Bertrand Russell and The End of Progress

    In his magisterial History of Western Philosophy, a book that should be required reading for everyone who enters the university, Bertrand Russell points to his concern over the expansion of science and technology to other non-Western cultures.  Science and technology, the 'crucibles' of civilization, were extremely powerful elements that should not be allowed to be practiced by just anyone, implying that strict ethical codes should be guiding and binding elements of their practice.  Russell, a peacetime activist who opposed the use of atomic weapons and formed a Foundation towards these ends, was guided by what was in the mid 1950s the common idea of progress.  Some societies had 'it' (civilization) and some did not.  One might suggest that, just as it would be foolish to allow a child to play with a gun, it would be equally foolish to allow societies which lacked 'civilization' to practice science and technology. 

    To what extent was Bertrand Russell correct?

    The idea of progress has certainly gotten a lot of slack during the last few decades, when many of the benefits of science and technology have turned out to be detrimental to our well-being.  Cellphones cause cancer and plastics pollute the Pacific, are some of many recent warnings. 

Forgotten now is the era at the turn of the 19th century when day-to-day revolutions were occurring and being experienced by ordinary citizens.  Forgotten is the day when the pop-up toaster was used for the first time, or the first taste of refrigerators that would allow milk to keep before it  spoiled after a day or two.  The two views of progress, one at the beginning of the 20th century and the other at its end, certainly sit in diametrically-opposite poles.  

    Yet there is another element of Russell's claim which is far more suggestive: the relation between 'progress' and 'ethics'.  Are 'advanced' societies 'more ethical' or 'less corrupt' than underdeveloped ones?   It is here, where the links between technological advancement, economic progress, and the moral frame of mind intersect that we find the most intriguing element of Russell's claim, and actually shed some light into the underlying concept of 'progress'.  

    "Progress" should not be seen in binary terms, but rather would be more appropriately understood as a distribution pattern.  Equally important, is that since there is no teleological finality to progress--a Rostownian requirement that all societies would eventually evolve to some predetermined point--'moral decay' and 'corruption' can equally occur in those nations that enter into financial decline.  Let me explain.

    Western nations, very broadly speaking, underwent techno-scientific progress, and the economic development this implies, between 1500 and 1900, well described in Michael Adas's work.  A particularity of expanding economies is that the 'ordinary' competition over resources is reduced given that the overall economic resources are expanding, as opposed to a stagnant or contracting economies where each individual's gain would generally be tantamount to another's losses (the zero-sum game).  

    We may thus postulate that the overall economic expansion of Europe during this period would have stimulated the formation of a 'civil culture' between its members, given that everyone's share of the economic pie was expanding.  Contact with 'primitive societies' during the colonial period, which had a relatively stagnant technological development and hence much more conflictive zero-sum economic relations, would have in this sense also fostered the notion of Western "progress" given the association between moral and technological backwardness.  Any distinctive traits of primitive communities, their skin color, would then have also been associated with this phenomena, obtaining an overall negative label (i.e. African racism).

    Aside from fostering economic progress, scientific and technological activity do promote a civic culture simply because it requires open forthrightness in order to advance.  Lying in science might gain you a point or two at the expense of your neighbor, but will not be sustainable over to promoting advancement over the long run.  As Michael Polyani noted, the 'republic of science' required mutually agreed upon standards of conduct for it to exist; there would be no scientific advancement whatsoever if scientists lied to one other.

    However, it is clear that 'Western culture' in a technical sense is not enough to posit a 'moral society'.  An individual who may actually have a professional degree, may in fact end up lacking any intellectual autonomy and become the lackey of another above him as a result of the very financial strains that are incurred in the obtaining of such a professional degree.  One could even argue that the expansion of professionalism in Puerto Rico, or any other less-developed society for that matter, might actually stimulate the moral deterioration of a society precisely because of its low-level economy.  The economy does not have the 'carrying capacity' to sustain the number of professionals beyond a certain point, therefore forcing many to enter an underground intellectual-subculture as overall numbers of professionals increase.  Education has become a multimillion dollar business, in which academic institutions have little incentive in reducing the number of students entering and leaving their gates.  

    In other words, 'Westernization' ironically might actually lead to the development of very 'non-Western' societies, in a Rusellian moral sense: humanists and engineers who contribute absolutely nothing to the total intellectual capital of the world, but rather serve to deteriorate it.

    There appear to be two elements at play here: 1) broader cultural traits that are formed as a result of historical techno-economic background, as well as 2) personal financial dynamics that impinge on the moral integrity of modern professionals.  On the one hand, for example, a person with high moral standards will not easily fall into the trap of a 'corruption culture' in spite of the fiercest financial constraints.  On the other hand, an individual undergoing training in science and technology but who originates from a corrupt non-Western culture, might all too-easily fall prey to the 'culture of corruption' even in the absence of financial constraints simply because they are unaware that other modes of conduct and social relations are viably possible.  

    An initially low corrupt culture might in fact end up drastically increasing its overall level of corruption by stimulating the selection of individuals from 'non-Western' societies that are more morally and intellectually complacent than their native colleagues.  This can slightly be observed here in Puerto Rico.  Some 'Professionals' from the Dominican Republic or Venezuela, for example, have in instances been known to be  pliable individuals lacking intellectual integrity who all too readily  yield a particular conclusion at the behest of another.  As hard to believe as it might be, a recent 'scientific' talk by a dominican scientist actually purported to 'explain' how global warming was merely fallacious effect of tectonic-plate movement.  What is even harder to believe is that 'agents of progress and intellectual integrity' as is Luis Penchi's AM radio station Boricua740, regularly play on the air  advertisements for 'para-psychologial cures' (Siglo XXI) in a time of deep social financial crises.  These ads, obviously a source of revenue for the station, undermine its implicit purpose of being.

    What is important to note here, getting back to Bertrand Russell's comment, is that as the United States enters economic stagnation--as it actually is now undergoing--it stands the possibility of loosing its 'Western ethos'.  This ethos, also probably engendered from what was its rural culture at the beginning of the 20th century (now only 2-3% of entire population is dedicated to agriculture), is not something that is 'writ in stone'.  Although obvious, it needs to be repeated: US 'western ethos' is as pliable and modifiable as any other cultural form.  Therefore, what was presumed to be an inherent trait of North American society, might be increasingly lost in the economic maelstrom.  More points of moral incivility are likely to be found distributed amongst the North American cultural landscape as its economy worsens.

    Progress certainly means much much more than scientific and technological advancement; underlying it is a profound sense of civic culture that is required for such advancements.  To some degree, contrary to Bertrand Russell's claim, they go hand in hand.  Which determines the other, however, is perhaps a perennial question of 'Western' social science.