how to know what i meant, with the power of reading comprehension:
One of the most insidious and dangerous assumptions we have is the silly idea that human history has a direction. That in some meaningful way, life in the 21st century is fundamentally different (even "better") than life in, say, the 14th century, or the 21st century BCE for that matter. That human events follow a more or less predictable (at least in hindsight) trajectory from "primitive" to "advanced", and that it does this because of some sort of natural law that governs all kinds of progress.
stating the assumptions I wish to question:
1 - that life as we know it in the 21st century is meaningfully superior to life as some schuck in the 14th century knew
his life (note: not how
we would think of living in the 14th century, because that's preposterous, but how
they thought of it.)
2 - that human history invariably follows the path that we describe as "this history of western civilization". the fact that we have to supply the qualifier "of western civilization" should already tend to cast doubt on this presumption, but here we are.
3 - that the aforementioned progress happens regardless of our personal contribution toward or against it. that it is a natural law.
This idea is pure bunk, and should be stamped out with extreme prejudice wherever you see it. It is the kernel at the center of the centrist's inaction in the face of injustice, the unfounded presupposition behind violent wars of "regime change" and "nation building", and the morally vacant justification for colonialist thinking. It is the reason we are taught that the evils of slavery and genocide are "in the past" while the forces that drive them simmer in communities around the world.
initial refutation:
1 - fairly typical call for the avoidance of the ideas noted above.
2 - a list of cases where the idea of unstoppable and inevitable "social progress" is routinely used to excuse bad behavior (note: this is more or less a standard postmodernist rebuke of modernism and similar lines can be found in literally every single place everywhere you might find words about how we fucked up the 20th century with our big ideas about the inevitable march of progress)
History has no arc. It is not a story about a protagonist species who learn and grow. It has never been guaranteed that tomorrow will be more just for you than today, or that the next century will bring more opportunity for your descendants than the last one had for your ancestors. This should be plain to see as we watch the entire allegedly "free" world slip farther every day into the same patterns of mistakes and collapse that have recurred time and again since anyone bothered to remember anything.
additional words on the subject:
1 - "history has no arc. it is not a story about a protagonist species who learn and grow" > basically indistinguishable from 99.5% of anything Roger has ever said about human beings, and
2 - Repetition for effect: nothing guarantees tomorrow will be better than today or that today is better than yesterday. I mean, I'm pretty sure they teach this in preschool.
Even when disaster is averted, for all our apparent progress we have never actually made a difference in what it means to be human. Sure, we have the power to blow up the planet, the power to fling ourselves uselessly into orbit, the power to talk to each other across insurmountable distances. But so what if we can do all this, but give up the ability to feed our children, or the time to appreciate a sunset once in a while, or the courage to speak to our own neighbors? What have we gained, exactly, and why do we imagine that to be "progress"?
Closing paragraph:
1. please note the phrase "
a difference in what it means to be human" and how it differs from, for example, "
a difference in what it means to own a refrigerator or drive a car."
2. a list of our fancy-pance accomplishments and claims to fame juxtaposed with common-as-actual-goddamn-dirt complaints about the side effects of modern society.
3. The final question about what we have gained, as might be evident if you remember that it is the last line in a larger piece and not just a singular lonesome question posed all by itself without context, is asking whether our technological progress has made a difference in the
fundamental, innate feeling of being a human being or our chances of
being fulfilled as a member of society.
Notice how in none of these lines were any of the following suggestions posed:
- "everything sucks! let's move back to the forest!"
- "modern medicine is garbage! let's get typhoid like grandma and grandpa used to get!"
- "Technology has not helped anyone ever in any context!"
If you found yourself imagining these suggestions were in fact there, you can see how this assumption arose from your own brain, and not from the text.
Anyway, thanks for playing.
