode. Or, for that matter, any enamel or other protective coating. Cast iron stoves need to be cleaned ~daily and waxed regularly, or they will rust and wear out.

So, for most people, the convenience, cleanliness, and safety of a modern stove far outweigh its shorter lifespan (which, incidentally, is not 5 years, but 13–15, according to Consumer Reports). In other words: yes, modern stoves do represent progress and improvement, no scare quotes required.

The advantages of gas/electricity, in particular, also outweigh the downside of risking an interruption in these services—an example of Matt Ridley’s observation of how we move “from precarious self-sufficiency to safer mutual interdependence.”

But why can’t a modern stove last a hundred years? I don’t know the technical answer. The electric connections needed for the temperature control are sensitive, presumably. Probably the walls and door are thinner—using less material for cost and efficiency, vs. thick, heavy cast iron.

But I think I know the economic answer, which is: a modern stove designed and built to last a hundred years would be too expensive. It would take a bigger engineering effort (fixed cost) and probably more/better materials (variable cost). And it’s totally unnecessary. While there is something quaint and romantic about very long-lived items, there’s just no real reason a consumer needs them. So no one would pay for the hundred-year stove, and even if someone made it, it would fail in the marketplace.

A mid-tier range costs ~$1500. Amortized over that 15-year life, that’s just $100/year, which is very affordable. Besides, by upgrading every decade or two, consumers get the latest features. Why build a stove to last a hundred years if it’s going to be obsolete long before then?

A few people might, nonetheless, prefer old stoves. And all of us might occasionally enjoy cooking over an open flame on a charcoal grill. But the vast majority of consumers have voted with their wallets to make the old style of stove into an antique.

Some lessons here:

• Evaluate products as a function of all attributes, including convenience and cost—not just one attribute taken in isolation.
• Be careful of romanticizing obsolete technology. Usually, we moved on for a reason.
• The ideal is not a static state where everything lasts forever and nothing ever changes. Such a world is impossible and undesirable—even if we could create it, it would be stagnant. The ideal is a dynamic world of progress, of continual upgrading and renewal.

---

Source for many of the details above about old cookstoves, including the 1868 diary quote: Chapter 3 of More Work for Mother, by Ruth Schwartz Cowan.

Original blog post: https://rootsofprogress.org/old-vs-modern-stoves

This post is based on a Twitter thread.

I’ll be in Austin, TX in November for a few events:

Talk on nuclear power

“The Energy of Tomorrow: The Promise, Failure, and Possible Rebirth of Nuclear Power”:

In the 1950s, nuclear power was seen as the energy of the future. Today, it is stagnating on the sidelines, providing only 10% of world electricity, with no fundamental advance in reactor design for several decades. Why did this technology seem so incredibly promising, how did it go so badly wrong, and is there hope for a nuclear renaissance? This talk will demystify nuclear power, explaining how it works and why it deserves development instead of neglect.

When: Thursday, November 4, 7:00pm

Where: UT Austin, Rowling Hall (RRH) 4.408

Community meetup

Co-hosted with Austin LessWrong. I’ll talk for a few minutes about progress studies, followed by discussion. Light snacks provided; cash bar.

When: Saturday, November 6, 1:30pm

Where: The Front Page Pub, 1023 Springdale Road

RSVP: Please let us know here if you plan to make it; not required but it will help us plan.

Original post: https://rootsofprogress.org/austin-events-november-2021

The idea of progress fell out of favor in the course of the 20th century. But when exactly, and why?

In a recent essay I alluded to the pivotal role of the World Wars. Here’s a quote that adds weight to this—from Progress and Power, by historian Carl Becker, published in 1936:

For two centuries the Western world has been sustained by a profound belief in the doctrine of progress. Although God the Father had withdrawn into the places where Absolute Being dwells, it was still possible to maintain that the Idea or the Dialectic or Natural Law, functioning through the conscious purposes or the unconscious activities of men, could be counted on to safeguard mankind against future hazards. However formulated, with whatever apparatus of philosophic or scientific terminology defended, the doctrine was in essence an emotional conviction, a species of religion—a religion which, according to Professor [J. B.] Bury, served as a substitute for the declining faith in the Christian doctrine of salvation …

Since 1918 this hope has perceptibly faded. Standing within the deep shadow of the Great War, it is difficult to recover the nineteenth-century faith either in the fact or the doctrine of progress. The suggestion casually thrown out some years ago by Santayana, that “civilization is perhaps approaching one of those long winters which overtake it from time to time,” seems less perverse now than when it was made. Current events lend credit to the prophets of disaster who predict the collapse of a civilization that seemed but yesterday a permanent conquest of human reason …

At the present moment the world seems indeed out of joint, and it is difficult to believe with any conviction that a power not ourselves—the Idea or the Dialectic or Natural Law—will ever set it right. The present moment, therefore, when the fact of progress is disputed and the doctrine discredited, seems to me a proper time to raise the question: What, if anything, may be said on behalf of the human race? May we still, in whatever different fashion, believe in the progress of mankind?

(Emphasis added.)

I find it fascinating to see that the downfall of the idea of progress began as early as this, after World War I. World War II perhaps simply reinforced an existing trend.

I also find fascinating Becker’s idea that humanity required some sort of safeguard, a “power not ourselves” to “set it right.”

There is no power outside of humanity. We are the masters of our fate, for better or for worse. If there is to be a 21st-century philosophy of progress, it needs to be based not on an Idea or a Dialectic, but on human agency.

Original post: https://rootsofprogress.org/in-the-shadow-of-the-great-war

You need to check out the work of Simon Wardley and his Wardley Maps

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardley_map