[Millennium]

Just something I've noticed. Many self-styled liberal groups (i.e. those which call themselves liberal, as opposed to -though not exclusive of- being called liberals by others) describe themselves as "progressive". When pressed as to what that means, the definition usually comes to "favoring progress". Which is all well and good in and of itself. Favoring progress is a Good Thing.

But what exactly is progress? After all, most self-styles conservative groups claim to favor progress as well, and paint liberals -particularly the fringe winds of the environmentalists- as "anti-progress". Is it possible that progress itself is nothing more than a subjective term, a loaded word used by all sides in order to try and win converts?

Just an interesting point of debate: what is "progress"? Where do you think humanity needs to be going over the next few decades, and how do you believe the best way to accomplish that goal is? Do you believe that humanity will -barring existing obstacles- move towards those goals naturally, or will it require coercion of some kind (note that laws requiring that people do things are a kind of coercion, and also note that not all coercion is necessarily a Bad Thing)? If there are obstacles, what are they? What things will require coercion, if any?

This is not an issue of political parties, and in fact I really don't want to see anyone quoting party platforms. Almost everyone here would claim to favor progress if asked, which is why I'm not asking that. Rather, what do you believe progress is?

[eklipse]

In its commonly used form, 'progress' tends to be, as you say, "a loaded word used by all sides in order to try and win converts".

Real progress, I believe, cannot be made by a political party or a single nation, it can only be made by civilization as a whole. I also do not believe that anyone can make a cognitive effort to 'achieve' progress - it just happens as a result of the path society takes.

Bearing that in mind, I don't believe it is possible to accurately characterize 'progress' in simple terms - it's more of an analysis and interpretation of events that you can only make after looking back over thousands of years of human history. Also, in order to progress towards something, you need to know to where you are going - does humanity know where it's going? If it does, what is the point in living?

Man I'm feeling lucid today! Too much drugs or not enough?

[Lerkfish]

to me, progress would be expending as much money, training and manpower towards developing better ways to NEGOTIATE and use DIPLOMACY rather than warfare. Even if we spent 1 percent of the current military expenditures towards think tanks with only that goal, of resolving conflicts without bloodshed.

That I would consider progress.

(I"m referring to the entire world, here, not just the US)

Another area of progress would be to do the same thing solving world hunger. We have the resources to feed everyone. We just don't have the distribution, infrastructure, or desire to do so.

that would be progress, to me. IMHO.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
In its commonly used form, 'progress' tends to be, as you say, "a loaded word used by all sides in order to try and win converts".

Real progress, I believe, cannot be made by a political party or a single nation, it can only be made by civilization as a whole. I also do not believe that anyone can make a cognitive effort to 'achieve' progress - it just happens as a result of the path society takes.

Bearing that in mind, I don't believe it is possible to accurately characterize 'progress' in simple terms - it's more of an analysis and interpretation of events that you can only make after looking back over thousands of years of human history. Also, in order to progress towards something, you need to know to where you are going - does humanity know where it's going? If it does, what is the point in living?

Man I'm feeling lucid today! Too much drugs or not enough?

If I was a teacher, I would give you a A+ For the very reason that when I read that, I could not tell which side you lean to. It was pretty unbiased. And pretty much on the mark.

I think we all need to learn to reply is such ways.

Esp myself.

[khufuu]

Don't most people think of progress as anything that will make their lives 'better'?

Ie: less housework, less homework, more free time, more effective medical procedure etc. etc.

Everything think hinges on how to you define 'better'....

[The Mick]

Originally posted by khufuu:
Don't most people think of progress as anything that will make their lives 'better'?

Ie: less housework, less homework, more free time, more effective medical procedure etc. etc.

Everything think hinges on how to you define 'better'....

Exactly the point I was going to make. If my goal as a member of a political party is to help protect the environment, and I thought that bill A would do so, I could label it as a "progressive measure to protect our dwindling natural resources." If my political party wanted to develop that same area for housing, shopping etc. I could label the other party as anti-progress. It's like beauty, all in the eye of the beholder.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by eklipse:
In its commonly used form, 'progress' tends to be, as you say, "a loaded word used by all sides in order to try and win converts".

