Introduction
This paper aims to discuss how the different innovations in the modern society made us look like we have reached the pillar of modernity with all the fabulous results, while the overall consequence is destruction. In the book Short History of Progress, the historian and author Ronald Wright, implied that the modern society is trapped into problems that came about as people, through their ingenuity, worked towards the betterment of the lives and the society as a whole. The author suggested that the common people, as well as those in the position to impose societal policies are always eager to try bright ideas for the benefits it can bring. The irony, however, is that only a few wanted to take responsibility for the negative outcome of their actions, in short, human beings have endlessly exploited the resources available to them, not mindful of the possible impacts. What follows are the discussions of Ronald Wright’s understanding of real progress and the progress traps and how the Victorian ideal of development has impacted the modern day perception of progress.
The Irony of Progress
Ronald Wright explained that progress trap refers to the perception that new discovery, innovations and the introduction of new technology produces impressive results, but people are not mindful of its tendency to lead to a destructive end. An example of this scenario is the development of new weaponry, of which many countries have prided themselves to have developed the most powerful weapons at that. In the beginning, the manufacture of better weapons leads to the ease of procuring better food supply, and societies that were able to produce better armaments are at a big advantage in times of war engagements.
However, these new weaponries were used indiscriminately leading to destruction as its ultimate impact. It does not only harm the environment, but all other living species including human beings. For instance, people in the past were able to make weapons that are efficient in hunting animals, however, the weapon’s efficiency was used extensively that it became one among the major reasons of wildlife extinction. In the Short History, the author was right when he claimed that, “progress has an internal logic that can lead beyond reason to catastrophe” (Wright, 5). In chapter 3 of his book, Wright examined the success and failure of the civilization of Easter Island and Sumer, both of these old society have prospered, but experienced an eventual fall; the reason of which is the catastrophe made by man (Wright, 59).
A notable thing about these two civilizations, was that despite their amazing progress, they were not able to comprehend what is possibly coming to them. The author has this to say about the Easter Island inhabitants: “The people who felled the last tree could see it was the last, could know with complete certainty that there would never be another” (Wright, 60). As described in another article, the Easter Island inhabitants were intelligent people, having established a society that is full of magnificent structures, even the colonizers stood in awe with such mysteries that
“have spawned volumes of speculations for almost three centuries (Diamond, 92). They were the complete example of a society that was entirely trapped in progress, and unfortunately, they were not given the change to get out of it. Consequently, the modern society can learn from the remnants of these vanished civilizations, and people should ponder on the fact that both the Easter Island Sumer society remains to be one among the unparalleled mystery in terms of civilization. Based on the readings, real progress will lead a society to a better development, while progress traps, more often than not, will bring the whole society into trouble. It is then for the good of all humanity to distinguish between real progress and the progress traps.
The progress trap is further exemplified in John Steinbecks The Grapes of Wrath, which talked about the eviction of the tenants from the land that they are farming. One form of progress entrapment in this chapter is associated with the company representatives, who “were caught in something larger than themselves”(Steinbeck, 42). This means these spokesmen were entrapped into something that, while they knew it was wrong, they still have to do it because it is what the society dictates. That is, they were there to relay the message of the farmer’s eviction from the land, while they also wouldn’t take “responsibility for the banks or the companies because they were men and slaves, while the banks were machines and masters all at the same time” (Steinbeck, 43). There is a complete disregard of responsibility when the representatives blamed the bank and insisted that the tenants leave at once. In here, the link between progress and progress traps diverts of the usual association with the environment. Progress traps can also be in the form of the social malady that happens in our society, for instance, it can also be seen in the tendency of people to disregard other people’s welfare in exchange for higher profits.
Accordingly, progress traps does not only destroy the environment, but they also corrupt the morals of humanity. In his book, Steinbeck wrote; “every man in the bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it”(45). It is an irony that through man’s ingenuity, he was able to create things that he perceived to be for his own good, yet, despite being the creator, it turns out that he was the one that is controlled by his own making. Moreover, chapter 5 of the Grapes of Wrath speaks of the difference between the traditional and modern way of farming, and the entrapment that occurs in the society, all because of people’s tendency to experience progress. Just as tractors were used to plow the field in the story, the same has been happening around us for long, and it is with or without our knowing that we allow technology to destroy us and the environment.
