logo
Progress by Samuel Miller McDonald review – humanity's greatest myth?

Progress by Samuel Miller McDonald review – humanity's greatest myth?

The Guardian6 hours ago
Everything is in decline, argues the geographer Samuel Miller McDonald. Democracy and free speech are in freefall. Inequality is soaring, with the 1% scooping up ever-larger shares of global wealth. These days, the US has a Gini coefficient – the most common international measurement of inequality – on a par with slave-owning Ancient Rome. Maternal mortality rates for American millennials are three times higher than those of their parents' generation – and this in the world's richest society.
Global life expectancy is falling. So, too, are food standards. Outside a few bourgeois sourdough enclaves, real bread has vanished. In its place we get mass-produced, spongy, tasteless 'pseudo-bread' – as Guy Debord lamented in The Encyclopedia of Nuisances. In an earlier age, there would have been bread riots. Now? Just muted indigestion.
What accounts for our complacency? False consciousness, claims McDonald in this sparky polemic against the myth of progress. We have been hoodwinked by elite propaganda. The 'progress narratives' of the ruling classes assure us that history only moves forward, that we should trust the system and surrender agency to our betters. Even when protests have erupted, they have mostly sought modest tweaks rather than revolution. But progress, argues McDonald, is a false prophet. History hasn't followed a tidy upward arc. Moreover, what counts as progress has often produced huge collateral damage, including ecological devastation.
There was a time when human beings had a 'commensalistic' relationship with nature, turning on veneration rather than exploitation. Embracing egalitarianism, most primitive societies didn't have hierarchies of class or gender. Then, around 3000BCE, the 'parasitic' economy emerged. Mesopotamians were the first to behave as though nature was no longer to be communed with but subdued. Religion took the place of animism, preaching dominion over the Earth. For McDonald the Epic of Gilgamesh is the first piece of progress propaganda: in it, the eponymous hero kills the forest guardian, tames the wild, and builds a city, filling it with bread and beer to the unbridled joy of his acolytes.
The Book of Genesis follows suit. God commands Adam and Eve to 'subdue' the Earth and tame every living thing. Later, Christianity – by then a far cry from Jesus's radicalism – proved useful to Constantine, who saw in monotheism a handy formula: one god, one empire, one emperor. Fast-forward a millennium, and capitalism picks up the baton. Progress, now secularised, means capital formation: wealth siphoned from the masses to the enlightened few, who return to us the bric-a-brac of modernity – antibiotics and air fryers and suchlike. The logic of extraction remains unchanged; nature and proletariat alike suffer.
McDonald's book is a satisfying corrective to the smugness of thinkers such as Steven Pinker, who insist that conditions only ever improve. Yet he oversells his case with sweeping judgments. His account of religion, for instance, amounts to little more than a crude reprise of Marx: it's all opium for the masses, a tool to pacify resentment. But that's far too simple. From the Peasants' Revolt to the Taiping Rebellion, Christianity has supplied radicals with a script for inverting power structures.
Equally damaging is McDonald's uncritical endorsement of David Graeber and David Wengrow's vigorously contested claim that Enlightenment ideas came from Indigenous America – specifically from the Wendat diplomat Kondiaronk – a theory historians such as David A Bell have dismissed as fantasy. On the latter's account, the French nobleman Baron de Lahontan wasn't so much lifting his ideas from Kondiaronk as putting his own progressive views into the mouth of a naïf – a common literary device in the early modern period.
Readers may find all the doom-mongering a bit much. Indeed, there's a whiff of the swivel-eyed prophet about McDonald. And like all doomsayers, he is sure that the end-times are nigh. 'Climate change and ecological collapse,' we are told, 'are very likely to cause political fragmentation that nullifies legal and cultural precedents like [slavery] abolition … If market economies continue, there is little reason to assume they will not return to trade in indentured human beings.' Very likely? The confidence is grating and ignores the simple fact that we no longer live in a labour-intensive economy. If anything, AI is making the return of slavery less, not more, likely. McDonald's dismissal of the possibility of mass investment in nuclear energy in a 'neoliberal' world has already aged poorly, with enormous sums being poured into small modular reactors this year. All of which goes to show that the predictions business is a tough one: things can just as easily go the other way.
Progress: A History of Humanity's Worst Idea by Samuel Miller McDonald is published by HarperCollins (£22). To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Labour's decision to close the Fleming Fund is a false economy that puts our national security at risk
Labour's decision to close the Fleming Fund is a false economy that puts our national security at risk

