3 ms·

> That's a natural result of human intellectual progress and knowledge being passed down through generations. We have direct evidence that that is incorrect an

> That's a natural result of human intellectual progress and knowledge being passed down through generations. We have direct evidence that that is incorrect and any high school student knows it. Many, many times have we failed to progress due to being in systems that don't allow for it. > Is it growing or shrinking? Why would that matter to me as an individual? So long as my overall wealth is increasing, I don't care. I don't need to be making more than my neighbor to be happy with my life. As long as I still get the goods, I'm quite happy with this deal. This is just plain wrong in terms of a way to think about the economy or my life.

ionised 9y ago
> We have direct evidence that that is incorrect Post it. > Why would that matter to me as an individual? So long as my overall wealth is increasing That's my point. It isn't, it just appears that way because you haven't looked past the shin y surface. > This is just plain wrong in terms of a way to think about the economy or my life. Subjective. There are a lot of ordinary people who would say your way of thinking is wrong. Some actually want a stake in society, not an extra handful of rice per generation while a few at the top get an extra plantation.
- problems 9y ago
  Sure, look at the feudal system, look at most communism implementations, look at China before their recent uptake of capitalist concepts. Progress almost entirely stops in these places under these systems. Clearly, at some level there is a system effect.
  - ionised 9y ago
    Firstly, I'm not a communist. It's a beautiful idea that can never work in practice because it depends on humans being a purely virtuous ideal of themselves, which they never will be. You'll always end up with some arsehole at the top trying to create a dynasty for himself. Personally I'd prefer a more utopian vision of human society like the one in Star Trek. No money, just personal, spritual and intellectual pursuit. It won't happen though, people are too self-serving. Anyway, progress did not grind to a halt under feudalism. There were lots of inventions and discoveries being made during the middle ages, the rate was just slower than today and while part of that was due to the inferior social system with limited personal freedoms it was also due to the far smaller human populations and resulting productive power, as well as the prevalence of religion and it's aggressively anti-science stance (the dark ages were one example of progress slowing down to nearly a halt). I mean look, http://www.lordsandladies.org/inventions-in-the-middle-ages.htm http://www.lordsandladies.org/inventions-in-the-middle-ages.... First result on Google. Arguable some of the most important inventions in history, because they enabled all the discoveries that came after.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - problems 9y ago
      You're right, I had incorrectly said halted earlier, but attempted to correct for that, not quite enough perhaps. In terms of progress per-capita, how does it really compare though? To my knowledge at least, it was still very low for a long time. I could be wrong about that though. I hear the "stand on the shoulders of giants" argument and everything though - but I think there's definitely at least some effect from the system that should be acknowledged.
      - ionised 9y ago
        > but I think there's definitely at least some effect from the system that should be acknowledged. Oh I agree. I just don't think it is the sole reason for us being where we are. The thing with technological progress (and by extension economic progress) is that it snowballs and grows exponentially. If you took an early middle-age society and taught it the concepts of capitalism and they managed a seismic shift in their society to accommodate it, it would still take an incredibly long time for them to advance. They might do it a bit quicker because people would be more free to spend and invest in what they wanted, and money would flow more freely, but they would still be limited by population and production power. Population snowballs too, as does the sharing of knowledge that occurs alongside it and has probably been the number one driver of human progress.

ionised 9y ago

> We have direct evidence that that is incorrect Post it. > Why would that matter to me as an individual? So long as my overall wealth is increasing That's my point. It isn't, it just appears that way because you haven't looked past the shin y surface. > This is just plain wrong in terms of a way to think about the economy or my life. Subjective. There are a lot of ordinary people who would say your way of thinking is wrong. Some actually want a stake in society, not an extra handful of rice per generation while a few at the top get an extra plantation.

problems 9y ago
Sure, look at the feudal system, look at most communism implementations, look at China before their recent uptake of capitalist concepts. Progress almost entirely stops in these places under these systems. Clearly, at some level there is a system effect.
- ionised 9y ago
  Firstly, I'm not a communist. It's a beautiful idea that can never work in practice because it depends on humans being a purely virtuous ideal of themselves, which they never will be. You'll always end up with some arsehole at the top trying to create a dynasty for himself. Personally I'd prefer a more utopian vision of human society like the one in Star Trek. No money, just personal, spritual and intellectual pursuit. It won't happen though, people are too self-serving. Anyway, progress did not grind to a halt under feudalism. There were lots of inventions and discoveries being made during the middle ages, the rate was just slower than today and while part of that was due to the inferior social system with limited personal freedoms it was also due to the far smaller human populations and resulting productive power, as well as the prevalence of religion and it's aggressively anti-science stance (the dark ages were one example of progress slowing down to nearly a halt). I mean look, http://www.lordsandladies.org/inventions-in-the-middle-ages.htm http://www.lordsandladies.org/inventions-in-the-middle-ages.... First result on Google. Arguable some of the most important inventions in history, because they enabled all the discoveries that came after.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - problems 9y ago
    You're right, I had incorrectly said halted earlier, but attempted to correct for that, not quite enough perhaps. In terms of progress per-capita, how does it really compare though? To my knowledge at least, it was still very low for a long time. I could be wrong about that though. I hear the "stand on the shoulders of giants" argument and everything though - but I think there's definitely at least some effect from the system that should be acknowledged.
    - ionised 9y ago
      > but I think there's definitely at least some effect from the system that should be acknowledged. Oh I agree. I just don't think it is the sole reason for us being where we are. The thing with technological progress (and by extension economic progress) is that it snowballs and grows exponentially. If you took an early middle-age society and taught it the concepts of capitalism and they managed a seismic shift in their society to accommodate it, it would still take an incredibly long time for them to advance. They might do it a bit quicker because people would be more free to spend and invest in what they wanted, and money would flow more freely, but they would still be limited by population and production power. Population snowballs too, as does the sharing of knowledge that occurs alongside it and has probably been the number one driver of human progress.