From Chapter
3: The Loss of the Concept of Economic Progress (p. 106)
This excerpt is taken from George Reisman, Capitalism: A Treatise
on Economics. Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996. Copyright © 1996 by George
Reisman. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission
of the author. The following limited exception is granted: Namely, provided they are
reproduced in full and include this copyright notice and are made for noncommercial
use, i.e., for use other than for sale, including use as part of any publication that is
sold, copies of this excerpt may be downloaded into personal computers and distributed
electronically or on paper printouts from a personal computer; reproduction on the
internet is permitted provided the copy of the excerpt is accompanied by the following
link to the Jefferson School's home page (which may, and hopefully will, be displayed
elsewhere and more prominently): The Jefferson School
of Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology. This limited right of reproduction expires
on December 31, 1999.
This page has been visited times since August 7, 1999.
An important intellectual confusion in the decades prior to the appearance of the
ecology movement, which helped to pave the way for it and continues to sustain it, was the
loss of very concept of economic progress. Somewhere along the line, the seemingly
synonymous, but in fact very different, concept of economic growth took its place.
Only after this change had occurred could the ecology doctrine succeed.
Growth is a concept that applies to individual living organisms. An organism grows
until it reaches maturity, then it declines, and sooner or later dies. The concept of
growth is also morally neutral, equally capable of describing a negative as a positive:
tumors and cancers can grow. Thus the concept of growth both necessarily implies limits
and can easily be applied negatively.
In contrast, the concept of progress applies across succeeding generations of human
beings.95 The individual human beings reach maturity and die. But because
they possess the faculty of reason, they can both discover new and additional knowledge
and transmit it to the rising generation, which then starts out in life in possession of a
larger body of knowledge than did the present generation. If the new generation continues
to think, it succeeds in further enlarging the sum of human knowledge and thus it too
passes on a larger body of knowledge to its successors than it inherited. And so it can
continue from generation to generation, with each succeeding generation receiving a
greater inheritance of knowledge than the one before it and making its own fresh
contribution to knowledge. This continuously expanding body of knowledge, insofar as it
takes the form of continuously increasing scientific and technological knowledge and
correspondingly improved capital equipment, is the foundation of continuous economic
progress.
Progress is a concept unique to man: it is founded on his possession of reason and thus
his ability to accumulate and transmit a growing body of knowledge across the generations.
Totally unlike growth, whose essential confines are the limits of a single organism,
progress has no practical limit. Only if man could achieve omniscience would progress have
to end. But the actual effect of the acquisition of knowledge is always to lay the
foundation for the acquisition of still more knowledge. Through applying his reason, man
enlarges all of his capacities, and the more he enlarges them, the more he enlarges his
capacity to enlarge them.96
The concept of progress differs radically from the concept of growth in that it also
has built into it a positive evaluation: progress is movement in the direction of a higher,
better, and more desirable state of affairs. This improving state of affairs is
founded on the growing body of knowledge that the possession and application of human
reason makes possible. Its foundation is the rising potential for human achievement that
is based on growing knowledge.
While it is possible to utter denunciations of too rapid "growth" as being
harmful, it would be a contradiction in terms even to utter the thought of too rapid progress,
let alone denounce it. The meaning would be that things can get better too
quickly--that things getting better meant they were getting worse.
Notes
95. I am indebted for this vital distinction to von Mises. It was an observation he
made in his seminar at New York University.
96. This proposition bears an essential similarity to the theory of capital
accumulation presented below on pp. 622642.
|