Civilization as a Pyramid Scheme
Civilization being likened to a pyramid scheme was taken from the idea that the rise of a civilization is often countered with its subsequent fall. In the Short History, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire and Mayan civilization were compared, their downfall largely attributed to the diffusion of their strength to the edge, and the eventual collapse of their central powers. In Wrights term:
I think that civilizations often behave like pyramid sales schemes, thriving only
when they grow. They gather wealth to the center from an expanding periphery,
which may be the frontier of a political and trading empire or a colonization of
nature through intensified use of resources, or both (Wright, 83-84).
The thing with civilization as associated with the pyramid scheme is the use of a certain system to gather riches from among the expanded territory for the benefit of the core leadership. Unfortunately, this form of a system cannot thrive indefinitely for reasons of sustainability, for instance, the exploitation of the natural resources and the inability to regenerate, leads to the stoppage of wealth generation. Accordingly, civilization flourishes and survives only for as long as the pyramid maintains its growth and flops consequently with the decline of production, that is: “Unless a new source of wealth or energy appears, it has not room left to raise production or absorb the shock of natural fluctuations”(Wright, 84). For instance, the Roman Empire was lured into its ambition to expand its empire, and new conquest came after a conquest until the empire was too vast for Rome’s economy to contain.
The temptation of conquering and subjecting the lands and its populations is equated to the enticement of pyramid schemes. Consequently, an empire that pursued its option to expand will have to control, govern and defend its newly acquired land, including its population. By being its subject for a given time, the subject inhabitants often attain a certain citizenship status, which gives them the right to demand benefits as a “return for their contributions to the hierarchy, and makes them less suitable for exploitation” (Tainter, 126). While the conquest may have initially provided the empire with sufficient surplus due to the presence of natural resources, the time comes when the exploitation no longer yields sufficient economic gains. The weakening of the economy occurs, first, because of the inability to procure sufficient marginal returns, and the increased costs of maintaining its subject. With the passage of time, the economic gain declines, while “administrative and occupation costs rise, and as the subject population gains political rights and benefits”(Tainter, 126).
More often, the collapse of an empire is attributed to the increased barbarian invasions, lack of economic progress, civil wars, as well as poor leadership (Tainter, 128). The irony was that, the collapse of an empire do not occur in a sudden manner, and it would suffice to say that the leaders should have sufficient time to reconsider their strategies. However, as most historians would note, “a society experiencing declining marginal returns is investing ever more heavily in a strategy that is yielding proportionately less (Tainter, 121). Eventually, economic deterioration would be too excessive to contain, as the productive capability will be consumed, the collected economic spares allocated and the resources will be used for the current societal and other operating requirements. The jolt is felt with the occurrence of different adversaries, such as uprisings, drought, and epidemics, and with little resource to counter them, the empire naturally weakens. Successive occurrence of adversities, coupled with inefficient leadership makes the empire more vulnerable to crisis, and it may take only a considerable passage of time or one big insurmountable difficulty before its final collapse. It was the overwhelming want to amass more than they can contain that resulted to the Roman and Mayan Empires’ downfall.
The Victorian Ideal of Progress
Ronald Wright used the Victorian ideal to define progress, which is “the assumption that a pattern of change exists in the history of mankindthat it consists of irreversible changes in one direction only, and that this direction is towards improvement" (qtd. in Wright, 3). In this definition, progress is regarded to be all positive, such that all activities of mankind are geared towards the betterment of the society as a whole. The belief that humanity is headed in only one direction, and only in positive ways, makes the society unaware of the potential dangers that are happening due to progress. As exemplified by the Mayan and Roman civilization, their collapse was attributed to their inability to think ahead of the possible consequence of a very vast empire.
Conclusion
As human beings advance through modernity, there are many changes that are brought about to us through better knowledge and technology. However, people should keep in mind, and consider that humanity is trapped in a certain spectrum. While we enjoy the fruits of advance knowledge and innovations, we should be aware of the possible devastation that can happen. Ronald Wright, suggested that, currently, the society is entrapped into diverse situations that are detrimental in the process. The examples of the vanished civilizations in Easter Island and Sumer serve to remind humanity about our responsibility over our actions. The history of the collapse of the Roman and Mayan Empire has provided us, not only with historical facts, but knowledge that is vital in the future. Learning from the older civilization, we are more equipped with a better insight and direction as to where we are headed in terms of progress.
Works Cited
Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Library of Congress, 2005. Print.
Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. Penguin, 2006. Print.
Tainter, Joseph. The Collapse of Complex Societies: New Studies in Archaeology. N.p., 1988. Print.
Wright, Ronald. A Short History of Progress. Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2005. Print.