Real progress, I believe, cannot be made by a political party or a single nation, it can only be made by civilization as a whole. I also do not believe that anyone can make a cognitive effort to 'achieve' progress - it just happens as a result of the path society takes.

Bearing that in mind, I don't believe it is possible to accurately characterize 'progress' in simple terms - it's more of an analysis and interpretation of events that you can only make after looking back over thousands of years of human history. Also, in order to progress towards something, you need to know to where you are going - does humanity know where it's going? If it does, what is the point in living?

Well said.

I believe most people would agree with some or all of the above. Everyone- as in every individual human being- probably has a differing view of 'progress' in as much as they can personally bring it about.

I like to think, that despite our differences, most of us have something of the same goals in mind. Though people may endlessly scrape, bicker and argue over the details, I'd like to think most people want some level of peace, prosperity, happiness, health and a world sane enough for those things to thrive. I'd define 'progress' as the continued quest for that, each in our own vastly differing ways. I personally believe the idea of �progress� is one broad enough to encompass a range of definitions as broad as the spectrum of human life itself is.

More and more I come to realize, that we may each of us disagree on how to achieve �progress�, but that in and of itself isn't a bad thing.

No one, despite their best well-meaning intentions holds the monopoly on what constitutes progress, nor the ideas that will continue civilization on a path toward it. There is no all-knowing blueprint. A mix of the best of all of our ideas together is probably more realistic -probably always has been and probably always will be.

[shanraghan]

Everything is progress.

Where there is change, there is new knowledge, and there is progress.
The question, therefore, is not progress or no progress, but rather how and in what direction. The question is: what kind of world shall the future be? What kind of world must the future be in order for us to move on? What is needed? What is wanted? Where shall we go?

No one seems to agree on this. I would say more, however my left wrist has been getting carpal-tunnel type pains.

[christ]

Progress is movement toward a goal - To achieve progress you must set your goal, and then move toward it.

The reason that progress can be seen as subjective is that the observer may not share the same goal as the 'progressor'.

If my wife wants to paint the bedroom pink, and I wish it to remain blue, then it could be argued that if I manage to keep it blue, then I have progressed, even if, to outsiders, nothing has changed.

In general, I think most folk have the aim of doing more of what they enjoy (broadly called leisure) and less of what they don't enjoy (broadly called work). To this end, anything that lessens the need for individuals to work, and allows them leisure, may be widely perceived as 'progress'. In this context, I would contend that progress is a Good Thing.

Most politicians, of either stripe, consider progress to be movement toward their particular idea of Utopia, which in general terms is not progress to upwards of half of the population. In this context, progress is often a Bad Thing, especially where the politician's aims benefit the politician instead of the general populace.

[Lerkfish]

I think progress CAN be very different, depending on what one thinks is valuable or important.

For example, if one considers social responsibilty progress(feeding the homeless as one example)...but another considers it as prohibiting capitalistic progress to assist the homeless...then you have a direct conflict on certain issues.

There also can be a difference if one considers progress for the whole vs. progress for the individual.

There also is the contention that some forms of "progress" actually are setbacks....for example, technology advances apace, giving us cellphones and television, home computers, etc. Yet real personal face-to-face interactions subsides. Is this progress? Maybe yes, maybe no. Certainly failing to adequately develop relationship skills through human interaction would seem be debilitating longterm to the species....it could be argued.

[DBursey]

So ... technological progress can lead to social regression and individual isolation. We work in cubicles, commute in single occupancy vehicles, socalize through firewalls, fertilize in vitro.

Boy, do I need a hug! Mmmmm .... human contact ....

Perfect isolation, here behind my wall ...

[Troll]

I don't think we need to look at the definition of progress to arrive at a meaning for progressive. Progressive has a particular meaning in the political sense.

A progressive politican is someone who believes in political or social reform. He wants to change things.

A conservative politician is resistant to change. He wishes to 'conserve' the status quo or reverse change.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Troll:
A progressive politican is someone who believes in political or social reform. He wants to change things.

A conservative politician is resistant to change. He wishes to 'conserve' the status quo or reverse change.

