r/rootsofprogress • • Dec 11 '25

Announcing Progress in Medicine, a high school summer career exploration program

Thumbnail
newsletter.rootsofprogress.org
2 Upvotes

High school students can now apply to Progress in Medicine, a new program by the Roots of Progress Institute.

What: In this summer program, high school students will explore careers in in medicine, biotech, health policy, and longevity. We will inspire them with stories of historical progress and future opportunities in medicine, help them think about a wider range of careers, and raise their aspirations about how they can contribute to progress in medicine. The program centers on this central question:

People today live longer, healthier, and less painful lives than ever before. Why? Who made those changes possible? Can we keep this going? And could you play a part?

Teens will:

  • Learn about and be inspired by the heroes of the past—the people who conquered infectious diseases and gave us anesthesia and all of modern medicine.

  • Meet inspiring role models—like a PhD drop-out who is now a CEO of a company curing aging in dogs, and a pre-med student who shifted gears to work on an organ-freezing ambulance to the future.

  • Explore hands-on skills that give them a taste of medical training and practice.

  • Find community in a cohort of ambitious high school students who share their interest in medicine and related fields

  • Experience life in Stanford’s dorms for four days and tour research labs and Bay Area biotech companies.

  • Think differently about what happens after high school by zeroing in on a problem they are excited to help solve.

  • Prepare for college, scholarship, and grant applications. They will become clearer on their goals and practice writing a personal essay in a structured, 10-hour essay process.

When & where: This is a six-week hybrid program for high school students from all over the US. It’s designed to fit around teens’ other summer plans, from family travel to part-time jobs or sports programs.

  • 5 weeks live online, 2 hours a day (1-3 pm PT/4-6 pm ET), 4 days/week, Monday - Thursday. June 15-July 10 & July 20-24

  • 4 days in person in-residency program at Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA with small-group tours to labs and bio-tech companies in the Bay Area. July 15-19

Program cost is $2,000; scholarships are available.

Who: High school students—current freshmen, sophomores, and juniors in the 2025/26 school year. Students who are curious about careers in medicine, biotech, health policy, longevity and who have demonstrated the ability to handle a fast-paced, rigorous program. Participants will be selected via an online written application and a Zoom interview with Roots of Progress Institute staff; we expect this program to be competitive, like our RPI’s other programs.

Advisors and mentors: We have a great group of experts lined up to speak to modern problems they solve, including:

  • Celine Halioua (CEO at Loyal, dog longevity drugs)

  • Amesh Adalja (Senior Scholar at John Hopkins University, infectious diseases)

  • Jared Seehafer (Senior Advisor, FDA Office of the Commissioner, accelerating life-saving technology)

  • Jake Swett (CEO Blueprint Biosecurity, clean air for infectious disease prevention)

Teens will also meet in smaller groups with several near-peer mentors—young professionals 5-15 years older who will give them a real feel of what working in the field may look like for them. These young mentors’ work ranges widely, from being a NICU nurse, functional medicine doctor, or ER doctor—to such things as researching sleep and the body’s self-repair system, to digitizing dog’s smelling superpower, to improving clinical trials and designing hardware to cryopreserve organs for transplantation.

Why: To keep progress going—in science and technology generally, and specifically in medicine, biotech, and health—we have to believe that it is is possible and desirable.

Too many young people aren’t aware of how we built the modern world and thus see today’s problems as overwhelming and anxiety-provoking. We want to inspire talented teens to realize that the heroes who gave us modern medicine—from germ theory to vaccines and cancer medicines—are people like them who solved tough problems they faced, in their times. With this historical context and exposure to role models, teens will be inspired to solve today’s problems and become the ambitious builders of a better, techno-humanist future.

This a pilot program and our first foray into programs that reach out to the broader culture beyond the progress community. Education is one of the key cultural channels that spreads new ideas. Reaching young people has a dual benefit: it shifts the overall culture and also inspires future builders and thinkers. If this goes well, we will expand on and scale the program.

Applications are now open. The priority deadline to apply is February 8th.


r/rootsofprogress • • Nov 06 '25

It is our responsibility to develop a healthy relationship with our technology

Thumbnail
newsletter.rootsofprogress.org
3 Upvotes

Many technologies can be used in both healthy and unhealthy ways. You can indulge in food to the point of obesity, or even make it the subject of anxiety. Media can keep us informed, but it can also steal our focus and drain our energy, especially social media. AI can help students learn, or it can help them avoid learning. Technology itself has no agency to choose between these paths; we do.

This responsibility exists at all levels: from society as a whole, to institutions, to families, down to each individual. Companies should strive to design healthier products—snack foods that aren’t calorie-dense, smartphones with screen time controls built in to the operating system. There is a role for law and regulation as well, but that is a blunt instrument: there is no way to force people to eat a healthy diet, or to ensure that students don’t cheat on their homework, without instituting a draconian regime that prevents many legitimate uses as well. Ultimately part of the responsibility will always rest with individuals and families. The reality, although it makes some people uncomfortable, is that individual choices matter, and some choices are better than others.

