Daily Archives: June 3, 2017

In historiography, progress (from Latin progressus, "advance", "(a) step onwards") is the study of how specific societies improved over time in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, longevity, quality of life, freedom from pollution and so on. Specific indicators can range from economic data, technical innovations, change in the political or legal system, and questions bearing on individual life chances, such as life expectancy and risk of disease and disability.

Many high-level theories, such as the Idea of Progress are available, such as the Western notion of monotonic change in a straight, linear fashion. Alternative conceptions exist, such as the cyclic theory of eternal return, or the "spiral-shaped" dialectic progress of Hegel, Marx, et al.

Historian J. B. Bury argued that thought in ancient Greece was dominated by the theory of world-cycles or the doctrine of eternal return, and was steeped in a belief parallel to the Judaic "fall of man," but rather from a preceding "Golden Age" of innocence and simplicity. Time was generally regarded as the enemy of humanity which depreciates the value of the world. He credits the Epicureans with having had a potential for leading to the foundation of a theory of Progress through their materialistic acceptance of the atomism of Democritus as the explanation for a world without an intervening Deity.

Robert Nisbet and Gertrude Himmelfarb have attributed a notion of progress to other Greeks. Xenophanes said "The gods did not reveal to men all things in the beginning, but men through their own search find in the course of time that which is better." Plato's Book III of The Laws depicts humanity's progress from a state of nature to the higher levels of culture, economy, and polity. Plato's The Statesman also outlines a historical account of the progress of mankind.

During the Medieval period, science was to a large extent based on Scholastic (a method of thinking and learning from the Middle Ages) interpretations of Aristotle's work. The Renaissance of the 15th, 16th and 17th Centuries changed the mindset in Europe towards an empirical view, based on a pantheistic interpretation of Plato. This induced a revolution in curiosity about nature in general and scientific advance, which opened the gates for technical and economic advance. Furthermore, the individual potential was seen as a never-ending quest for being God-like, paving the way for a view of Man based on unlimited perfection and progress.[1]

The scientific advances of the 16th and 17th centuries provided a basis for the optimistic outlook of Bacon's 'New Atlantis.' In the 17th century Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle argued in favor of progress with respect to arts and the sciences, saying that each age has the advantage of not having to rediscover what was accomplished in preceding ages. The epistemology of John Locke provided support and was popularized by the Encyclopedists Diderot, Holbach, and Condorcet. Locke had a powerful influence on the American Founding Fathers.[2]

In the Enlightenment, French historian and philosopher Voltaire (16941778) was a major proponent of the possibility of progress. At first Voltaire's thought was informed by the Idea of Progress coupled with rationalism. His subsequent notion of the historical idea of progress saw science and reason as the driving forces behind societal advancement. The first complete statement of progress is that of Turgot, in his "A Philosophical Review of the Successive Advances of the Human Mind" (1750). For Turgot progress covers not simply the arts and sciences but, on their base, the whole of culturemanner, mores, institutions, legal codes, economy, and society.[3]

Immanuel Kant (17241804), the German philosopher, argued that progress is neither automatic nor continuous and does not measure knowledge or wealth, but is a painful and largely inadvertent passage from barbarism through civilization toward enlightened culture and the abolition of war. Kant called for education, with the education of humankind seen as a slow process whereby world history propels mankind toward peace through war, international commerce, and enlightened self-interest.[4]

Scottish theorist Adam Ferguson (17231816) defined human progress as the working out of a divine plan. The difficulties and dangers of life provided the necessary stimuli for human development, while the uniquely human ability to evaluate led to ambition and the conscious striving for excellence. But he never adequately analyzed the competitive and aggressive consequences stemming from his emphasis on ambition even though he envisioned man's lot as a perpetual striving with no earthly culmination. Man found his happiness only in effort.[5]

The intellectual leaders of the American Revolution, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were immersed in Enlightenment thought and believed the idea of progress meant that they could reorganize the political system to the benefit of the human condition; both for Americans and also, as Jefferson put it, for an "Empire of Liberty" that would benefit all mankind. Thus was born the idea of inevitable American future progress.

