Two Bad Arguments #

The Inevitability of progress #

"Tech Marches on" and other apathetic displays of dismay about the direction and in particular, the inevitability of progress are on shaky grounds. The only way this argument makes sense, is if you're looking at the entire trajectory of mankind with regards to progress, all the way from cavemen to today. However, this line of reasoning falls apart once you apply it similarly to the dark ages. In the fall of the Roman Empire a lot of progress was lost. Proper sewage was a lost art, aqueducts, plumbing, city planning and so on. The Romans were at the point of almost cracking steam engine technology with the existence of the Aeolipile in the 1st century AD. If you were standing in the ruins of the Roman Civilisation, and you made the same argument about progress being inevitable... it'd crumble apart.

Additional examples... the Romans had early materials science with the example of the Lycurgus cup that has yet to be replicated. Roman Concrete being another example too exhibiting a regenerative ability.

The fall of Rome is the easiest example, but the fall of the Egyptian empire, the lack of some "obvious" technological developments with the Aztecs(the wheel) and the fall of the Babylonians all highlight how progress is not inevitable. That it must be fought for, and that the decline is gradual. If you were in the decline would you know it? I don't think I would. People talk about our times now as if they are in decline with declining birth rates and AI causing cognitive decline and all that. All the signs may be there, but I feel woefully incapable of telling if it is decline or not.

The most recent example you can point to where a lot of progress could be lost is the multiple false positives that could've started an all out nuclear war in the 20th century.

I think this view is too simplistic. And this isn't getting into weird debates about whether something is progress or regress.

Malthusian argument #

Malthusianism is the argument that population growth will exceed available resources. This was a popular argument given by the boomers in the 20th century, with the book "Population Bomb", however the current statistics points to a collapse in demographics.

Ignoring this anyways, it ignores technological progress to both more efficiently use resources, and to find better alternatives to resources. Applied to climate change, there are better alternatives being used. Applied to batteries, there are better alternatives being researched and used(like Sodium-based batteries).

Malthus ended up being wrong and the scale of how wrong he is, can be seen in our current world population(8 Billion), and in the Agricultural revolution.

This view is too simplistic and discounts the ability of people to find alternatives.

Reflection #

In the past I have at different points adopted both of these viewpoints. The issue with both of them is mainly that they are too simplistic and usually too reductionist(because they reduce the ability of humans into being unable to find alternatives, and reduce the human ability to destroy themselves).

Nowadays, I consider both positions indefensible.

Published on 2025/06/30