Is progress linear?

[redeye]

By linear, I mean the mathematical definition of linear. IOW, quality of life can be broken down into a finite number of indepedent components, each of which has a relative weight. A society can be clearly graded on each of the components. Then, the total quality of life is the sum of all grades*relative weights; more mathematically, quality of life is a linear function on a finite number of variables.

So, my question is, is it? If it is, then it more or less spells doom for socialism, because the statement "things have to get worse before they get better" is an example of non-linear views of progress, since what matters is the context within the historical stages of the Marxist paradigm, i.e. all relevant variables are interdependent.

[Pillowbiter]

1. No

and no, saying it spells doom for socialism is linear thinking.

PB

[dwckabal]

2. You've defined linear,

now you must define progress ;-)

If by progress, you mean an increase in the quality of life of a society, clearly by your definition of linear, progress can be, but is not necessarily, linear.

For example, some of your discrete independent components could be technology, culture, disposable income, degree of freedom, health, etc. By your definition, progress could remain stable, or even decrease, depending on the level of each of these components. For example, I don't thing anyone would claim that Nazi Germany as progressive, yet their degree of technology for the time was quite high. Also, who decides the relative weights of each?

I think the beginnings of the fallacy of progress (by that I mean the concept that as time goes on, societies, especially in the US, progress, i.e. things are always getting beter) begins in high school history books. Until recently, almost all high school history textbooks gave a melodramatic presentation of history. There is a wonderful book called Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James Loewen that presents 10 or so stories in history, from Columbus to Helen Keller, and compares and contrasts the "popular" history often found in high school textbooks versus the "reality", if you will. Exerpt from introduction:

Textbooks almost never use the present to illuminate the past. They might ask students to learn about gender roles in the present, to prompt thinking about what women did and did not achieve in the suffrage movement or the more recent women's movement. They might ask students to do family budgets for a janitor and a stock broker, to prompt thinking about labor unions and social class in the past or present. They might, but they don't. The present is not a source of information for them. No wonder students find history "irrelevant" to their present lives.

Conversely, textbooks make no real use of the past to illuminate the present. The present seems not to be problematic to them. They portray history as a simple-minded morality play. "Be a good citizen" is the message they extract from the past for the present. "You have a proud heritage. Be all that you can be. After all, look at what the United States has done." While there is nothing wrong with optimism, it does become something of a burden for students of color, children of working class parents, girls who notice an absence of women who made history, or any group that has not already been outstandingly successful. The optimistic textbook approach denies any understanding of failure other than blaming the victim. No wonder children of color are alienated. Even for male children of affluent white families, bland optimism gets pretty boring after eight hundred pages.

So I think it all goes back to what is your definition of progress.

http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/index.html

[redeye]

3. First...

...progress is defined as a change in quality of life. Second, my question can more accurately be phrased, "Is quality of life linear?" You gave the vague definition of quality of life yourself; it might be possible to indeed break it down to all of its components, but my question is not "what are the components of quality of life?" but "can it theoretically be broken into components?" In mathematics there's something called existential theorems, which prove that something exists but don't say how to find it (e.g. a proof that Gauss' approximation of the density of prime numbers is only too high until a certain number, whose value the proof doesn't specify). Third, Nazi germany was not progressive because there were no significant intellectual achievements, personal liberties plummeted, and issues used to calculate standard of living such as non-food consumption as a percentage of the mean family's expenditure actually got worse, whereas the only thing that got better was employment. I might've gievn you a different answer, though, had Hitler cured the Depression the way Roosevelt did and not the way Musolini did.

[tuck]

6. that is a great book .....

the fact that i knew it inside and out drove my HS history teaach nuts

[neuvocat]

4. From a technological standpoint it is not.

I would VERY HIGHLY recommend the 1st "Connections" on videotape (or maybe DVD, I don't know). It deals with the history of technology and how it has evolved over time-basically a technological viewpoint of history. It is excellent and deals with how many political systems, philosophies and ways of life have either survived, prospered or perished.

[Richard Nixon]

5. It's Double-Helixiar -- not Linear

Crick and Watson accidentally confirmed it when they were working with molecular structures of DNA.

All Progress (except Venusian; which is computed in Base 12) is Double-Helixiar (or "Duo-Helixiar" according to British usage).

[redeye]

9. So...

...Quality of life can't be expressed as a linear function in a finite number of dimensions, but can be expressed as a double-helixiar function? It doesn't make sense to me.

[KT2000]

7. Yes and No

True progress is first of all sparked by creativity - NON-linear combustion, if you will.
To act upon the revelation born from creativity, political process requires a linear method that can be documented for the masses - as in justification, audits, etc. This is where political instinct identifies what it is the population really wants.

I am afraid that when you use the term "quality of life" the assumption is that America considers everyone's quality of life. I am afraid that much of our population would interpret that phrase to mean "my quality of life," which is yes, quite linear and narrowly defined. It could even be the case that "my quality of life" is enhanced just knowing that there are others who are deservedly suffering. The relative weight of those doing without is proof that "I am better and therefore safe."
Is fear linear? No - it is chaotic and therefore must be managed and for many - that is what progress means.

But of course I could be wrong - being the creative type and not mathematically inclined..........

[redeye]

8. You misunderstood me...

...why, of course progress is sparked by creativity. My question is not what increases quality of life, but whether quality of life can be expressed as the weighted sum of a finite number of independent variables.

