See also: [[Moral progress]]; [[Genius]] ## List of key thinkers in Progress Studies Cowen, Collison, Nielsen, Thiel, Deutsch, Crawford, Howes, McKluskey... Guzey, Bowman, Hobart, Dourado, Nick Whitaker, https://worksinprogress.co/about/ https://www.highmodernism.com/blog/action-1 ## Car metaphor > EAs fully appreciate the value of progress and thus of speed, but they’re worried about the steering, and about bumps in the road. And they see PS as just calling to step on the gas harder, which seems reckless. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hkKJF5qkJABRhGEgF/help-me-find-the-crux-between-ea-xr-and-progress-studies Linch: - if you see the highway of progress as a road trip: - haste is really important (limited vacation time!) - you'd be a dumbass to be so careful that you barely visit anywhere. - journey matters more than destination - not reaching final destination totally fine. - safety is important but not critical - if you see the highway as a mode of one-way transit - fine to take your time - have a lifetime to get there - _when_ you get there much less important than getting there _at all_. - obviously you'd still want to get there eventually, but since the trade is something on the order of 1% of astronomical waste every 10 million years delay, not too important how fast you are. ## EA Forum post https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hkKJF5qkJABRhGEgF/help-me-find-the-crux-between-ea-xr-and-progress-studies https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/eFQoe4CBCYbotDFQp/progress-studies-vs-longtermist-ea-some-differences _Bear in mind that I'm more familiar with the Effective Altruism community than I am with the Progress Studies community._ Some general impressions: 1. Superficially, key figures in Progress Studies seem a bit less interested in moral philosophy than those in Effective Altruism. But, Tyler Cowen is arguably [as much a philosopher as he is an economist](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9n44NA8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra), and he co-authored [Against The Discount Rate (1992)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3063398007596756496&hl=en) with Derek Parfit. Patrick Collison has read Reasons and Persons, The Precipice, and so on, and is a [board member](https://longnow.org/people/board/) of The Long Now Foundation. Peter Thiel takes philosophy and the humanities very seriously (see [here](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Xqcorq5EyJBpZcCrN/thiel-on-progress-and-stagnation) or [here](https://www.perell.com/blog/peter-thiel)). And David Deutsch has written a [philosophical book](https://www.thebeginningofinfinity.com/), drawing on Karl Popper. 2. On average, key figures in EA are more likely to have a background in academic philosophy, while PS figures are more likely to have been involved in entrepreneurship or scientific research. 3. There seem to be some differences in disposition / sensibility / normative views around questions of risk and value. E.g. I would guess that more PS figures have ridden a motorbike, are more likely to say things like "full steam ahead". 4. To caricature: when faced with a high stakes uncertainty, EA says "more research is needed", while PS says "quick, let's try something and see what happens". Alternatively: "more planning/co-ordination is needed" vs "more innovation is needed". 5. PS figures seem to put less of a premium on co-ordination and consensus-building, and more of a premium on decentralisation and speed. 6. PS figures seem (even) more troubled by the tendency of large institutions towards dysfunction. Some questions to which I suspect key figures in Effective Altruism and Progress Studies would give different answers: a. How much of a problem is it to have a mainstream culture that is afraid of technology, or that underrates its promise? b. How does the rate of economic growth in rich countries affect the probability of political catastrophe, e.g. WWIII? c. How fragile are Enlightenment norms of open, truth-seeking debate? (E.g. David Deutsch thinks something like the Enlightenment "tried to happen" several times, and that these norms may be more fragile than we think.) d. To what extent is existential risk something that should be quietly managed by technocrats vs a popular issue that politicians should be talking about? e. The relative priority of catastrophic and existential risk. f. The tractability of reducing existential risk. g. What is most needed: more innovation, or more planning? h. Ideals of rationality: Bayesian, ecological, individual, social. i. How to act when faced with small probabilities of extremely good or extremely bad outcomes. j. How well can we predict the future? Is it reasonable to make probability estimates about technological innovation? (E.g. [Anders Sandberg sub-Youtubing Deutsch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhoKXBZTKSo)) k. Credence in moral realism.