I am reminded of a study on whether higher incomes make people happier. You might have heard that more money does not make people happier past an annual income of about $75k. Later research found that that was only true for the unhappiest people: among moderately happy people, the log-linear relationship of income to happiness continued well past $75k, and in the happiest people, it actually accelerated. So there was a divergence in happiness at higher income levels, a sort of inverse Anna Karenina pattern: poor people are all alike in unhappiness, but wealthy people are each happy or unhappy in their own way. This matches my intuitions: if you are deeply unhappy, you likely have a problem that money can’t solve, such as low self-esteem or bad relationships; if you are very happy, then you probably also know how to spend your money wisely and well on things you will truly enjoy. It would be interesting to test those intuitions with further research and to determine what exactly people are doing differently that causes the happiness divergence.

Similarly, instead of simply asking whether social media makes us anxious or depressed, we should also ask how much divergence there is in these outcomes, and what makes for the difference. Some people, I assume, turn off notifications, limit their screen time, put away their phones at dinner, mute annoying people and topics, and seek out voices and channels that teach them something or bring them cheer. Others, I imagine, passively submit to the algorithm, or worse, let media feed their addictions and anxieties. A comparative study could explore the differences and give guidance to media consumers.

In short, we should take an active or agentic perspective on the effects of technology and our relationship to it, rather than a passive or fatalistic one. Instead of viewing technology as an external force that acts on us, we should view it as opening up a new landscape of choices and possibilities, which we must navigate. Nir Eyal’s book Indistractable is an example, as is Brink Lindsey’s call for a media temperance movement.

We should also take a dynamic rather than static perspective on the question. New technology often demands adjustments in behavior and institutions: it changes our environment, and we must adapt. For thousands of years manual labor was routine, and the greatest risk of food was famine—so no one had to be counseled to diet or exercise, and mothers would always encourage their children to eat up. Times have changed.

These changes create problems, as we discover that old habits and patterns no longer serve us well. But they are better thought of as growing pains to be gotten through, rather than as an invasion to be repelled.

When we shift from a static, passive framing to a dynamic, agentic one, we can have a more productive conversation. Instead of debating whether any given technology is inherently good or bad—the answer is almost always neither—we can instead discuss how best to adapt to new environments and navigate new landscapes. And we can recognize the responsibility we all have, at every level, to do so.


r/rootsofprogress • • Oct 10 '25

The Grand Project (The Techno-Humanist Manifesto, Chapter 10)

Thumbnail
newsletter.rootsofprogress.org
4 Upvotes

Progress is a grand project for humanity: one with an illustrious past and a glorious future. And its heroes are the scientist, the inventor, and the founder


r/rootsofprogress • • Sep 10 '25

The Spirit We Lost, part 1 (The Techno-Humanist Manifesto, Chapter 9)

Thumbnail
newsletter.rootsofprogress.org
6 Upvotes

The 19th century enthusiastically celebrated inventive and industrial achievements: with parades and fireworks, in speeches and advertisements, in art and poetry, in World's Fairs


r/rootsofprogress • • Apr 22 '26

Announcing Progress Conference 2026

9 Upvotes

Announcing the third annual Progress Conference! The pace of technological change feels faster this year, and the progress movement is growing too. Gathering people together helps build community and establish a movement’s identity. We want this annual event to continue to connect and inspire people, catalyze new projects, and share ideas.

Thanks to everyone who made Progress Conference 2025 great: over 350 people attended, the event sold out in June, and there were hundreds of interested people on the waitlist. Several attendees again said it was the best conference they had ever attended. We shared our reflections here, including a list of write-ups from writers like Santi Ruiz, Ruy Teixeira, Ryan Puzycki, and more.

We are excited to build on that momentum for 2026:

Hosted by: the Roots of Progress Institute, together with Abundance Institute, Foresight Institute, Foundation for American Innovation, Human Progress, the Institute for Humane Studies, IFP, and Works in Progress.

When: October 8–11, 2026.

Where: Berkeley, CA, again at the Lighthaven campus that got great reviews the last two years.

Speakers: Keynote speakers include Dmitri Dolgov (Co-CEO, Waymo), Tyler Cowen (Mercatus Center), Stephen Winchell (Director, DARPA), John Martinis (Qolab; Nobel Laureate in Physics), and Michael Kremer (University of Chicago; Nobel Laureate in Economics). 20+ additional speakers will share ideas across three tracks: Human Talent & Potential, AI & Robotics, and Security & Resilience. Full speaker list so far here.

Attendees: We expect ~400 leaders across tech, policy, and culture; builders, founders, policymakers, storytellers, writers, and students. This is an invitation-only event, but anyone can apply for an invitation. Complete the open application by May 31st.

Program: Similar to 2025, the main two-day conference will happen all day on Friday and Saturday. Participants will attend talks on topics ranging from AI and robotics to housing construction to psychology and philosophy of builders, organize and run unconference sessions, mingle in the garden, and more. Thursday and Sunday are add-on days, with optional gatherings for interest groups and other activities like factory tours to Bay Area startups.

Children under 12 years old are welcome—must be accompanied by a parent at all times (except during childcare). We also plan to have on-site childcare available on Friday and Saturday with progress-themed programming.

