• Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right! - Isaac Asimov
  • World Fame takes a lifetime of effort. Though sometimes the fame preceeds the effort - Me
  • I cant understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm afraid of the old ones - John Cage
  • Nearly all men can stand adversity, if you want to test a man's character, give him power. - A. Lincoln

March 14, 2007

About progressiveness

Here are some of my mini theories about progress and the future:

1. People: In every group or culture, there are some people who exert a pull towards the past. They like everything as it happened a decade or more ago. They dislike every change as if it is a rot or impurity. They see every invention as a danger to humanity or morality. I'm not arguing about the correctness of their belief. They may/may-not be correct and there are dangerous inventions also. Similarly there are people who pull towards the future. Usually there are some people who create the future (musicians, scientists, writers, even politicians etc), and others who like it and follow. These followers might be impulsive or have whatever reasons. I'm not talking about the reasons here.
The net direction of this tussle is always forwards (with a low magnitude), probably because the younger generation is more accepting of the new ideas. If there is a new country or continent (as the North America was settled once), there are less past pullers so such places have much faster progress.

2. Oscillations of progress: Lets say there is a quality Q which has an index 10 today. Ideally Q should be 50 for the world to be more prosperous. Gradually Q increases 20, 30, 40, finally 50. Now this Q does not stop at 50. It would overshoot, to 60, 70, 80. Now the reversal starts, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30. And more occilations until it stabilizes gradually at 50. The reverse oscillation can appear to be a retrograde step when its going lower than 50, but it comes back again.

I believe many of the parameters of progress happen in this fashion. We had a joint family which had its pitfalls of less independence. Now we are moving towards nuclear, and off shooting more towards maybe no-family at all. After a while, we would again come back, and probably it will settle in the end somewhere in the middle.

Though another of my hypothesis says the final structure might resemble the internet. A net like structure where each individual has one or more spouse and those spouse can again have one or more spouse, thereby making the whole world related in a net like structure - similar to orkut.

3. Rules: Societies which have more rules progress slower than societies which have less rules. Simply because rules hinder creativity. Rules hinder change. Rules make the past-pullers in (1) stronger. Again I don't mean rules are bad. Maybe a necessary evil, but they do hinder progress.

4. Religion: Societies which have a strong religion, or more interference of religion in everyday life progresses slower than societies with less religion. I believe religious people have more trouble accepting change.

5. Induction: Progress by one society infects the other to go in that direction. Unless there is a strong pull by 4.

6. Violence: Overall violence in the world is steadily declining. Modern wars are more about machines than people. Aircrafts destroy tanks, bridges, powerhouses. Once all that is done, the war is over. Though it might be more disastrous if it comes to nuclear war, I hope it wouldn't.

7. Immigrants: Immigrants are usually more progressive than the ethnic population of any place. Reasons: The severed tie from their native place reduces the backward (towards the past, towards the known) pull. They were adaptable in the first place thats why they migrated. Rigid people stay where they are, they don't move to other places. The immigrants get to learn from two societies, their own and the new one. Also, they have to make a reputation for themselves again, from scratch, which makes them work hard.
(P.S. I'm not counting refugees as immigrants)