[thinkingemote]

Gray's view is not that there is no progress but that the idea of natural progression, unstoppable, inevitable progress is wrong and dangerous.

In the article it gives the example (a minor setback, I'm sure) of the return of torture in western democracies.

Data: In terms of lives ruined via proxy wars you can make the data show that more people are in misery now compared to less actual deaths. But we can discard this (personally I think its a weak argument and is a distraction). The main point is not "are we better than we were 50 years ago?" but rather "will we continue this short term trend and reach star trek society?".

The warning from Gray is that if you believe that the world is going automatically on the right path then you don't need to fight for it. You dont see the return of torture as something to be fought against, but just a minor setback. You dont see the rise of proxy wars as something to be criticised, its just a setback to progress. The rise of fascism in Eastern europe and the removal of rights is just a setback in the inexorable rise of progress. We toppled Saddam after all. China will naturally move to democracy. Its neo liberal science fiction.

The warning is that any progress we make is not a natural law. "Progression" is created by and can be destroyed by humans. Indeed when you see history through this lens one often stops calling change "progress".

The warning by Gray is that "believe the Long Peace and technological progress put us at the dawn of the Golden Age" is dangerous hubris and is a belief that can destroy the very things that have been achieved.

Gray does not try to prove that no change has been made, he tries to point out that the good changes need to be continually fought for and defended.

Cats are humble.

[llamaz]

You misunderstand Gray and somehow believe him to hold the exact specific position that he's arguing against, namely, the humanism of Dawkins/Pinker/Chomsky. You can't get this from the article above, but read other books he's written, or listen to any of his talks on youtube. He's not a humanist and he's anti-enlightenment. His entire claim to fame is that he rejects the humanist idea of progress despite "minor setbacks".

[thinkingemote]

sounds like the same thing I wrote!

Rejection of the idea of progress.

Gray does not reject that things have happened in the past. He rejects the notion that the reason these things happened is natural and part of "Progress".

[llamaz]

> Gray's view is not that there is no progress but that the idea of natural progression, unstoppable, inevitable progress is wrong and dangerous.

What I mean to say is that his view is that there really is no progress. Scientifically, sure, but morally we've been the same for thousands of years. He has quite a nihilistic view that leads to political indifference. Here's a talk of his that explains his position in more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmRBHCclzZk

In short, however:

e.g. "Gray does not deny the reality of scientific, technological, and material improvements. He only insists that the things we mean when we call such improvements “progress”—that gains, once made, are not lost but built upon, that setbacks are rare and temporary—has no analogy in morality or human affairs: “Knowledge increases at an accelerating rate, but human beings are no more reasonable than they have ever been.” - https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/02/21/john-gray-atheis...

[llamaz]

I guess another way to put it is that, not only is there not necessarily any progress. But that as a result of a fixed human nature, the mistakes of the past will almost certainly be repeated. As John Gray states “politics is a succession of temporary and partial remedies for permanent and recurring human evil.”

In other words, the political traditions we have currently should not be torn down in the name of progress. Further, we shouldn't try to overthrow dictators like Saddam or the authoritarian rule in China (the opinion on Saddam is that of John Gray). This is because, as is apparent in Iraq, anarchy may rule. And when it does, it's very difficult to reach some level of civilisation and peace.

TL DR: It is easy to tear down a spider web, and very hard to rebuild it.