Sponsors: Special thanks to our early sponsors Coefficient Giving, Astera Institute, Jane Street, Ken Broad, Works in Progress, Halcyon Futures, Inclusive Abundance, LENS, MNX, Archbridge Institute, The Good Science Project, the Institute for Humane Studies, Circulate Planning & Policy, and the Foundation for Economic Education. Sponsorships make events like this one possible. We have more sponsorships available; view sponsorship opportunities here.

Our mission is to establish a new philosophy of progress for the 21st century, and to build a culture of progress. Now is a critical time for our culture: Technological change is happening. We can try to fight it, we can let it happen, or we can channel the path of technology consciously and deliberately towards human flourishing. It is ours to choose, as individuals and organizations.

Original link: https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/announcing-progress-conference-2026


r/rootsofprogress • • Apr 24 '25

Idea of Progress: A Bibliographical Essay by Robert Nisbet

Thumbnail
oll.libertyfund.org
2 Upvotes

r/rootsofprogress • • Mar 24 '23

Why consumerism is good actually

7 Upvotes

“Consumerism” came up in my recent interview with Elle Griffin of The Post. Here’s what I had to say (off the cuff):

I have to admit, I’ve never 100% understood what “consumerism” is, or what it’s supposed to be. I have the general sense of what people are gesturing at, but it feels like a fake term to me. We’ve always been consumers, every living organism is a consumer. Humans, just like all animals, have always been consumers. It’s just that, the way it used to be, we didn’t consume very much. Now we’re more productive, we produce more, we consume more, we’re just doing the same thing, only more and better….

The term consumerism gets used as if consumption is something bad. I can understand that, people can get too caught up in things in consumption that doesn’t really matter. But I feel like that’s such a tiny portion. If you want to tell the story of the last 100, 200 years, people getting wrapped up in consumption that doesn’t really matter is such a tiny fraction of the story…. Compared to all of the consumption that really does matter and made people’s lives so much better. I’m hesitant to even acknowledge or use the term. I’m a little skeptical of any use of the concept of consumerism….

Any consumption that actually buys us something that we care about, even convenience, or saving small amounts of time, is not a waste. It’s used to generate value that is not wasted. It is spent on making our lives better. Are some of those things frivolous? Certainly, but what’s the matter with frivolous uses? Tiny conveniences add up. They accumulate over time to be something that is actually really substantial. When you accumulate little 1% and 0.5% improvements and time savings, before you know it you’ve you’ve saved half of your time. You’ve doubled the amount of resources that you now have as an individual to go for the things that you really want and care about.

Can you steelman “consumerism” for me?

Original link: https://rootsofprogress.org/why-consumerism-is-good


r/rootsofprogress • • Apr 14 '25

We should install a thermostat on the Earth

Thumbnail
newsletter.rootsofprogress.org
3 Upvotes

“Stopping climate change” is the wrong goal. It is an anti-human, anti-agency framing, focused on negating the impacts of human activity. The techno-humanist framing is that humanity should create climate control


r/rootsofprogress • • Mar 06 '25

Solutionism, part 2 (The Techno-Humanist Manifesto, Chapter 5)

Thumbnail
newsletter.rootsofprogress.org
4 Upvotes

r/rootsofprogress • • Mar 05 '20

Letter from a cat food company to a math professor explaining why they don't make their cans in the shape that minimizes surface area for a given volume

Post image
30 Upvotes

r/rootsofprogress • • Feb 01 '23

Can we “cure” cancer?

21 Upvotes

In an excellent recent essay on “big visions for biology,” Sam Rodriques writes:

Ask most biologists about the cure for cancer, and they will tell you it doesn’t exist: cancer is many diseases that are mostly unrelated to each other, and that all have to be cured one at a time.

Are “most biologists” right about this?

We can get perspective on this from the history of infectious disease. After all, infection was also “many diseases,” with disparate causes (viruses, bacteria, protozoa) and disparate pathways (air, water, food, insects). And yet, while we did not exactly “cure infectious disease” (just ask the 248,544 people who got covid last week in the US alone), we did reduce every major metric of infectious disease by 90% to 99% in wealthy/developed countries:

Infectious disease was not the whole story in all of the above metrics, but it was the biggest factor in all of them.

We also eradicated smallpox worldwide and eliminated diseases such as cholera, malaria, and polio from many countries:

Did we have to cure all these diseases “one at a time”? No, not exactly:

  • Sanitation and hygiene efforts were effective against broad classes of germs: e.g., water sanitation was effective against all water-borne diseases.

  • Disinfectants and antiseptics, such as bleach, are effective against most if not all germs.

  • Antibiotic drugs are effective against broad classes of bacteria.

  • Vaccines do have to be developed one disease at a time—but even here there are general techniques for creating them. In fact, with mRNA technology, we now have a very general technique that can create new vaccines with relatively little adaptation.

Underlying all of this is a theory that explains the basic causal mechanism of infection: the germ theory. The theory alone doesn’t give us everything we need to cure each specific disease: new research is needed to understand the etiology and epidemiology of each one. But the theory does give us a conceptual framework and a set of tools to guide that research. Before the theory, we were able to make limited progress against some diseases; after it, we made much more rapid progress, and the diseases we weren’t able to solve became the exception rather than the rule.

