Progress Spectrum Theory

The idea that societal or civilizational "progress" is not a single, inevitable ladder (e.g., hunter-gatherer → agrarian → industrial → information age) but a multidimensional space with multiple, often competing, vectors. One axis might be material/technological capacity (energy use, computation). Another is social/ethical development (equity, justice, reduction of suffering). A third is ecological sustainability (harmony with biosphere). A society can surge forward on one axis while regressing on another. "Progress" is thus a value-laden choice of which vector to prioritize. The theory challenges the notion that a society with smartphones and space rockets is inherently "more progressed" than one with strong community bonds, mental health, and a stable climate.

Example: Consider two societies. Society A: Has advanced AI, genetic engineering, and interplanetary travel, but suffers from extreme inequality, pervasive depression, and is in a state of ecological collapse. Society B: Has early-industrial technology but has solved collective action problems, provides universal well-being, and lives in a steady-state economy within planetary boundaries. Linear progress theory says A is ahead. Progress Spectrum Theory plots them on different coordinates: A is high on tech, low on social/ecological axes; B is the inverse. True "advancement" might be seen as moving towards a balanced point in the center of the spectrum, or consciously choosing a different optimal point based on collective values. History isn't a march; it's a dance across a multi-axis graph. Progress Spectrum Theory.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Progress

The problem of valuation: Progress toward what? We conflate technological advancement with moral or civilizational improvement, but they are not the same. You can have progress in computation alongside regress in democracy, progress in medicine alongside regress in community cohesion. The hard problem is that there is no objective, universally agreed-upon metric for "progress." It is a normative, value-laden concept. One group's utopia is another's dystopia. Therefore, any claim of progress is inherently political, reflecting the values and goals of the person making the claim, not an empirical fact about the world.

Example: Is a society with smartphones, genetic engineering, and space tourism, but with rampant inequality, anxiety, and ecological degradation, "more progressed" than a stable, agrarian society with strong community bonds, low stress, and sustainable practices? Techno-optimists say yes; advocates of degrowth or traditionalism say no. The hard problem: There's no scientific instrument to settle this. It's a philosophical and ethical judgment call. History isn't a video game with a single high-score; it's a messy story with multiple, conflicting plotlines, and we can't agree on what a "good ending" even looks like. Hard Problem of Progress.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026