Progress and Abundance are similar, but not the same
A response to Jason Crawford
“To me, Abundance is about achieving what’s already possible, Progress is about making more possible. One aims to be on the production possibilities frontier, the other to push out the frontier.”
Jason then asked:
“This implies that the progress movement isn’t focused on achieving what’s already possible. Do you think that? If so, why?”
It’s a great question, and as I started to respond I realized it was turning into an essay. So here it is.
I agree with Jason that Progress and Abundance “overlap 80–90%, and if you’re outside both of them you should probably think of them as variations on the same thing.” But if we’re trying to tease apart the 10–20% of Abundance and Progress that don’t overlap, I do think that progress is more, if not absolutely, focused on the not yet possible.
This is the crux of our friendly disagreement:
“After this year’s Progress Conference, Charles Mann suggested: “Abundance wants to make sure everyone has a house. Progress wants to make those houses better.” But IMO, the progress movement is interested in both of those things, so that’s not how I think of the distinction.” (emphasis added)
I, on the other hand, think the distinction has merit. I see Progress as primarily interested in Abundance as an intermediate step toward pushing out the frontier.
Take a YIMBY policy like single-staircase reform as an example. I think that’s an Abundance policy because the focus is on correcting an immediate, arbitrary constraint on housing supply that gets us closer to an existing production possibilities frontier (PPF). Housing is too expensive; this has several negative effects, and Abundance is working to correct the problem.
I think Progress is concerned with that type of reform only insofar as it’s an intermediate step to clustering talent and reaping agglomeration benefits for a broader goal, like recreating the conditions that led to the incredible output of 15th-century Florence. In other words, expanding the possibilities frontier.
The key point is that Abundance is focused on removing localized, arbitrary constraints that prevent us from using the technologies and capabilities we already have. Single-staircase reform allows for building types we already know how to construct but have been artificially prohibited from building. Progress, by contrast, is about adding new understanding, technologies, and capabilities that expand what is possible in the first place.
I think you could say the same about the distinction between Abundance and Progress related to medical and science reforms. The FDA drug approval process needs reform; immediately viable treatments are reaching patients much too slowly. Fixing that is an Abundance issue because it’s focused on an arbitrary bottleneck. Progress wants the reforms on the way to other metascience breakthroughs that fundamentally alter how we discover new therapies and increase human longevity.
Does it matter?
To answer Jason’s question directly, no, I don’t think Progress isn’t focused on achieving what’s already possible. But I think that what’s possible today is merely a stepping stone to the future the Progress community is focused on building.
If Abundance is an intermediate step on the way to Progress, it’s no wonder that we’d see many of the same people at each conference. And I think it’s fine, as Jason says, to “think of the abundance movement as part of the progress movement,” especially for those who aren’t deeply enmeshed in both communities. But for those who are, I think the distinction matters.
It’s an important because Abundance and Progress require selling different stories and visions. We need different approaches and messaging to convince a city council to revise local building codes than we do to inspire and recruit talent to automate and revolutionize homebuilding.
Abundance is much more political. The thing about being on the production possibilities frontier is that there are multiple places on the curve you can be. Whether we produce a little more of this or a little more of that requires political tradeoffs. Progress right now feels largely above that fray, and I want it to stay there. I want Progress to stay focused on a world of dynamism and possibility over the long-term.
If you’re interested in learning more about Abundance and Progress, read my recaps from each conference:
Also, I’d love comments on this post. I’m thinking out loud here, so please tell me where you think this distinction breaks down, or whether you see examples that challenge it. Am I getting the line between Abundance and Progress right?
Progress leads abundance.
Innovation creates a high cost (drugs) or luxury product (tesla) that eventually commodifies as the pressure from competition drives the cost of production down. This leads to abundance.
We need people to continue to build things — ideally in the physical world (robotics, materials, etc), not just the next SaaS product if we want to continue lifting baseline living standards.