The most original 'New World' contribution to historical thought was the idea that history is not exhausted but that man may begin again in a new world. Besides rejecting the lessons of the past, the Jeffersonians Americanized the idea of progress by democratizing and vulgarizing it to include the welfare of the common man as a form of republicanism. As Romantics deeply concerned with the past, collecting source materials and founding historical societies, the Founding Fathers were animated by clear principles. They saw man in control of his destiny, saw virtue as a distinguishing characteristic of a republic, and were concerned with happiness, progress, and prosperity. Thomas Paine, combining the spirit of rationalism and romanticism, pictured a time when America's innocence would sound like a romance, and concluded that the fall of America could mark the end of 'the noblest work of human wisdom.'[6]

That human liberty was put on the agenda of fundamental concerns of the modern world was recognized by the revolutionaries as well as by many British commentators. Yet, within two years after the adoption of the Constitution, the American Revolution had to share the spotlight with the French Revolution. The American Revolution was eclipsed, and, in the 20th century, lost its appeal even for subject peoples involved in similar movements for self-determination. Thus, its life as a model for political revolutions was relatively short. The reason for this development lies in the fact that its concerns and preoccupations were overwhelmingly political; economic demands and social unrest remained largely peripheral. After the middle of the 19th century, all political revolutions would ultimately have to involve themselves with social questions and become revolutions of modernization. But the American Colonies in the 1770s, in contrast to all other colonies, had been modern from the beginning. The American patriots were protecting the modernity and liberty they had already achieved, while later revolutions were fighting to obtain liberty for the first time. However, since so few modern revolutions have evinced much concern for the preservation and extension of human freedom, the American model may still come to provide a lesson for the future.[7]

Social progress is the idea that societies can or do improve in terms of their social, political, and economic structures. The concept of social progress was introduced in the early 19th century social theories, especially those of social evolutionists like Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. It was present in the Enlightenment's philosophies of history.

In Europe's Enlightenment, social commentators and philosophers began to realize that people themselves could change society and change their way of life. Instead of being made completely by gods, there was increasing room for the idea that people themselves made their own society - and not only that, as Giambattista Vico argued, because people practically made their own society, they could also fully comprehend it. This gave rise to new sciences, or proto-sciences, which claimed to provide new scientific knowledge about what society was like, and how one may change it for the better.[8] In turn, this gave rise to progressive opinion, in contrast with conservative opinion, according to which attempts to radically remake society normally make things worse.

GDP growth has become a key orientation for politics and is often taken as a key figure to evaluate a politician's performance. However, GDP has a number of flaws that make it a bad measure of progress, especially for developed countries. For example, environmental damage is not taken into account nor is the sustainability of economic activity. Wikiprogress has been set up to share information on evaluating societal progress. It aims to facilitate the exchange of ideas, initiatives and knowledge. HumanProgress.org is another online resource that seeks to compile data on different measures of societal progress.

Scientific progress is the idea that science increases its problem solving ability through the application of the scientific method.

Several philosophers of science have supported arguments that the progress of science is discontinuous. In that case, progress is not a continuous accumulation, but rather a revolutionary process where brand new ideas are adopted and old ideas become abandoned. Thomas Kuhn was a major proponent of this model of scientific progress, as explained in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Another model of scientific progress, as put forward by Richard Boyd, and others, is history of science as a model of scientific progress. In short, methods in science are produced which are used to produce scientific theories, which then are used to produce more methods, which are then used to produce more theories and so on.

Note that this does not conflict with a continuous or discontinuous model of scientific progress. This model supports realism in that scientists are always working within the same universe; their theories must be referring to real objects, because they create theories that refer to actual objects that are used later in methods to produce new theories.

A prominent question in metaphilosophy is that of whether or not philosophical progress occurs, and more so, whether such progress in philosophy is even possible. It has even been disputed, most notably by Ludwig Wittgenstein, whether genuine philosophical problems actually exist. The opposite has also been claimed, most notably by Karl Popper, who held that such problems do exist, that they are solvable, and that he had actually found definite solutions to some of them.

Some philosophers believe that, unlike scientific or mathematical problems, no philosophical problem is truly solvable in the conventional sense, but rather problems in philosophy are often refined rather than solved. For example, Bertrand Russell, in his 1912 book The Problems of Philosophy says: "Philosophy is to be studied not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves."[9]

However, this is not universally accepted amongst philosophers. For example, Martin Cohen, in his 1999 iconoclastic account of philosophy, 101 Philosophy Problems, offers as the penultimate problem, the question of whether or not 'The problem with philosophy problems is that they don't have proper solutions'. He goes on to argue that there is a fundamental divide in philosophy between those who think philosophy is about clarification and those who think it is about recognising complexity.

