Is Society Really Becoming More Progressive?

I am always hearing about how progressive society has become and how progressive it's not becoming. Whether it's accepting same sex or interracial marriages to being looked down upon just because you're different, the jury is still out, or is it?

Do you have a lesser chance of landing a job just because your name is different or you're the wrong gender?
Are groups of people still assuming the worst about their fellow mankind; are they wrong to assume if they're right? Should you be angry that they assumed even though they've been right about it their entire lives?
Is it all or most of it, down to ignorance of particular people? Is it that simple?

I'm not asking how you feel about this because all of the points I listed still occur today in 2011. Rather which side do you believe (it's progressing and will eventually become near perfect or a certain amount of people will never change)?

And just to clarify, I'm mainly pointing out first impressions instead of getting acquainted with someone beforehand.

'Progress' is a cultural loaded term and has fueled Western economic and military expansion.

What is the purpose of 'progress'? How it is measured? Who is it that is doing the measuring?

Technology does not necessarily equate to 'progress'.

Yet we know, factually, what is 'not' progress.

Although I know that such views are generally depicted as naive, I'd say that most of today's societies are progressing if we define progress by increasing complexity, which is also a somewhat fuzzy and controversial term, but not as culturally loaded as "progress".

Complexity is the opposite of both uniformity and chaos. It puts emphasis on both differentiation (diversity) and integration (people working towards common goals as opposed to fighting each other). The increase in diversity is pretty hard to dispute (your examples of progress fall under that banner). The increase in integration is the exact topic of Robert Wright's (also controversial) book called NonZero, which idea is that we are playing more and more non-zero-sum games in the sense of game theory. Whether or not Wright is overdoing it, I have a pretty strong feeling of an increase in integration in our last centuries.

I would claim that the world is currently enjoying a big bump in complexity with the advent of the Internet. Now it is not impossible that the complexity of our times is a mixed blessing. Our societies might not be as robust as simpler ones. The proverbial complexity catastrophe is always looming.

And answering to your last question, an ideal of "perfection" is not in my program (there is no foreseeable limit in complexity), and I don't think that it is people who change, environments and cultures do.

I have had a little experience with 'primitive' cultures through time spent in the South Pacific, including Papua New Guinea, which is barely out of the Stone Age. IMHO, the worst feature of primitive cultures is that aspect of tribalism which regards outsiders as less than human. In the tribes of PNG, to kill an outsider is a legal crime, of course, but it is not unethical according to tribal mores. Only getting caught is wrong. It is widely recognised by those expatriots who work there, that if you run over a child, even if it is not your fault, you leave the country immediately. Do not even stop to render first aid. Retaliation is lethal.

Thus, to me, progress means developing the opposite trait. To regard all humans as worthy, and to give them courtesy, consideration, and kindness. If acts of violence are reduced, that represents social progress. In fact, this is happening. Professor Stephen Pinker has done a lot of work on the history of violence, and has shown that the rate of violence is reducing, and very dramatically.

I posted this Pinker link in another thread, but it seems relevent here, also. I recommend anyone interested in human progress watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

PS. Stephen Pinker has recently also published a book on this topic, though I have not read it.

I was also tempted to quote the more recent Pinker book on the "integration" side. I preferred to quote a book that I have actually read, but I expect both books to share some similar arguments. We'll see, Pinker's is on my Christmas wish list.

No, I think the short answer is that all societies are progressing - just not all are advancing or improving.

Progression =/= improvement. Progression is just steps on a path to an eventual destination - whether that destination is good or poor compared to today's position doesn't change the fact that progress on the path is being made.

Weaver wrote:No, I think the short answer is that all societies are progressing - just not all are advancing or improving.

Progression =/= improvement. Progression is just steps on a path to an eventual destination - whether that destination is good or poor compared to today's position doesn't change the fact that progress on the path is being made.

I doubt the OP had such a tautology in mind and equated progress with change.

I think he equated progress not with change, but with improvement.

Yup, changing always but not always for the better.

There is a lot of evidence for human progressing, If I may cite anecdotal evidence i work in a discipline (anthropology) at a place

(department of social sciences) that as I black man I could not even enter 50 years ago. Now you can argue that this is a change in

attitudes and that changes in attitude do not human progress make (you would be correct in general but in particular that response

is a fail) Human society is less violent than it used to be, we live longer, we have access to more material "stuff" , we even taller.

Progress at least for some of the world's citizens is undeniable. ( I would still argue that progress for some and stagnation for

others is still progress for the whole but then we'd go round and round the semantic merry go round)

Madmaili
I think it is progress for all. Lifespan statistics show a gradual rise even in poor third world nations. The worst is Angola at just under 40 years. But there was a time when most nations had average lifespans of no more than 25 years.

wayseer wrote:'Progress' is a cultural loaded term and has fueled Western economic and military expansion.

What is the purpose of 'progress'? How it is measured? Who is it that is doing the measuring?

Technology does not necessarily equate to 'progress'.

Yet we know, factually, what is 'not' progress.

Oh dear...

Spearthrower wrote:Good to see you Madmaili - I recall some discussion with you on anthropology from the RDF, but for some reason I've never seen any of your 447 posts here before this one!

Hey Spearthrower, I haven't posted here in a long time, good to see you too.