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.
At this point, I have no idea what the Progress movement is about other than a vague optimism about technological innovation bettering humanity (which I agree with).
About five years ago, I tried to push the movement to create a tight goal for what we are trying to accomplish. Unfortunately, Jason Crawford and most of the members disagreed and said that even discussing the topic would split the movement. They were apparently afraid that this would scare off potential members and cause current members to depart.
This has unfortunately led in exactly direction that I feared: a loose group of people that cannot explain to others what we are trying to accomplish.
I think that is why both you and Jason are having problems articulating the difference between Progress movement and the Abundance movement.
As for me, I am going to stay with my original goal that I identified five years ago:
I believe that the best definition of Progress Studies is “the systematic study of history, both recent and ancient, to develop policies and practices that maintain and, if possible, accelerate human material progress.”
The goals of the Progress Studies are to:
1) Promote an awareness and understanding of human material progress as one of humanity’s greatest achievements.
2) Study the history of material progress to identify the origins and causes of progress and how progress works in our daily lives. In particular, Progress Studies looks for common patterns across nations, eras, industries, technologies, institutions, and trends that enable us to identify causes of material progress.
3) Apply that knowledge to develop theories, policies, and practices that promote future progress.
4) Build coalitions to implement those policies and practices in the real world.
Thanks for sharing, Michael. I think your goals for progress studies are well articulated and I agree with all four. I don’t agree that the community has trouble explaining them. They are very aligned with what I heard at the conference and more generally in the community.
Nor do I think Jason has trouble explaining the difference between Progress and Abundance. His article is crystal clear. Abundance to him is part of progress, essentially your goals 3 and 4.
You are right though, I am having trouble explaining what some of the differences are. I’m not yet convinced it matters, maybe it’s just semantics, but I have a sense that there are a few key differences worth trying to understand. That’s what I’m trying to tease out in this essay.
I think your definition of abundance is accurate too. But I think that’s how it started, not what it could be become. I have high hopes that it’s a much broader political message centered on liberty and dynamism.
Thanks for the comments! I look forward to exploring these ideas alongside each other.
If you were to put a random participant in the Progress movement on the spot, how many of them do you think would articulate the definition and four goals of Progress Studies that I mentioned without prompting?
My guess is very few.
In fact, I have NEVER heard anyone else articulate them in that way. And what I have heard is quite different and far more vague.
Just to give an example, you did not actually express this view in your article. It was only after I stated it that you said you agree. That is not the same as you stating it without prompting.
Nor did Jason's definition align with mine. I know for a fact that Jason Crawford disagrees with me, but I would argue that his definition and goals are far more vague than mine. Jason has also explicitly dropped the word "Studies" out of Progress Studies because of his difference in views.
More to the point, I don't think people in the movement are actually doing Progress Studies according to my definition. A few are, but it is a small minority.
The main reason is members have different goals and do not want to discuss aligning on definitions and goals (or if there have been discussion, I have not been allowed to participate). For example, in my articles on the definition and goals for the Progress Studies, not one member of the movement commented (although other readers did).
I don’t know. Seems like you and I are trying to add clarity to the definitions and goals through our essays and these discussions, so not sure we need anyone else’s permission to participate. Our ideas will, over time, either convince others or they won’t.
Your goals are compelling to me, but I’m open to others too. For instance, I have defined progress as “the improvement in the human experience over time as a result of humanity’s collective effort to better understand and more skillfully manipulate the world we inhabit. Practically, and slightly less academically, progress is a synonym for reduced suffering in the aggregate. Progress can also be thought of as what fills the space that suffering previously occupied, things like health, joy, and freedom.“ This definition is less rigorous and more focused on the outcome than your definition of the field of study, but I think largely compatible. If I was your random participant, even though I largely agree with your goals for the field we’d have different answers. That seems fine to me?
You’re adding value through your ideas and your goals helped me wrap my head around my original question. Overall, I think the Progress community is doing a pretty good job aligning and collaborating to push progress initiatives forward, so I’m not concerned about movement wide agreement on a single standard definition or set of goals even as I seek to answer what the differences are between progress and abundance and why they might matter.
Yes, I absolutely agree that "you and I are trying to add clarity to the definitions and goals through our essays and these discussions"
I appreciate your efforts. Not many other seem to be doing that.
Unfortunately, it is not true that we don't need anyone else's permission to participate.
For four years, Jason Crawford has deliberately excluded me from everything that he has control over, including the conferences, forums, Slack, Fellows program, despite my 2 published books and 500+ articles on the topic.
He does not even so much as mention my name or work in 5 years. What does that say?
And I know that no matter how much I contribute, I will always be excluded.
That is why I focus on Substack, because it is my only way (other than the time-consuming process of writing books) to reach out to the rest of the Progress Studies movement. Jason can't shut down my Substack.
I had hopes that my articles would stimulate an interesting and useful debate in the comments, but it has not.
As for Abundance, it seems to be an internal movement among Center-Left writers to reform the Democratic party more toward the center and focus on “bread and butter” issues rather than culture wars.
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.
At this point, I have no idea what the Progress movement is about other than a vague optimism about technological innovation bettering humanity (which I agree with).