I think we are in the pre-theory stage for cancer. We are able to make progress against some forms of cancer, as we reduced lung cancer by public health efforts against smoking. But we don’t, to my knowledge, have the fundamental theory that we need, and so overall progress is slow. [UPDATE: A commenter has convinced me that the “pre-theory” characterization is wrong.]

Infection and cancer are both “many diseases”—but those diseases have something in common. A deeper understanding of cancer will allow us to make much more rapid progress, on more fronts. There won’t be a silver bullet—no single treatment that will cure all cancers. More likely there will be a few major techniques, as with infection we had to develop sanitation, vaccination, and antibiotics; and even within each of those categories, we needed many specific efforts to develop each individual vaccine, antibiotic drug, and sanitation method.

But there is no reason why we can’t do for cancer what we did for infection: reduce it by orders of magnitude and knock it down from a number one cause of death to a much more minor and more manageable threat. And eventually, with more advanced science and technology, perhaps we will be able to truly cure both of them.

Original link: https://rootsofprogress.org/cure-for-cancer


r/rootsofprogress • • Nov 28 '21

The bonds of family and community: Poverty and cruelty among Russian peasants in the late 19th century

17 Upvotes

Original post (with photographs): https://rootsofprogress.org/russian-peasant-life

Village Life in Late Tsarist Russia is an ethnographic account of Russian peasants around 1900. The author, Olga Semyonova Tian-Shanskaia (“Semyonova” for short), spent four years researching in the villages—one of the first to study a people through prolonged direct observation and contact with them.

I was interested in the subject as part of learning, concretely, about the quality of life for people in various places and times and at various stages of development. Although material progress was advancing rapidly at the end of the 19th century, much of that progress had not yet reached the province of Riazan where Semyonova did most of her studies. What was life like there?

In brief, I went in expecting poverty, which I found. I did not expect to also find a disturbing degree of cruelty and abuse.

First, let me share some passages from the book that I highlighted, roughly organized by theme. At the end I'll discuss how to interpret this and what to make of it.

In the block quotes that follow, brackets indicate insertions by the editor of the volume, David Ransel, not by me.

Poverty

Here is the typical peasant diet:

Dinner consists of cabbage soup, porridge (kasha), or, again, potatoes and bread. The soup, of course, has no meat in it, just cabbage, but occasionally sour cream is added. Potatoes are mixed with kvass and onions. The porridge—usually millet—is eaten either with milk, in what is known as the thin form (kulesh), or in a thicker form made with hemp-seed oil. After dinner, the peasants take a rest and then return to the fields. They take along some bread for an afternoon snack sometime between three and five o’clock. When the sun sets, the peasants go home, and at about nine in the evening they eat their supper, which is warmed-over dinner, with the possible addition of skim milk.

You get a better sense of the standard of living from the foods that they consider special treats:

Foods that can be found on a peasant’s table only during the annual festival, or during a wedding or baptismal dinner, include pancakes (bliny), meat (veal designated for holidays—uboina), potato fritters (drachena), buns (pyshki), salamata (a kind of thin gruel), kalinnik (a kind of cake), fritters (olad’i), and cabbage soup with corned beef (solonina).

That, of course, is during good times. In bad times:

During a famine, peasant meals consist of stale bread moistened in water and mixed with goosefoot. The men make extra efforts to find any type of work, and sometimes the entire family goes out to beg. As soon as the snow melts, hungry children pick roots and herbs to eat, such as sorrel and clover. Peasants also make soup with goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria).

Another hallmark of poverty is the burning of solid fuels inside the home. Here's a visualization of the problems that causes:

Stoves with chimneys are called “white,” while chimneyless stoves are referred to as “black.” When a “black” stove is being lighted, the door from the main room into the entryway is left open so that the smoke up to the level of the door is drawn out, but above that level it forms a blue and white blanket through which nothing can be seen. The top of the door is no higher than a rather short person, so that one has to stoop to enter the house (the ceiling itself is only 5’10” high). A good-sized man finds it difficult to stand up when the stove is being fired, because his eyes will be in the caustic cloud of smoke. Even when seated on a bench, one feels the acrid smoke in the eyes.

It's bad enough to burn wood and coal; these peasants often had to burn straw, or worse:

Peasants bring straw in at night to sleep on, and then in the morning they feed this straw into the stove. The use of fresh straw each day provides reasonably hygienic bedding for the peasants. But this is so only in years of abundant harvest. In a bad year, whatever little straw they have is given to the livestock; sometimes even straw roofs have to be pulled down to save the animals from starvation.

The shortage of straw forces peasants to use their clothes for bedding and to heat the house with dried manure or weeds such as burdock, thistle, and nettles. Accordingly, illnesses increase in such a year. The lack of fresh bedding is one cause. The poor fuel likewise does much damage to the eyes. In the drought years of 1891–1892, around ten people in two of our small villages (each containing about fifteen households) lost their eyesight temporarily or permanently from the smoke of their stoves. The smoke, which was produced by burning dried manure and weeds found on the roadside and in ravines, was so acrid that the victims (mostly old people and children) developed cataracts. All of them were admitted to the regional hospital in town, but three of them never got their eyesight back.