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Labour's decision to close the Fleming Fund is a false economy that puts our national security at risk

Health emergencies rarely respect borders or budgets. As I write, the world is facing an antibiotic emergency, with bacteria rapidly evolving resistance to the treatments we depend on to counter infectious diseases. Without effective antibiotic treatments, global health and the global economy are defenceless against the likes of pneumonia and sepsis. Antibiotics are the infrastructure of modern medicine, making chemotherapy, caesarean sections and hip replacements possible. More than 1.1million people die across the world every year because of antibiotic resistance, including 35,000 in the UK alone. These trends are increasing and inter-generational, with deaths in children tripling in the last three years. For the last decade, the UK has been at the forefront of global efforts to tackle the wider threat posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While antibiotic resistance poses the single biggest threat to modern medicine, AMR points to a serious problem for all types of antimicrobial agents – antifungals, antivirals, and antiparasitics – threatening to reverse all the significant gains we've made against HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. The UK's Fleming Fund has been a bulwark against such threats: building laboratory capacity in 25 low- and-middle-countries to detect emerging AMR outbreaks, allowing for proactive, data-driven responses before they escalate into global crises. Among many other things, the Fleming Fund has tripled the genomic sequencing capacity across the entire African continent – which even pivoted to detect Covid-19 variants. The UK government's decision to shut down the Fleming Fund is a false economy and directly puts our national security at risk. It will cost lives, as well as precious GDP that could be spent on frontline NHS services. If we are to learn any lessons at all from Covid-19, it should be that we cannot afford to cut corners when it comes to preventing and preparing for inevitable pathogenic threats. Bold investment to protect against AMR Decisions made today will directly impact our ability to counter and contain AMR pandemics in the very near future. When I was Chancellor in 2023, the Treasury recognised the economic health ramifications of AMR, and the UK government commissioned economic studies to better understand the risks and opportunities. The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation found that if AMR resistance accelerates in line with poorer-performing countries, the world faces an additional seven million deaths globally by 2050. The Center for Global Development then estimated that economically, this would wipe $1.7 trillion annually off global GDP by 2050 and it will cost $175 billion extra a year for health systems to treat people. Country-level estimates released recently estimate that the British economy would be $59 billion smaller in this scenario and the UK would spend an additional $2.8 billion a year treating superbugs. $296 billion and $188 billion would be wiped off the US and EU economies respectively. In contrast, this research shows that there would be large economic benefits to the UK and elsewhere if we invest in improving the treatment of infections. With the UK economy facing significant challenges and the NHS workforce facing rising pressures, now is the time to act boldly and invest proactively to protect against AMR. Whilst the UK alone cannot solve AMR, the UK can and should leverage its world-leading technical expertise and diplomatic leadership through the Fleming Fund, its Special Envoy on AMR, Dame Sally Davies, and other global investments in AMR. Even in a world where only 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI) is earmarked for international aid funding, there must be a budget line for AMR. If we are to drive economic growth and build resilience against health threats at home and abroad, we need decisive action with investments that put health security first. With an evolved Fleming Fund, we can mitigate against the worst effects of AMR by supporting research and development of new antibiotics, increasing access to treatments in countries where lack of access accelerates resistance, embedding large-scale education and training programmes to ensure the sustainable and responsible use of existing antibiotics, and harnessing AI for diagnostic tests and surveillance for the UK and the countries most severely impacted by AMR. A world without the Fleming Fund puts even greater pressure on UK government and the life sciences sector to find new ways to prepare for the pandemics we already detect and those we are yet to detect, to safeguard UK health and economic security. Now is the time for the government to step up.

