David B. Shemano wrote: > Personally, I would never say we are superior to those who came before us, > but... don't you believe in historical progress?<
Historical "progress" has more than one meaning. One is improved technology. Technology improves: we can now produce a computer that's better than old ones (though it's hard to define "better") or, more importantly, produce the same computer we did a few years ago using fewer hours of labor than back then. (If we talk about fewer resources of all sorts -- as is generally a good idea to do -- it's hard to tell how to add them up. That makes it hard to define "fewer.") Does this "progress" happen? yes. But so does regress, as when some technologies were forgotten in the Western European "Dark Ages." Is this kind of "progress" a good thing? technology is like the Force in Star Wars. It can be used for good or evil. It can be used to end deadly diseases -- or to create weapons of mass destruction. Another kind of "progress" is improved democratic control by society over its collective lives. Again, we see progress of this sort, but also regress. (The US is currently undergoing this regress, as it has for decades.) Is it a good thing? not always. Democracy involves a process of learning, which sometimes leads to mistakes. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