But is all change progress? There are many people, both self-styled progressives and otherwise, who would argue that some forms of change would not be progress. Consider, for example, Maoist pseudo-communism. An entire doctrine built on the idea of constant change, combined with certain ideals that some might in other contexts consider progressive, and yet there are few who would call the end result progress at all.

That's one of the things that I find most interesting. If you look at most conservatives, it's not that they oppose progress, it's that they don't consider most proposed reforms to be progress at all.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But is all change progress?

No. If you break progress down into its basic components it means forward movement. As opposed to regress.

Change is merely the altering of a state. Going back the way you came is change but it isn't progress. Empirical progress is not what defines someone as progressive politically. Progressives are not people that believe in progress as such. They believe in change ... they just happen to believe that change will result in progress. Conservatives believe that society will progress by leaving things the way they are.

The reality of modern politics is that no one is ever truly progressive or conservative. Everyone is a mixture of each. On the matter of tax reform, both the Republicans and the Democrats are progressive; they both want to change the system but in different ways. However, seen globally, certain parties are more resistant to change than others are. These parties earn the label conservative although they may be pro change on many issues. Recently people who consider themselves progressive on the majority of issues but sharing an outlook that has been traditionally held by conservative politicians, have started calling themselves 'neo-conservatives.'

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by christ:
Progress is movement toward a goal - To achieve progress you must set your goal, and then move toward it.

The reason that progress can be seen as subjective is that the observer may not share the same goal as the 'progressor'.

If my wife wants to paint the bedroom pink, and I wish it to remain blue, then it could be argued that if I manage to keep it blue, then I have progressed, even if, to outsiders, nothing has changed.

In general, I think most folk have the aim of doing more of what they enjoy (broadly called leisure) and less of what they don't enjoy (broadly called work). To this end, anything that lessens the need for individuals to work, and allows them leisure, may be widely perceived as 'progress'. In this context, I would contend that progress is a Good Thing.

Most politicians, of either stripe, consider progress to be movement toward their particular idea of Utopia, which in general terms is not progress to upwards of half of the population. In this context, progress is often a Bad Thing, especially where the politician's aims benefit the politician instead of the general populace.

[davesimondotcom]

The opposite of Congress...

Damn, I'm surprised nobody else beat me to that.

[BlackGriffen]

Progress = good change (i.e. a change for the better).

Now the sticking point is right back to where it has always been. How do you define good?

I'm not even going to touch that one.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Progress = good change (i.e. a change for the better).

Now the sticking point is right back to where it has always been. How do you define good?

I'm not even going to touch that one.

BlackGriffen

ahhhhh...you stated my point much more succinctly and more eloquently. bravo!

[daimoni]

.

[davesimondotcom]

To label ones self a "progressive" is to passive aggressively lable those who don't agree with you as "regressive."

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The opposite of Congress...

Damn, I'm surprised nobody else beat me to that.

I think that's the best pun I've ever read on Macnn.

[Nicko]

"Progress" for me is:

- working towards 'social justice' for all.
this includes such things as ensuring basic human rights are extended to everyone,wiping out disease, poverty, illiteracy, ect...

- progress is also the continual search for knowledge in all its forms and its application to our lives.

- oh and we need to live in and explore space

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Nicko:
"Progress" for me is:

- working towards 'social justice' for all.
this includes such things as ensuring basic human rights are extended to everyone,wiping out disease, poverty, illiteracy, ect...

- progress is also the continual search for knowledge in all its forms and its application to our lives.

- oh and we need to live in and explore space

Ah yes. The problem here is, what happens when folks mistake wishes for basic human rights.

And, etc. means etcetera. Not ect. Etc. Since etcetera means what you think it means, it is redundant to use elipses (...) following it.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Ah yes. The problem here is, what happens when folks mistake wishes for basic human rights.

What is that supposed to mean?
What one wishes does not change what every human being on earth is entitled too. Access to healthcare, education, clean water, being able to live in safety; basically what is outlined in the UN charter of human rights.

Anyone who disagrees with this sentiment is wrong

[shanraghan]

Originally posted by Troll:
No. If you break progress down into its basic components it means forward movement. As opposed to regress.