In other words, whether QoL can be broken down to points, for example 110 points for a woman's right to choose, 300 points for abundance of food, 135 points for ease of communication, 250 points for freedom of speech, 72 points for academic freedom, 210 points for education... And so on.

To phrase this question in weaker terms - namely, these of monotonicity, i.e. for every variable x, either QoL always increaeses when x increases and vice versa, or QoL always decreases when x increases and vice versa:
Can quality of life be broken down into a finite number of independent components, and does making each of those components better, all other thigns being equal, necessarily increase quality of life?

If the answer to the above is true, then "enhancing the contradictions" and other BS is shown to be regressive.

[KT2000]

11. Maybe I did misunderstand

but if progress is sparked by creativity, then progress is infinite.

Quality of Life can be broken down into independent components but it depends on a person's values what would be on the list. And isn't our country now divided over what would even be on a list of QoL? The points assigned would also be a value judgement, unless it is limited to just the components required for basic survival.

Genetically modified food is considered progress by some, and it was probably an electrically charged creative moment when Monsanto put it together. According to your weighted system, QoL would register 300 points for an abundant food supply, but should points be taken off because it is one company in control of the world's seed supply, leaving no choice but to eat Monsanto's creations?

After 20 years 300 point abundance of food, we will likely find that these foods have caused cancer, autoimmune diseases and diseases caused by misfolded proteins as in Mad Cow Disease. By then the ecosystem will be so dysfunctional from contamination from these frankenseeds that other agricultural productivity will not be viable.

Guess this is a long way of saying that linear approach should probably be limited to historical comparisons and not much else.

[redeye]

13. The point system...

...is just an example; the points given to each item are the maximum number of points (on abortion, for example, the world has something like 30-40 out of 120, and on food, it has less than 100).

As for monsanto and the frankenfoods, I actually don't see any reason why I should prefer neo-luddites to frankenfoods.

And you're right about people disagreeing about QoL items and weights; I, however, am trying to find out the values that should be used to govern ethical and political theory and not necessarily those that people think are true. My question, to reiterate, is not what those values are, but whether they exist.

[KT2000]

15. Yes - values exist

in the consciousness of individuals, who come together with other individuals of like mind to form groups to promote their shared values. A read of party platforms will give insight into competing value systems, as an example. Wars are fought over competing value systems. And you and I have expressed a differing value on GM food.


Sorry but the debate is not between frankenfood and neo-luddites, but does offer another glimpse of differing value systems. Guess which one currently rules - under the political and ethical theory of an unrestricted marketplace?

Genetically modified food is NOT tested for its effect on human health because it is ASSUMED to be identical to its natural counterpart- it is only tested for its efficacy as a product, i.e. can it maufacture its own pesticide etc. as claimed.

A feeding study done in England showed that after 10 days, rats fed GM potatoes suffered damaged immune systems; damaged thymus and spleens. Some had smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles; enlarged pancreas and intestines. Also there were structural changes and proliferation of cells in the stomach and intestine. It was determined that the process of genetic engineering caused the problems - the same process used by food companies. The feeding study was not required by any regulating body. These peer reviewed results are just sitting out there - they have not caused any changes in safety testing requirements. But the scientist had his career ruined, which served as a warning to others not to pursue this area of research.

Monsanto tried to dump their product on Africa as a "humanitarian" gesture. An abundant food supply for the hungry with unknown strings attached.

[dwckabal]

16. I think you answered your own question

I think for most people, their individual QoL is in fact the sum of discrete components "added" together. It just depends on the value each person gives to those components. Some people are perfectly happy living off of the land, while others would be miserable without their cell phone.

But, that still does not touch on the issue of progress. My earlier point was that "progress" doesn't always mean "better". I believe that a society can regress even as it advances technologically, etc.

So I guess my answer is: Progress for the individual (quality of life) is linear, while progress for society is not, due to the fact that there is no universal yardstick with which to measure the components (unless you compare different societies, and even then you need an outside observer).

[leftofthedial]

10. this all sounds pretty recti-linear to me

but then I've apparently been dumbed down.

[poskonig]

12. Reinventing the wheel; the answer is *No*.

Human flourishing is not functional. Even if it were, trying to balance the extensity and intensity of the "quality of life" presents insurmountable problems. For example, we would not be able to discern if it is better for 10 people to suffer for the 'superior' quality of life of one person of excellence. All of the critiques of utilitarianism come into play here.

In addition, some might evaluate the "quality" deontologically and not teleologically -- e.g. society is making progress as more and more "rights" are established, hence facilitating Kant's kingdom of ends. Writers like Nozick and Rawls are representative of this viewpoint.

[redeye]

14. Excellent point, actually...

...I'll think about the point of 10 people suffering for one person's excellence, but until I can find out an answer, which I may not, you can consider that a refutation of linear quality of life.

However, what remains to be refuted, and what is the real principle that can drive socialism into the ground, is monotonicity. It's pretty easy to find a function that isn't linear but is monotone; the function y=x³+x is monotone because whenever x rises, y rises, but is definitely not linear. So basically I guess it's possible to find a similar function that replaces the "greatest good for the greatest number of people argument" with diminishing marginal returns (as in the function y=SQRT(x), where y rises whenever x rises, but y rises much more when x is low - the difference between x=0 and x=1 is 1, but this between x=9 and x=10 is 0.162), or even with "society is as good as its weakest member."

Any of those can refute the socialist arguments of "enhancing the contradictions," of "progress requiring a revolution," and of Marxist history.

[Atlant]

17. Are you kidding? No wait, let me back up and re-state that...(NT)