The Paradox of Progress
Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker argues that, despite the grim picture often painted by the news, humanity has made astonishing progress throughout history. He points to significant gains in life expectancy, literacy, and the fight against extreme poverty. Pinker credits these achievements to the spread of Enlightenment ideals like logic, science, and morality.
While this theory seems encouraging, a strong counterargument suggests that progress always comes at a cost. For example, globalization and economic policies have created an extreme income gap, and the resulting inequality can fuel populism, a force that has historically been detrimental to society.
This pattern is a social cycle, and the current phase of the social cycle we’re in now is not the first, nor will it be the last. I believe there is an implicit limit to the amount of progress we can make toward a utopian future. Our cyclical nature means that genuine, equitable progress cannot be measured linearly. It is a constant process of moving the proverbial goalposts. This, I believe, is the very nature of the human condition.
The Net / Net of Technological Progress
Advances in technology are often sold as net positives for humanity. This is sometimes true, but not always. The existence of delivery services, for example, comes at the cost of gig-economy workers struggling to afford basic healthcare. However, I believe that technologies like generative / agentic AI could be a net positive for humanity, given that their development is not guided by transhumanist or “effective accelerationism” philosophies.
To be clear, I do not believe that AI in its current form is a net positive yet. While I could discuss the environmental and infrastructural ramifications of this technology, that is not the primary focus of this series. Instead, I am concerned with the nature of our relentless pursuit of technological progress and whether we truly need it to realize our full potential.
The problem with defining a “potential” for humanity is that it sets an ultimate, achievable goal, which contradicts our inherently cyclical nature. Therefore, when I use the term potential, I am not referring to a finite end-state. Instead, I am referring to our ability to adapt and respond to our ever-changing environment in service of guaranteeing the foundational needs of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs for as many people as possible.
The Role of Technology in Human Progress
In summary:
- Human progress is cyclical and always has a cost.
- Technology is not always a net-positive, but it has the potential to be.
- The goal should be to meet the foundational needs of as many people as possible, not to pursue a utopia.
Therefore, the thoughtful use of technology should help accelerate the process of providing basic foundational needs for everyone. The key word here is should. Thoughtfully deployed technology should be a net positive for humanity. But is it necessary for this pursuit?
Many would say yes, but I argue that while not strictly necessary, it is essential. For instance: small-scale communities can meet their needs without modern technology, but providing for a global population of billions requires technological systems for efficient food production, water purification, and resource distribution.
The other key word is accelerate. Technology drives the pace of change. Without it, positive change would be slow and generational. But while technology accelerates progress, it almost always creates new problems, which in turn require further technological solutions. For example, renewable energy technologies are essential for addressing the environmental costs of industrialization. Technological advancement, in essence, requires more technological advancement.
So, do humans require technology to realize our full potential? Yes. The question now becomes: at what point do we recognize our full potential with the help of machines?
Signal Intent 