![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/progress-school.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
According to tech entrepreneur Patrick Collison and economist Tyler Cowen,\u00a0academia needs a new discipline called \u201cprogress studies.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0But their proposal overlooks two crucial facts: human progress has been an object of study for centuries, and innovators ignorant of that scholarship have had devastating effects on the planet and society.<\/p>\n When Collison and Cowen write that \u201cprogress itself is understudied,\u201d historians balk. Progress has been a backbone of historical narratives; its\u00a0origins, consequences and limits have been objects of historical analysis for generations<\/a>.<\/p>\n We should be wary about Collison and Cowen\u2019s advice to study the \u201csuccessful\u201d and train the \u201cbrilliant\u201d in order to speed up \u201cprogress.\u201d Neither recent nor more distant history suggests that these terms have neutral definitions. To the contrary, they have often been excuses for colonial expropriation and social exclusion, and sometimes alibis for democratic and environmental catastrophe.<\/p>\n Our apprehension about progress studies derives from our scholarship in the\u00a0history<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0philosophy of science<\/a>, and in particular in the history of scientific, colonial and social engineering projects in the era of the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment \u2014 arguably, the period that gave us our modern idea of progress in the first place.<\/p>\n If the Enlightenment initiated modern progress (a debatable but\u00a0popular view<\/a>), it also spread the\u00a0gospel of history as progress<\/a>\u00a0from less to more advanced\u00a0societies<\/a>,\u00a0economies<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0ideas<\/a>.<\/p>\n Even earlier, the conditions and causes of what Francis Bacon called \u201chuman progress and empowerment<\/a>\u201d were established subjects of interdisciplinary study. At the turn of the 17th century, the Italian jurist and antiquarian Guido Pancirolli published an influential history of ancient and modern knowledge and invention. Originally published in Italian in 1612, it was translated into\u00a0Latin<\/a>, French and\u00a0English<\/a>. Pancirolli\u2019s work \u2014 as historian of science\u00a0Vera Keller<\/a>\u00a0has shown \u2014 made history a tool of innovation at the outset of the scientific revolution.<\/p>\n Pancirolli was not alone. In 1668, Royal Society Fellow\u00a0Joseph Glanvill<\/a>published\u00a0Plus Ultra<\/em><\/a>, promising to trace \u201cthe progress and advancement of knowledge\u201d from Aristotle to \u201cthe most remarkable late improvements of practical, useful learning,\u201d so as \u201cto encourage philosophical endeavours.\u201d Proposing to fly through \u201cmere comprehension\u201d of progress to \u201cthe deeper goal of speeding it up,\u201d Collison and Cowen\u00a0add little to Glanvill\u2019s pitch<\/a>.<\/p>\n Historians of economy, society, science and technology such as\u00a0Joel Mokyr<\/a>,\u00a0Joyce Appleby<\/a>,\u00a0Margaret Jacob<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Paul Slack<\/a>\u00a0have given ample space to the makings of modern progress, along with related ideas Collison and Cowen echo: discovery, invention, improvement, transformation.<\/p>\n Works on the\u00a0Scientific Revolution<\/a>,\u00a0Enlightenment<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Industrial Revolution<\/a>\u00a0are replete with explorations of what Collison and Cowen call the \u201cdistribution of progress\u201d and its causes. Indeed, accounting for \u201cthe combination of economic, technological, scientific, cultural and organizational advancement\u201d that distinguishes \u201cfirst-world\u201d or \u201cdeveloped\u201d societies has been a central question of the social sciences since their formation over a century ago.<\/p>\n Scholarship also underlines the\u00a0complexities of progress<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0the underside<\/a>\u00a0of \u201csuccessful people, organizations, institutions, policies and cultures,\u201d problems that progress studies defines out of existence. Progress towards what? Success for whom? By what measure? At what cost?<\/p>\n Studies of scientific and technological projects highlight the mixed results of past disruptions. Eric Ash\u2019s\u00a0work on fen drainage<\/a>\u00a0in 17th century England reveals the destruction technology wrought on local environments and ways of life. Anya Zilberstein shows that 18th century colonization fostered positive views of\u00a0anthropogenic climate change<\/a>.\u00a0Keller<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Koji Yamamoto<\/a>\u00a0have probed the tensions between private and public interest that progress constantly involved.<\/p>\n Such research tells us that \u201cprogress\u201d is a situated and often interested claim about human efforts, not a natural good or a divine gift. It needs critical assessment, not headlong zeal.<\/p>\n Still today, the zeal continues apace, bringing with it unintended effects and attendant remorse. In a trend that Audrey Watters terms \u201cthe regret industry<\/a>,\u201d tech leaders who leapt before they looked are lining up to confess the harmful consequences of their innovations. A disposition among tech entrepreneurs to act first and do their homework later (if at all) has spawned countless start-ups, but it has also caused destruction and harm.<\/p>\n As tech more and more takes center stage, and techies themselves begin to speak out publicly, there’s increasingly this ‘I told you so’ or ‘there’s a whole field for this’ backlash, usually from academics (see replies to this tweet). https:\/\/t.co\/KGn8fzuDXs<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Antonio Garc\u00eda Mart\u00ednez (@antoniogm) July 30, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhat is progress?<\/h4>\n
Progress at what cost?<\/h4>\n
\n