Satisfaction vs Stagnation
I propose that in general, human societies that maximize individual satisfaction and empowerment will become stagnant. The mechanism is not so much a deadening of ambitions by satisfaction, but by a loss of a society's ability to marshall resources and labor toward a small number of goals.
On the other hand, a society that concentrates its wealth, rendering most of the population dependent for survival on a few, will naturally exhibit technological progress in proportion to that concentration (up to the point where the economy collapses as a result of instability).
I would expect the counter view to point out that there are exceptions to this rule. Nevertheless, isn't it true for the most part?
So which do you prefer? Satisfaction or progress?
On the other hand, a society that concentrates its wealth, rendering most of the population dependent for survival on a few, will naturally exhibit technological progress in proportion to that concentration (up to the point where the economy collapses as a result of instability).
I would expect the counter view to point out that there are exceptions to this rule. Nevertheless, isn't it true for the most part?
So which do you prefer? Satisfaction or progress?
Comments (9)
I believe that stagnation was a factor in cultural decay. If anything, we could argue that we have the exact opposite with so much conflict, but will it have the power to stop culture collapsing if civilisation was thrown into poverty. I think that your question is interesting, but wonder how it fits into the questions of our times, including climate change and the upheavals of the pandemic. I think that we are in extraordinary times, and the exploration of satisfaction and stagnation has to be viewed in the context of the extraordinary.
The world has seen what I think is an unprecedented technological boom starting in the 19th Century, but particularly escalating in the 1980s.
I would argue that this boom is a result primarily of liberalism. Leftism was left in the dust because it fosters stagnation.
Per this view, if we want to marshal humanity's resources and creativity for a goal like slowing down climate change, we need hard rightism joined to liberalism. Kind of like China?
By "liberalism" do you mean a belief in progress? Seems to me that capitalism and industrialism are the primary drivers of progress. Maybe capitalism, industrialism, and liberalism in this sense are so closely intertwined that it's difficult to separate them.
Quoting frank
You have not expressed any value judgement about the differences between a satisfied, stagnant society and a progressive society with wealth concentration. From my point of view, a society with satisfied people is the best outcome. Maybe you're asking whether continued, long-term satisfaction is possible without progress.
A number of current economists argue that compared to the industrial revolution, the digital revolution has produced paltry results in terms od the raising of living standards and labor productivity.
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2016/02/09/campus/famed-northwestern-macroeconomist-robert-gordon-predicts-end-to-life-changing-innovation/
Quoting frank
I don’t see how promoting individual satisfaction and empowerment is at odds with economic innovation. In fact I think they are inseparably linked.
Quoting frank
How do we as a society determine which goals are most worthy of focusing resources on? Isn’t that where an open marketplace of innovation is most important , to maximize the potential for the quirky and unnoticed genius to give us what we didn’t realize we needed, as Steven Jobs put it? And why is it necessary to make a choice? The U.S. has a long history of supporting individual empowerment( public university system) alongside investing in focused projects (transcontinental railroad, interstate highway system).
Good question. Liberalism is a philosophical stance. A liberal prizes individual liberty and believes a state's job should be limited to protecting property rights and freedom.
History says that given enough freedom, corporations will subvert democracy and become oppressive, so I think a liberal would have to say that when that happens, the evil of regulation should be used to protect freedom, but only enough to reduce social unrest.
In the US, "liberal" has another meaning that may or may not conflict with the above.
You're right that it's in the context of a free market and financial sector that capitalists thrive.
Quoting T Clark
Thanks for noticing that. I think there are brilliant and grievous sides to both.
Quoting T Clark
At this point, there are few stagnant societies, and the ones that exist are enjoying benefits derived from their volatile neighbors, so I don't think they count as truly stagnant.
If climate change brings the hammer down on civilization, we might eventually return to Bronze Age culture, which was stagnant. But the average person would know of no alternative, so wouldn't attribute any suffering to it.
Even without some sort of civilization-wide catastrophe, the Earth's population is predicted to stop growing in the next 50 to 100 years. That's when we'll find out whether a society and economy without growth can work. You and I won't be here to see. It will be interesting, but I worry for my children and their children.
Could be. I wouldn't know how to begin to calculate that. I don't think that's relevant to my point though.
Quoting Joshs
I don't know what economic innovation is. I'm talking about technological innovation.
Quoting Joshs
During wartime, that's easy. Note the way a war can energize and focus a society.
There tends to be some inertia to the master-slave social form of war, but if that wears off, liberalism can produce the same kind of environment by concentrating wealth to the point that most are essentially enslaved.
Quoting Joshs
That's not really the issue as much as the way leftism can lead to Idiocracy. I'd like to explain that more thoroughly (if only for my own mental hygiene).
Yes, I read about that. It's astounding.