About five years ago, I tried to push the movement to create a tight goal for what we are trying to accomplish. Unfortunately, Jason Crawford and most of the members disagreed and said that even discussing the topic would split the movement. They were apparently afraid that this would scare off potential members and cause current members to depart.
This has unfortunately led in exactly direction that I feared: a loose group of people that cannot explain to others what we are trying to accomplish.
I think that is why both you and Jason are having problems articulating the difference between Progress movement and the Abundance movement.
As for me, I am going to stay with my original goal that I identified five years ago:
I believe that the best definition of Progress Studies is “the systematic study of history, both recent and ancient, to develop policies and practices that maintain and, if possible, accelerate human material progress.”
The goals of the Progress Studies are to:
1) Promote an awareness and understanding of human material progress as one of humanity’s greatest achievements.
2) Study the history of material progress to identify the origins and causes of progress and how progress works in our daily lives. In particular, Progress Studies looks for common patterns across nations, eras, industries, technologies, institutions, and trends that enable us to identify causes of material progress.
3) Apply that knowledge to develop theories, policies, and practices that promote future progress.
4) Build coalitions to implement those policies and practices in the real world.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/what-is-progress-studies
Thanks for sharing, Michael. I think your goals for progress studies are well articulated and I agree with all four. I don’t agree that the community has trouble explaining them. They are very aligned with what I heard at the conference and more generally in the community.
Nor do I think Jason has trouble explaining the difference between Progress and Abundance. His article is crystal clear. Abundance to him is part of progress, essentially your goals 3 and 4.
You are right though, I am having trouble explaining what some of the differences are. I’m not yet convinced it matters, maybe it’s just semantics, but I have a sense that there are a few key differences worth trying to understand. That’s what I’m trying to tease out in this essay.
I think your definition of abundance is accurate too. But I think that’s how it started, not what it could be become. I have high hopes that it’s a much broader political message centered on liberty and dynamism.
Thanks for the comments! I look forward to exploring these ideas alongside each other.
If you were to put a random participant in the Progress movement on the spot, how many of them do you think would articulate the definition and four goals of Progress Studies that I mentioned without prompting?
My guess is very few.
In fact, I have NEVER heard anyone else articulate them in that way. And what I have heard is quite different and far more vague.
Just to give an example, you did not actually express this view in your article. It was only after I stated it that you said you agree. That is not the same as you stating it without prompting.
Nor did Jason's definition align with mine. I know for a fact that Jason Crawford disagrees with me, but I would argue that his definition and goals are far more vague than mine. Jason has also explicitly dropped the word "Studies" out of Progress Studies because of his difference in views.
More to the point, I don't think people in the movement are actually doing Progress Studies according to my definition. A few are, but it is a small minority.
The main reason is members have different goals and do not want to discuss aligning on definitions and goals (or if there have been discussion, I have not been allowed to participate). For example, in my articles on the definition and goals for the Progress Studies, not one member of the movement commented (although other readers did).
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/what-is-progress-studies
I think that shows the level of interest in defining goals.
I don’t know. Seems like you and I are trying to add clarity to the definitions and goals through our essays and these discussions, so not sure we need anyone else’s permission to participate. Our ideas will, over time, either convince others or they won’t.
Your goals are compelling to me, but I’m open to others too. For instance, I have defined progress as “the improvement in the human experience over time as a result of humanity’s collective effort to better understand and more skillfully manipulate the world we inhabit. Practically, and slightly less academically, progress is a synonym for reduced suffering in the aggregate. Progress can also be thought of as what fills the space that suffering previously occupied, things like health, joy, and freedom.“ This definition is less rigorous and more focused on the outcome than your definition of the field of study, but I think largely compatible. If I was your random participant, even though I largely agree with your goals for the field we’d have different answers. That seems fine to me?
You’re adding value through your ideas and your goals helped me wrap my head around my original question. Overall, I think the Progress community is doing a pretty good job aligning and collaborating to push progress initiatives forward, so I’m not concerned about movement wide agreement on a single standard definition or set of goals even as I seek to answer what the differences are between progress and abundance and why they might matter.
Yes, I absolutely agree that "you and I are trying to add clarity to the definitions and goals through our essays and these discussions"
I appreciate your efforts. Not many other seem to be doing that.
Unfortunately, it is not true that we don't need anyone else's permission to participate.
For four years, Jason Crawford has deliberately excluded me from everything that he has control over, including the conferences, forums, Slack, Fellows program, despite my 2 published books and 500+ articles on the topic.
He does not even so much as mention my name or work in 5 years. What does that say?
And I know that no matter how much I contribute, I will always be excluded.
That is why I focus on Substack, because it is my only way (other than the time-consuming process of writing books) to reach out to the rest of the Progress Studies movement. Jason can't shut down my Substack.
I had hopes that my articles would stimulate an interesting and useful debate in the comments, but it has not.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/an-introduction-to-progress-studies
Whatever collaboration goes on, I am not invited.
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this important issue, though. It says alot about your commitment.
Cheers
As for Abundance, it seems to be an internal movement among Center-Left writers to reform the Democratic party more toward the center and focus on “bread and butter” issues rather than culture wars.