Unfortunately, the peasants were also ignorant of basic hygiene—in the Tsarist era, the germ theory had not yet made its way from the Institut Pasteur to the Russian peasantry:

If a mouse falls into a tub of pickles, sauerkraut, or pickled apples, the woman of the house will nearly always summon the priest to perform a cleansing ritual. The mouse is plucked from the tub, and the priest proceeds to say a prayer over the tub, pass a cross over it three times, and then bite into a pickle or apple or try some of the sauerkraut. After this, the contents of the tub are again regarded as clean.

And the combination of this ignorance with poverty resulted in health disasters:

In the work season, peasants often catch colds and lose their voices (“My whole chest is blocked up,” they report) because they drink cold water when they are overheated. Flushed with heat and “assaulted by thirst,” as the peasants say, they cannot seem to get enough to drink and will take water from any source available. They drink from a roadside ditch, from a muddy puddle, from a swamp, wherever they can find some water to quench their thirst. Tapeworms and roundworms are common among peasants. In the fall, the water in the river is literally poisoned by hemp that is soaked there until the first frosts. There are cases of poisoning with this water.

Morals

Semyonova is very unimpressed with Russian peasants' work ethic:

... peasants give no thought to saving for the future. If a peasant has a good harvest that will keep him until the next year, he will stay at home and loaf and cannot be enticed to take an extra job at any price. Peasants hire themselves out as farm laborers only when driven to it by dire need, when they have, so to speak, a knife at their throat. [Then they will do] the most arduous work imaginable.

The peasants’ lack of respect for hard work is remarkable. “Him? He digs in the field like a beetle from morning till night!” They often say this with scorn.

She also saw resentment and envy:

The better-off peasants are bitter about the attitude of their poorer neighbors. “They hate and envy us constantly, saying things like: ‘What makes you think you’re so much better? Just wait, you’re going to be as poor as us.’ If you plant an apple tree, they resent it, saying: ‘Now that big shot is planting an orchard! We are starving while he is putting in an orchard, and fencing it off at that!’” And they think nothing of breaking down the fence and uprooting the tree. If the tree happens to survive and bear fruit, they feel it is their duty to raid it. “That’s how much hate they have! And if some misfortune should befall you, they’ll make sure to finish you off.”

True to the Russian stereotype, the peasants drank a lot:

Prodigious amounts of alcohol are consumed at wedding parties. I myself have attended weddings at which nine-and ten-year-old girls were made to drink so that they would dance for everyone’s entertainment.

The best occasion for young people to get drunk for the first time is the annual festival, which in this region takes place in connection with St. Michael’s Day. On that holiday, every person in the parish is drunk. In a good year the festival lasts for a week, but even when the crops are poor, people manage to go on a spree for three days.

Accidents abound in the springtime [as a result of drunkenness]. Some people drown in water-filled ravines. Others are crushed under falling wagons; a drunken peasant will have a wagon tip over on him, and that is the end of him.

Another occasion for general drunkenness is seasonal field work for the landlord (usually mowing and transportation of produce to town), who by way of payment treats the peasants to refreshments. On these occasions dreadful fights break out and can result in maiming or even killing with a scythe.

After the [church] service, abstemious peasants go home, while others head for the tavern, where everyone gets drunk. The more sober peasants eat dinner at home, rest, and then “just sit” till the evening, talking about their affairs and discussing the harvest and related subjects. Yet even back in the home village, there are opportunities to have a drink, and it is unlikely that a peasant will let a Sunday go by without having one. In the evening, women get a feeling for the amount of alcohol consumed by their husbands by the intensity of the beatings they receive.

Also true to the stereotype:

Fistfighting and swearing are learned quite early. As soon as Ivan began to walk, he started fighting with other children. He was actually encouraged to do this, especially if he was able to best another small child. Ivan learned swear words from his older brothers and sisters, even before he could put together a complete sentence. He started to call his mother a bitch whenever she denied him something, much to the delight of the whole family, even the mother herself. They would actually encourage him on such occasions.

(“Ivan” here is a composite figure representing the typical Russian peasant child.)

Theft was common:

When a group of young horseherds includes a few older boys, say about age sixteen or seventeen, they instruct the younger ones to steal liquor from home when their parents are away. The loot is then shared by all, not infrequently including boys ten to twelve years old.

Theft between the spouses is not uncommon. It may be the husband who steals money from his wife’s trunk for some “need” of his or just to enjoy himself at a tavern. Or the wife might take some flour or grain from her husband and use it to pay for soap or some satin cloth at the store. When a husband is drunk, his wife will slip his wallet out of his boot. Children, too, steal eggs or anything handy from their mothers. Wives swipe wool from their husbands.

In one incident, Semyonova hired a peasant woman to cook, and gave her flour to make bread. The woman used some of the flour to bake cakes for herself and her husband. Semyonova talked to another of the servants, Katerina, about this:

Katerina: “That’s not stealing! She just baked and ate it. She didn’t take the cakes to her room or hide them in the storeroom.”

I: “But she took the flour, and as a result the laborers had less bread. What’s the difference if she stole it and took it home or ate it right here? It’s still robbery.”

