Looking back on progress

Credit: Ehui_0403 (from Twitter) 

Is there "progress" in human history? Not in the sense of "concrete improvements" (of which there are indeed many), but "progress" in a more robust, non-trivial sense: a (crypto-)teleological process that inevitably improves the lot of humanity, eventually ushering in utopia. Indeed, is there even a period in which improvements outweigh evil and suffering? 

I use to believe for a long time that this was indeed the case, and that *our* period of world history proves the Western Idea of Progress. A period which began (roughly) with the Renaissance and Reformation, took a huge step forward with the Industrial Revolution, and culminated with the long post-war boom, although potentially it could continue essentially forever. Of course, the weasel word here is "potentially", since the modern world until about 1950 was essentially shit to most people around the world. Plague pandemics, brutal slavery and trafficking, serfdom, sweat shops, more and more devastating wars, outright genocide...well, it takes a very special kind of mind to believe that this is somehow an example of "progress". A Hegelian-Marxist mind, perhaps, were all this oppression is "the cunning of reason" by which the bourgeoisie creates its own grave-diggers...and really existing Gulags, I suppose. But *potentially* the industrial megagolem could be used to further the interests of the working class and the world´s poor, by creating even more economic growth on a global scale, hence the cruel chariot of progress was somehow "objectively" progressive.

Or perhaps a Whiggish mind, which pretends that the improvements which really were made, were made *because of* the splendid liberal instincts of the bourgeoisie, rather than forced upon them by social struggles. Modernization doesn´t have to be democratic, after all. Just look at China! Or Nazi Germany, for that matter. In absolute numbers, the 20th century was the most bloody period in human history. That more people were killed, proportionately speaking, by the hordes of Genghis Khan is, I suppose, interesting, but it´s also telling that the cornucopians must resort to such a desperate argument to explain away the 20th century slaughterhouse! Had there been real, robust progress, the slaughterhouse wouldn´t have to be explained, since it wouldn´t have existed in the first place...

But surely there is still *potential* progress? No, there isn´t, and there probably never was. The immense development of the productive forces was bound to lead us to the exactly the point were we are now: at the edge of the precipice, unsure about whether overpopulation, climate crisis or resource scarcity will bite us first. Maybe there could have been potential progress if humanity had stabilized its population around one or two billion, and then shared the resources equitably, but this in itself *would have been progress*, exactly the kind of progress which is impossible. And who cared anyway? Not just the evil evilly capitalistas, but also the labor movement and the left, cultivated dreams of unlimited expansion, first on Earth, then into space, and finally to *other star systems* (a bizarre notion). Until recently, even the Green movement bought into the same rhetoric, since "sustainable development" simply means more progress but generated by solar power instead of the dreaded fossil fuels or nuclear. There is a certain irony, I suppose, in wanting to destroy nature through solar-powered economic growth...

The cunning of reason has failed. The productive forces aren´t expanding anymore. Economic growth has stalled. The potentiality...never was. It was all for nothing: the genocide of the American Indians, the slavery of the Blacks, the sweatshops with their grave-diggers, the millions of dead in various wars, the environmental destruction. None of it has been hallowed by progress, the progress all these depredations were supposed to "objectively" lead to. All these people died in vain. Progress is the God that failed. 

And this after only about 600 years. Or 300 years. Or even less, depending on when you think the modern world began. Many other dreams have died with it, for instance the dream that all humans will one day understand each other and form a universal society. What happened was simply that a number of European peoples temporarily took over the world, and tried to remade it in their image, a project that looked feasible as long as they used technology never before seen, powered by fossil fuels (which were always in limited supply). In the process, millions upon millions were killed. So why should we look back on this "modern period" in human history as a very special period, when everything could have changed (some insist it did change), rather than just another period with some unique traits and foibles of its own, interesting to be sure, but hardly decisive in the bigger scheme of things? Anatomically modern humans have existed for 250,000 years (at least). A couple of centuries is a ridiculously short period. Future historians will see it as a weird interlude, during which humans discovered fossil fuels and quickly used it up in a gargantuan extravaganza. Perhaps the outer strappings of the downfall of the West will be somwhat original, looking a bit like that painting by Eugène Delacroix, but in real life. The downfalls of Russia and China, when they come, will perhaps be more typical of the eternal oscillations of those civilizations between autocratic stability and "interesting times" (or "a time of troubles"). 

But I´m sure *everything* simply *will* be different this time, if we can just get those thorium reactors on line, finally develop fusion power, or download our minds into quantum computers. Besides, the real reason why progress fails are the...the...the darn pessimists!!!

Whatever. This pessimist isn´t going anywhere any time soon.