Poland is sliding back towards populism. Democrats elsewhere should heed our mistakes
Poland is sliding back towards populism. Democrats elsewhere should heed our mistakes

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Poland is sliding back towards populism. Democrats elsewhere should heed our mistakes

We were travelling across Poland by train the day after the country's sensational parliamentary elections in autumn 2023. When news of the results came through, passengers in our compartment fell into each other's arms, rejoicing as though a great weight had been lifted from their shoulders. Hard as it was to believe after eight years, the national populists of the Law and Justice party had been ousted from power on a record turnout of 75% of voters. We felt the potential of democracy to change things for the better as a physical sensation. Less than two years have passed but this enthusiasm has disappeared without trace. The Law and Justice-backed candidate Karol Nawrocki won the presidential election run off in June with 50.89% of the vote, securing the admiration of Donald Trump in the process. Days before Nawrocki's swearing in on Wednesday [6 August] a new poll suggested that almost half of voters would like the prime minister, Donald Tusk out. The ruling coalition is wobbling. Tusk's liberal democratic government may turn out to be nothing more than an intermezzo, a pause between rightwing populist governments. After more than a decade of living, in a global sense, with the new wave of populism, we can see a pattern of missed opportunities of which Poland is just one example. In countries ruled by new populists, voters often come to feel disappointment and anger. In recent years, liberal candidates, carried by a tide of opposition, have ousted the populists: before Tusk managed it in Poland there was Joe Biden in the US, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Zuzana Čaputová in Slovakia. The victories of these politicians seemed briefly like beacons of hope for the post-cold war liberal democratic consensus. But rebuilding after populists vacate office can resemble a daily struggle in the political mud. A victorious election campaign is not the same as a definitive victory. The war against populists is a permanent one, and a global one, amplified by digital media. Post-populist rule is all the more difficult because populist governments leave behind a legal minefield. In Poland, countless legal decisions and acts in force were intended to undermine liberal democratic institutions. Dismantling them constitutionally and restoring the rule of law takes time and energy. It also requires looking back to the past rather than focusing on the future as the new government addresses its predecessors' mistakes. In Poland and Brazil, this has stifled any ambitions to offer an exciting roadmap for the years ahead. Inevitably, any initial euphoria is quickly followed by public frustration and the rise of another challenge from the rightwing populists. Since the anti-communist Solidarity movement in the 1980s, Poland has been a crucial laboratory in the battle for democracy. After returning to power in 2023, Tusk faced a dilemma: should he completely distance himself from his predecessors' agenda or flirt with their legacy? Tusk chose the second option. He maintained the populists' programme of direct financial support for families with children. He continued with the construction of a mega transport hub, a flagship project for the previous government that he had previously attacked as wasteful. It is especially striking that he has failed to liberalise Poland's abortion laws, which were tightened by the populists. Echoing the nationalists' rhetoric about migration and defence of national borders has led to Poland reimposing checks at its borders with EU neighbours Germany and Lithuania, despite all three countries being in the Schengen area. Letting the national populists set the political tone for him is driving Tusk's failure. The defeat of his presidential candidate, Rafał Trzaskowski was followed by a collapse of support in the polls. The absence of an inspiring vision, or even a sense of what Tusk stands for, is painful to witness. If parliamentary elections were held today, Poland's rightwing populists would be emphatically returned to power, probably with an even more radical nationalist programme. Abroad, Tusk may be admired as a staunch defender of democracy. At home, he has become one of the most unpopular politicians in the country. Call it the Gorbachev syndrome: beloved internationally, but reviled domestically. Tusk's ratings slump can be blamed on a whole set of unfulfilled promises, poor messaging and a poor presidential campaign. He is also affected by the global tendency to reject establishment politicians. To many Polish voters, especially younger ones, Tusk, who has been active in Polish politics for more than 25 years and was prime minister from 2007 to 2014, seems like part of a tired old elite whose time has come to step aside. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Safeguarding democracy requires something liberal democrats have so far lacked: an imaginative conception of what the future should look like. Here, Tusk and Lula disappoint, just as Čaputová and Biden did before them. The message is lacking, but the medium is challenging too. So far, rightwing populists are winning on the battleground of new and social media. It is not the only example, but the Polish case clearly demonstrates the folly of fighting elections purely on the defensive. It is too little and too narrow. Liberal ambitions must extend further than preventing populists from coming to power or removing them from it. Elections have to be understood as a chance to rebuild democracy, and to do so in tune with the new media environment. Without a forward-thinking approach, the liberal intermezzo will remain just that: a brief interval between acts in a longer populist play. Democrats must learn this lesson – contending with populism means not only confronting the past, but also offering a compelling vision for the future. Karolina Wigura is a Polish historian and co-author of Post-Traumatic Sovereignty: An Essay (Why the Eastern European Mentality is Different). Jarosław Kuisz is editor-in-chief of the Polish weekly Kultura Liberalna and the author of The New Politics of Poland: A Case of Post-Traumatic Sovereignty

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store