Change is merely the altering of a state. Going back the way you came is change but it isn't progress. [/B]

Yet, sometimes moving forward requires moving back first. Even when you move backward, you bring something with you that you didn't have before, and when you are finally moving forward again, you've gained something you didn't have before thanks to your new perspective. At least, this is true from a personal perspective, and this kind of revelation is essential to growth. However, the historical sphere is very different. There, nobody ever learns anything, history repeats itself and eventually someone uses a very large bomb.

[christ]

Originally posted by Nicko:
...what every human being on earth is entitled too...

... is nothing. There is no inherent entitlement to anything. period. Different countries have different standards of what they endeavour to provide to their population, but there is no such thing as a basic human right.

As an example used before, a baby born to a mother, miles from civilisation, whose mother dies in childbirth, has no rights. It dies, or it survives, not because of 'basic human rights', but because of the law of the jungle. It has no 'entitlement'. It does not have 'guaranteed healthcare' or any of the other wishes on your list.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by christ:
... is nothing. There is no inherent entitlement to anything. period. Different countries have different standards of what they endeavour to provide to their population, but there is no such thing as a basic human right.

As an example used before, a baby born to a mother, miles from civilisation, whose mother dies in childbirth, has no rights. It dies, or it survives, not because of 'basic human rights', but because of the law of the jungle. It has no 'entitlement'. It does not have 'guaranteed healthcare' or any of the other wishes on your list.

Thank you for saying that so I didn't have to. You are a savior, chris t... whoa - did I just accept christ as my savior?

[christ]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Thank you for saying that so I didn't have to. You are a savior, chris t... whoa - did I just accept christ as my savior?

As I have said before (but not to you), you are mixing me up with the other, less famous, one.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by christ:
As I have said before (but not to you), you are mixing me up with the other, less famous, one.

hehehe...

[Nicko]

Originally posted by christ:


As an example used before, a baby born to a mother, miles from civilisation, whose mother dies in childbirth, has no rights. It dies, or it survives, not because of 'basic human rights', but because of the law of the jungle. It has no 'entitlement'. It does not have 'guaranteed healthcare' or any of the other wishes on your list.

Hmmmm no, I think you are wrong. Extending basic human rights to everyone on earth is a goal like any other. Ofcourse there are many places where none exist, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way.

[christ]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Hmmmm no, I think you are wrong. Extending basic human rights to everyone on earth is a goal like any other. Ofcourse there are many places where none exist, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way.

That means that they are 'desires'. or 'obectives', not 'rights', as I said in my original post. I was replying to your 'entitled to', which is flat wrong. People are 'entitled to' nothing. Society's objective is to provide a minimum standard, but that is still not 'an entitlement'.

How could it be?

[tie]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But what exactly is progress? After all, most self-styles conservative groups claim to favor progress as well, and paint liberals -particularly the fringe winds of the environmentalists- as "anti-progress". Is it possible that progress itself is nothing more than a subjective term, a loaded word used by all sides in order to try and win converts?

On this point..

Unqualified, progress means going forward. Economic progress at the cost of unrecoverably destroying the environment (destroying complex ecosystems, pushing species to extinction, etc.) is not (general) progress. Perhaps it is still desirable. But I think both sides of the argument can usually agree that this sort of economic progress is not unqualified.

When one side labels the other "anti-progress," they really mean to qualify it as economic or environmental progress. (However, they don't always qualify it because progress has a huge connotation of economic or technological progress.)

Also, time scales have to be taken into account. Is it worth letting these lumberers go on cutting down old-growth forests, when the forests and the community they support will disappear anyway in another generation when they finish cutting down the trees? Is it worth delaying an economic cost now by avoiding addressing the problem of carbon emissions, when in fifty years the same measures will be unavoidable and cost even more? People discount different generations differently, causing different definitions of progress.

[christ]

Originally posted by tie:
...When one side labels the other "anti-progress," they really mean to qualify it as economic or environmental progress...

Actually, when side A says 'anti-progress', they usually mean 'anti-what-side-A-believes'.

progress is movement toward a goal, and when two opposing sides have different, and diametrically opposed, goals, then progress toward the goal of one is ipso-fact regress from the goal of the other. And vice versa.

And any bee that is only half a bee, must ipso facto half not be.