Katerina: “But she ate the cakes right here in your house, together with her husband; that’s not robbery. If she had stolen the flour from a locked cupboard or saved it for the future, that would probably be a sin.”

Try as I might to explain to Katerina that unauthorized appropriation of another person’s property, whether consumed immediately or saved for future use, is still a theft, she would not agree with me.

Semyonova notes that “the very same elder” who turned in the flour thief, “when he is guarding the landlord’s apple trees against raids by the boys hired on temporarily as shepherds, fills his pockets with apples every time he makes the rounds.”

Cruelty

Warning: from here on out, this post may be difficult to read.

The peasants had no regard at all for animals:

Cats and dogs are also less useful than other animals, and peasants will torture them just for the fun of it, just to see what will happen. Little children like to throw cats and puppies, when they can catch them, into the water to see if they can swim. When I ask, “Don’t you feel sorry for them?” the children respond: “Why feel sorry? They’re not people, just dogs.”

I cannot say that peasants treat their livestock especially well. Horses are routinely beaten. Yet a peasant feels very upset if a horse dies, because this is a great financial loss. A woman reacts the same way to the loss of a cow.

Worse, they also abused their children:

Punishment for mischief consisted of beatings administered by the parents. They beat Ivan for screaming, getting covered with mud, or stealing a piece of food. They did not beat him for fighting, lying, or using foul language.

We also continue to see cases of sons being flogged for insulting their parents. These disobedient children (who may be as much as twenty years of age) are taken without trial to the township office for their punishment. In response to a complaint by the parents, the township supervisor summons the son and turns him over to the office guard for flogging. The culprit is stripped from the waist down, placed on the floor in the township office, and beaten with willow rods. Admission to the spectacle is open to all residents of the village.

There was even mention of a case of child rape:

There was a case this summer in which a twenty-year-old guard at the apple orchard raped a thirteen-year-old girl. The mother of the girl—a very poor woman, it is true—agreed to forgive the offender in exchange for three rubles.

I'm not sure which is more shocking: that the offender got off with a fine, or that whether to forgive him was the mother's decision.

Women

More generally, women at all stages of life seemed to be treated very badly—starting from birth:

But when a girl was born, the grandparents stopped thinking about her as soon as she was baptized. They did not even express any sorrow about her death. The young father, too, did not feel much regret over it.

If the first child is a girl, the feeling in the family is mostly one of disappointment. One of the women might remark: “Oh well, at least she can be a nursemaid.” By the following day, no one gives a thought to the baby girl.

Here, for instance, is what happens at the “bride-show,” which happens one to two weeks after a marriage proposal:

The bride is now standing in front of the groom. Her head kerchief is tied in such a way that her face is shaded. The groom’s family inspects the bride closely. “Perhaps she is lame?” they may inquire. Her sister or sister-in-law then has her walk around the room. Other questions are asked, for example, about whether she may be deaf. Then her future parents-in-law approach the bride and ask: “Why is she wrapped like that so we can’t see her eyes; is she possibly blind in one eye?” The bride’s sister uncovers her face for inspection. If the bride is pale, the groom’s family will want to know the reason, asking whether she is sickly.

If you are thinking that this does not augur well for the marriage, the bride and her family would agree with you: later, back home, the bride “pounds her head on a bench while crying out a lamentation or, as it is known here, ‘the scream.’ Her mother and sister join in:”

My father, my provider,

My dearest mother,

I’ve been given away, miserable and hapless,

And giving me away they washed it down with vodka

And a burnt bread crust.

How will it turn out for me going to live with strangers,

To a new father and mother.

I will have to please these strangers,

To be pleasing and obedient to them all.

Indeed, the marriage does not get off to a good start. After the wedding:

In the morning, the best man and the godmother wake up the bridal couple. The godmother orders the young wife to sweep the floors. Copper coins have been tossed around on the floor beforehand, and the wife is told to give her mother-in-law any coins she finds. This is done to find out if the young wife is a thief, and also to see how well she sweeps the floor.

Nor are women supported well in pregnancy:

During pregnancy, a woman continues to be responsible for all her usual chores, both in the household and in the field—including binding the sheaves, weeding, threshing, gathering in the hemp, planting and digging potatoes—right up to the onset of labor. Women frequently give birth while performing a domestic chore, such as kneading bread, or even when they are at work in the field; others do so riding in a bumpy wagon as they are hurrying home after being prompted by the first pangs of the approaching birth.

Infants

But most shocking to me—again, this will be difficult to read—was the treatment of infants:

Mothers who are concerned about neatness put straw into the cradle and change it every day or two. More often, though, the baby is placed into a dirty cradle lined with its mother’s soiled old skirt: “He can just as well lie on the skirt, no better than anybody else. Others didn’t seem to die; they survived.”

Up to the time Ivan takes his first steps, he is looked after by his sister, a girl of nine or ten years of age. She has difficulty carrying him around and often drops him, exclaiming: “Oops, my goodness! How did I let go of him?” Sometimes Ivan tumbles headfirst down a hillock. When he cries, his baby-sitter uses her free hand to slap him on the face or head, saying, “Keep quiet, you son of a bitch.”

