.png)
3 hours ago
1
Progress doesn’t have a single agreed-upon definition, but for the sake of anchoring, let’s say progress is rising living standards. While this definition seems unambiguously good, deserving of top billing on policy agendas for both major parties, the paradox is that long-term progress agendas rarely get top billing. Why? Here are three underlying reasons I’ve noticed in thinking about advocating for a lot more basic research funding, which I think needs to be the cornerstone of any credible progress agenda:
Timescale mismatch. People want benefits now, not decades from now. U.S. politics runs on two-year cycles, while progress policies need decades to compound into large increases in living standards. For example, 2% vs. 3% growth, which would be a great outcome for a progress agenda, seems like a rounding error to most people even though it is meaningful when compounded. And the politicians championing these policies won’t be around to claim credit when they pay off decades later.
Resolving this part of the paradox would involve articulating short-term benefits in some manner, for example that research funding is a jobs engine in the short term. It could also involve bundling longer-term investments like research funding in a particular field with shorter-term concrete results like rollout projects in that same field, which people can start seeing the phsyical results from within a couple of years.
Change aversion. Advocating for far-future progress is selling a sci-fi world, which a lot of people take (and creative media often depict) as dystopian, not utopian. True progress means society changes for the better, delivering better-paid jobs using more advanced technology, and products that bring new conveniences and experiences. But change also means at least some disruption of current ways of life and thinking, and that creates winners and losers in the short term, which in turn creates reasonable anxiety.
Resolving this part of the paradox would involve painting a clearer picture of what exactly will change in the short term, paired with explicit transition support for people most directly affected. It could also involve less focus on the far-future altogether, focusing instead on shorter timeframes that could be more easily contextualized.
Lacking urgency. Not only is there not a clear picture, but progress agenda framing lacks urgency, emphasizing future opportunities rather than short-term crisis. Crisis framing comes with inherent urgency that opportunity framing lacks.
Resolving this part of the paradox would involve reframing progress agendas as a response to crisis, such as the risk of China leapfrogging us in critical technology and the military and economic consequences that brings.
All these resolutions share a common thread: making distant abstractions concrete. I’m increasingly convinced that advocating for progress, whether it be basic research funding or otherwise, requires bundling long-term promises with near-term demonstrations, including explicit workforce transition plans, and framing progress as helping to address competitive threats we’re already facing.
