One Idea of Progress

A fair warning.  I am going to be a huge Debbie Downer in this post. 

Matthew Yglesias:

One the oddities about the current economic doldrums afflicting the developed world is that if you look at the global average, this is almost certainly the best time to be alive in human history. Not only have we seen rapid per capita GDP growth in many poor countries, but even in countries that haven’t gotten richer major development progress has occurred. Last, but by no means least, the world is getting much less violent.

Yglesias goes on to quote some statistics showing a major decrease in the number of deaths caused by war in the last century and ends by saying: "This is major good news."  This is the type of argument many people would agree shows some sort of human progress, and I would have to concur it is indeed good news that fewer people are dying violent deaths.

But when we ask ourselves whether or not humanity is progressing, is bettering itself towards some higher state, is moving in a positive direction, I don't quite buy the argument that certain metrics, such as per capita GDP growth, are positive indicators.  When we ponder the question of progress in a theological way, it takes on a rather different connotation all together.

It is important to state here that a Christian idea of a progressing human being need not be relegated purely to the soul, ignoring the flesh as an inconsequential, temporary vessel.  Indeed, an organization like Protestants for the Common Good believes fully in the expression of God in both soul and body.  To fight for health care is a theological virtue.  However, we cannot argue this point at the expense of the soul either.

Let me strip away the religious language for a second, and frame this discussion in term of intent (soul) and consequence (flesh).  To measure progress by consequence only, denies a fundamental (for some, not all) notion of ethical behavior that cares as much, if not more, about intent as the actual result.  Certainly, it is wonderful for less people to die at the hands of war, but there is a difference between less war because the intent of harm has diminished in the human person, or less war because the geo-political systems that control such actions are in a state of constraint for many different reasons.  If our intent to harm is the same as it was a hundred years ago, we are merely the same monsters in a stronger cage. 

You can probably deduce that I am of this last opinion.  If you disagree, share!

-Tim