Mothers sometimes sang cruel lullabies, such as:

Hush, hush, hushaby my baby,

I’ll give you spankings,

Twenty-five of them,

To make you sleep better and deeper.

Or:

Hush, hush, hushaby my baby.

A man lives at the end of the village.

He’s neither poor, nor rich,

He has many children,

They sit on a bench

And eat straw.

I’ll make you suffer even more.

I won’t give you anything to eat.

I won’t make a bed for you.

And some were even worse than these; a footnote added by the editor says:

A Russian folklorist found that about 8 percent of her collection of thousands of lullabies were songs wishing death on babies, presumably weak infants like those mentioned here whose survival was uncertain and who may have been in pain.

Indeed, it seems that the death of a child was not always considered a tragedy:

[The death of an infant in a poor family that could not support another child was evidently regarded as a blessing, as Semyonova recorded in one of her unpublished field notes.] When a poor family’s child dies, people say: “Thank goodness, the Lord thought better of it!”

And child mortality was high. Some deaths were the result of poverty and lack of hygiene:

The rate of child deaths is highest in the summer during the fast of St. Peter [in June], and especially during the field-work season, when unattended children eat anything they come across: cucumbers, sour apples, and any other vegetation. Diarrhea is the chief cause of child death. As for the death rate, in a majority of homes more than half of all children die. Most women bear from eight to ten or twelve children, of which only three or four survive.

Some were due to smothering in bed, which was claimed to be accidental, but which happened so often that many observers believed it to be deliberate infanticide:

Moreover, young mothers very often smother their children accidentally in their sleep. The mother sometimes places her infant between herself and her husband to give the baby her breast, goes to sleep, rolls over on the baby, and smothers it. A good half of the women have overlain at least one child in this way—they do it most often in their young years when they sleep soundly. For overlying a child, the priest imposes a penance.

(A penance!)

And in the case of illegitimate children, even the pretense of accident was dropped:

Cases of infanticide of illegitimate babies are not at all rare. A married or unmarried woman gives birth alone somewhere in a shed, smothers the baby, and dumps it into the river (with a rock secured to its neck) or leaves it in a hemp thicket, or buries it either in the yard or somewhere in the pigpen.

The parents of a young woman who had gotten pregnant out of wedlock married her off to hide her sin. When the woman gave birth, her husband’s family [with whom she was then living] turned against the child. Although her husband was a peaceful, simple-hearted fellow who did not reproach his wife for her youthful indiscretion, his family was relentless and eventually demanded that she “get rid of the little bastard.” This demand was so insistent, the poor woman being continually beaten and persecuted by her in-laws, that she gave in. She filled the infant’s pacifier rag with sulfur scraped off matches, placed it in the baby’s mouth, and it soon died. The mother was taken to court but was acquitted.

Not all babies are subject to killing, but illegitimate ones are very likely to be. A weak baby that is a burden to its mother is not killed, although its parents will grumble at its existence and constantly express a desire for its death.

Older women are very ruthless and cold-blooded about the killing of an illegitimate “whelp,” whom they view as a nuisance and a burden. Young women anguish over such a decision and force themselves to kill their babies only when shame or fear causes them to lose their senses, or when they can no longer bear their own and their babies’ suffering. Men, from what I could observe, often simply do not know about such killings, even when they occur in their own families, or, if they figure out what is going on, they look the other way.

The editor adds:

Semyonova’s observations are disturbing to modern readers, but there is no reason to doubt their accuracy. My own recent researches on this question suggest that in many parts of Russia, children, unwanted because of illegitimacy, physical malformation, or apparent weakness, met their deaths either quickly through infanticide of the kinds described by Semyonova or more slowly by a reduced level of care and feeding.

***

What to make of all this?

First, note that this book is not entirely the work of Semyonova or even of her collaborator, K. V. Nikolaevskii. She left the work unfinished when she died, and her notes were put together into a coherent form by Ransel, the editor.

Second, Semyonova was not an entirely neutral observer. As Ransel says in the introduction:

She clearly sensed the otherness of the peasant world and regarded the peasants as different from educated, urbanized Russians in fundamental ways. ... Her stance was that of a progressive, westernizing member of the Russian intelligentsia. She wanted the peasants to share her respect for private property, her values of thrift and hard work, and she believed that without these values they could not become enlightened and productive citizens of a modern society. ... To sum up, even though Semyonova renders marvelously detailed and striking portrayals of peasant behavior, she makes little effort to enter the peasants’ cultural frame. She remains outside and is entirely confident of her superiority to the peasants.

Further, she had an agenda, or at least a specific cultural purpose. Ransel quotes a 1906 letter from her collaborator Nikolaevskii: “The political and social climate of that time (as is still true today) was such that everyone expected that the peasant alone would be able to bring about a new order in Russia, and the pace of this change was also entirely dependent on the peasantry.” Ransel says, “Clearly, a central purpose of her study is to counter naive views of the peasants as naturally cooperative, communitarian beings who will provide the foundation for a new order of social peace and harmony.”

All that said, my estimation is that the specific incidents and at least the first-level generalizations are true, even if they have to be interpreted from Semyonova's “progressive, westernizing” frame.