In historiography, the "Idea of Progress" is the theory that advances in technology, science, and social organization inevitably produce an improvement in the human condition. That is, people can become happier in terms of quality of life (social progress) through economic development and the application of science and technology (scientific progress). The assumption is that the process will happen once people apply their reason and skills, for it is not divinely foreordained. The role of the expert is to identify hindrances that slow or neutralize progress.

Historian J. B. Bury wrote in 1920:[10]

Sociologist Robert Nisbet finds that "No single idea has been more important than [...] the Idea of Progress in Western civilization for three thousand years.",[11] and defines five "crucial premises" of Idea of Progress:

The Idea of Progress emerged primarily in the Enlightenment in the 18th century, although some scholars like Nisbet (1980) have traced it to ancient Christian notions.[12] The theory of evolution in the nineteenth century made progress a necessary law of nature and gave the doctrine its first conscious scientific form. The idea was challenged by the 20th century realization that destruction, as in the two world wars, could grow out of technical progress.

The Idea of Progress was promoted by classical liberals in the 19th century, who called for the rapid modernization of the economy and society to remove the traditional hindrances to free markets and free movements of people. John Stuart Mill's (18061873) ethical and political thought assumed a great faith in the power of ideas and of intellectual education for improving human nature or behavior. For those who do not share this faith the very idea of progress becomes questionable.[13]

The influential English philosopher Herbert Spencer (18201903) in The Principles of Sociology (1876) and The Principles of Ethics (1879) proclaimed a universal law of socio-political development: societies moved from a military organization to a base in industrial production. As society evolved, he argued, there would be greater individualism, greater altruism, greater co-operation, and a more equal freedom for everyone. The laws of human society would produce the changes, and he said the only roles for government were military, police, and enforcement of civil contracts in courts. Many libertarians adopted his perspective.[14]

The history of the idea of Progress has been treated briefly and partially by various French writers; e.g. Comte, Cours de philosophie positive, vi. 321 sqq.; Buchez, Introduction a la science de l'histoire, i. 99 sqq. (ed. 2, 1842); Javary, De l'idee de progres (1850); Rigault, Histoire de la querelle des Anciens et des Modernes (1856); Bouillier, Histoire de la philosophie cartesienne (1854); Caro, Problemes de la morale sociale (1876); Brunetiere, "La Formation de l'idee de progres", in Etudes critiques, 5e serie. More recently M. Jules Delvaille has attempted to trace its history fully, down to the end of the eighteenth century. His Histoire de l'idee de progres (1910) is planned on a large scale; he is erudite and has read extensively. But his treatment is lacking in the power of discrimination. He strikes one as anxious to bring within his net, as theoriciens du progres, as many distinguished thinkers as possible; and so, along with a great deal that is useful and relevant, we also find in his book much that is irrelevant. He has not clearly seen that the distinctive idea of Progress was not conceived in antiquity or in the Middle Ages, or even in the Renaissance period; and when he comes to modern times he fails to bring out clearly the decisive steps of its growth. And he does not seem to realize that a man might be "progressive" without believing in, or even thinking about, the doctrine of Progress. Leonardo da Vinci and Berkeley are examples. In my Ancient Greek Historians (1909) I dwelt on the modern origin of the idea (p. 253 sqq.). Recently Mr. R. H. Murray, in a learned appendix to his Erasmus and Luther, has developed the thesis that Progress was not grasped in antiquity (though he makes an exception of Seneca), a welcome confirmation. Bury, J.B. (1920). The Idea of Progress. London: The Macmillan and Co., p. 353.

Originally posted here:

Progress (history) - Wikipedia

Donald Trumps decision to exit the Paris climate accord is boneheaded and self-defeating. But it might matter less than you think.

Obviously it would be better if the White House led on tackling climate change, rather than freeloading on other countries commitments. Even if looked at in purely selfish terms, Trumps logic is twisted.

Decarbonizing the global economy will require several trillion dollars of investment in power generation, electricity distribution and new transport capacity. The president should be trying to help domestic companies win the biggest possible slice of that. Coal-mining accounts for about 50,000 U.S. jobs, about one fifth of those in solar.

Trumps climate gambit also carries personal risk: His Florida properties could plummet in value if sea levels rise farther. Hed better hope U.S. states like California, which continue to incentivize climate action, can keep the seas at bay.

Beyond the importance of these local responses, there are other reasons to not despair:

1. Trump cant stop the decarbonization of the economy.

The shift toward lower carbon power is happening, and economics not policy is driving it. In the U.S., its already cheaper to produce electricity from combined cycle natural gas plants and onshore wind than from coal, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Solar is more and more competitive, with photovoltaic costs projected to shrink by about two-thirds by 2040. The cheapest tech tends to win out over time. Thats true for cars too. BNEF thinks falling battery costs will make electric cars price competitive in about 2025.

2. Weve already made some (though no way enough) progress.

Emissions are starting to decouple from economic growth. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were flat in 2016 for the third successive year, even as the world economy expanded. In the U.S., the switch from coal to cheaper natural gas (and renewables) caused greenhouse gas emissions to fall to their lowest point in 25 years (about 12 percent below 2005 levels). Thats not enough to stop the planet warming, but it shows the impact of market forces.

3. Tech, not Trump, will drive corporate decision-making.

Teslas market value exceeds that of General Motors and Ford because investors believe in electric vehicles. Industries cant ignore technical advances at least, not for long. A decade ago, Eon AG and RWE AG were among Germanys most valuable companies. After billions of euros in losses, both utilities have separated their fossil fuel and renewable energy businesses to prioritize investment in the latter. Capital allocation may be swayed by politics, but over the longer run technical progress wins.

4. U.S. companies must think globally (and about life after Donald).

S&P 500 companies make more than 40 percent of their sales overseas. Unlike Trump, they cant ignore Europe and Chinas determination to stick by Paris. When boards make investment and R&D decisions, they consider the next couple of decades, not just the next four years. Trump may go easy on fuel economy standards but GM and others will no doubt press on with electric cars. The five most valuable U.S. companies Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook all support the Paris accord.

5. Shareholders are weighing in.

Trumps largely symbolic decision was possibly not even the biggest environmental story of the week. A majority of Exxon Mobil Corp shareholders (including several large asset managers) voted on Wednesday to force it to disclose how climate change would affect its business. Investors are also piling pressure on oil companies to show they can keep production costs low (avoiding the risk of stranded capital when oil demand starts to decline). So Trump can allow all the offshore drilling he likes, it doesnt mean anyone will drill there.

Its also possible that this is just a shrug about the ability of one man to hold back the future.

Chris Bryant is a Bloomberg columnist covering industrial companies.

Published June 3, 2017, midnight in: coal, decarbonization, Donald Trump, Paris agreement, solar, wind

Here is the original post:

Chris Bryant: Trump can't stop climate progress - The Spokesman-Review

Department of Veterans Affairs flag

Earlier this week, the head of the nations Veterans Administration, Secretary David Shulkin gave a press conference at the White House on the status of the nations largest healthcare provider.

Listen now

What youre gonna hear today is really a candid assessment of where our problems are in VA, Shulkin said.

What followed was a detailed outline of major problems that the VA is still facing, even after hasty reforms were enacted through sweeping legislation by Congress following a scandal over wait-times in 2014.

The VA in Alaska isnt immune from those issues. But at a press conference Friday in Anchorage, Dr. Timothy Ballard, the VAs healthcare wing director,gave an update on where theyve made progress and what work is left to do.

We have a lot of issues about care coordination, we have questions about how our internal operations work in customer service, and we have a lot of questions about benefits, Ballard said.

Ballard took his position eleven months ago. He highlighted where the states VA system has regained ground in connecting veterans with primary and mental health care since the implementation of the Choice Act threw the in-state system into disarray.

That includes reducing wait times for appointments to well below the national average, improving partnerships with private providers and military services, as well as working to improve staff morale.

But echoing the tone set by Secretary Shulkin, Ballard was forthright about major problems that remain for Alaskas VA many of them tied to actions and appropriations from Congress. And he cast doubt on whether the federal framework under the Choice Act can work at all within Alaskas unique healthcare system.

Because we are different in regards to healthcare availability, location and the like, when youre trying to nationalize a program for Choice, we end up on the outside looking in, Ballard said. And so hopefully we can make an impact on that. So thats something Ive been pushing at our townhalls across the state, with overwhelmingly positive response. Providers, veterans, our staff would all like to go back to the old way.

Ballard said that while his feedback has been well-received, theres not yet any proposal for exempting Alaskas VA care from the federal system.

State-wide, the VA is still about 200 positions below what the system needs to function optimally. The organization also continues to suffer from delayed reimbursements for travel and healthcare services, as well as ongoing confusion over billing and the referrals process.

Continued here:

Alaska VA faces issues, but is making steady progress - Alaska Public Radio Network