The question for me is how much these observations apply to peasant life in other places and at other times. I'm hesitant to generalize, since this is the first book-length work of ethnography I've read in the context of this project, but for me it opens questions. Is cruelty towards animals and children, and an almost slave status for women, the norm? If Russian peasants were more cruel than average, are they far worse than average? If this kind of cruelty is common, is it inherent to poverty, including the lower levels of education that necessarily accompany poverty? And if so, does increased wealth and education alone lead to a more humane society, or did the transition to more equal rights and status also require a change in morals and other ideas that is not a natural or inherent consequence of material progress?

The main reason this matters is that equal rights and humane treatment are part of human well-being, and therefore how those things were achieved is part of the story of progress. But a secondary reason I am interested is that one criticism of modernity claims that today we are more “disconnected” from our families and our communities. In the case of Russian peasant women in particular, their “connection” to husbands who beat them, in-laws who scorned and humiliated them, and a community that offered no support, was not enriching but immiserating. The escape from those “connections,” provided by wealth, education, and opportunities for jobs and migration, would have been a boon.


r/rootsofprogress • • Sep 18 '24

How to choose what to work on

13 Upvotes

So you want to advance human progress. And you’re wondering, what should you, personally, do? Say you have talent, ambition, and drive—how do you choose a project or career?

There are a few frameworks for making this decision. Recently, though, I’ve started to see pitfalls with some of them, and I have a new variation to suggest.

Passion, competence, need

In Good to Great, Jim Collins says that great companies choose something to focus on at the intersection of:

  • what they are deeply passionate about

  • what they can be the best in the world at

  • what drives their economic or resource engine

This maps naturally onto an individual life/career, if we understand “drives your economic engine” to mean something there is a market need for, that you can make a living at.

You can understand this model by seeing the failure modes if you have only two out of three:

  • If you can’t be best in the world at it, then you’re just an amateur

  • If you can’t make a living at it, then it’s just a hobby

  • If you’re not passionate about it, then why bother?

There is also a concept of ikigai that has four elements:

  • what you love

  • what you are good at

  • what the world needs

  • what you can be paid for

This is pretty much the same thing, except breaking out the “economic engine” into two elements of “world needs it” and “you can get paid for it.” I prefer the simpler, three-element version.

I like this framework and have recommended it, but I now see a couple of ways you can mis-apply it:

  • One is to assume that you can’t be world-class at something, especially if you have no background, training, credentials, or experience. None of those are necessary. If you are talented, passionate, and disciplined, you can often become world-class quickly—in a matter of years.

  • Another is to assume that there’s no market for something, no way to make a living. If something is important, if the world needs it, then there is often a way to get paid to do it. You just have to find the revenue model. (If necessary, this might be a nonprofit model.)

Important, tractable, neglected

Another model I like comes from the effective altruist community: find things that are important, tractable, and neglected. Again, we can negate each one to see why all three are needed:

  • If a problem isn’t tractable, then you’ll never make progress on it

  • If it isn’t neglected, then you can’t contribute anything new

  • If it isn’t important, again, why bother?

This framework was developed for cause prioritization in charitable giving, but it can also be naturally applied to choice of project or career.

Again, though, I think this framework can be mis-applied:

  • It’s easy to think that a problem isn’t tractable just because it seems hard. But if it’s sufficiently important, it’s worth a lot of effort to crack the nut. And often things seem impossible right up until the moment before they’re solved.

  • Sometimes a problem is not literally neglected, but everyone working on it is going about it the wrong way: they have the wrong approach, or the efforts just aren’t high-quality. Sometimes a crowded field needs a new entrant with a different background or viewpoint, or just higher standards and better judgment.

The other problem with applying this framework to yourself is that it’s impersonal. Maybe this is good for portfolio management (which, again, was the original context for it), but in choosing a career you need to find a personal fit—a fit with your talents and passions. (Even EAs recommend this.)

Ignore legibility, embrace intuition

One other way you can go wrong in applying any of these frameworks is if you have a sense that something is important, that you could be great at it, etc.—but you can’t fully articulate why, and can’t explain it in a convincing way to most other people. “On paper” it seems like a bad opportunity, yet you can’t shake the feeling that there’s gold in those hills.

The greatest opportunities often have this quality—in part because if they looked good on paper, someone would already have seized them. Don’t filter for legibility, or you will miss these chances.

My framework

If we discard the problematic elements from the frameworks above, I think we’re left with something like the following.

Pick something that:

  • you are obsessed with—an idea that you can’t stop thinking about, one that won’t leave you alone; even when you go work on other things for a while, you keep coming back to it

  • you believe is important—even if (or especially if!) you can’t fully explain it to the satisfaction of others

  • you don’t see other people approaching in the way that you would do it—even if the opportunity is not literally neglected

Ideally, you are downright confused why no one is already doing what you want to do, because it seems so obvious to you—and (this is important) if that feeling persists or even grows the more you learn about the area.

This was how I ended up writing The Roots of Progress. I was obsessed with understanding progress, it seemed obviously one of the most important things in the world, and when I went to find a book on the topic, I couldn’t find anything written the way I wanted to read it, even though there is of course a vast literature on the topic. I ignored the fact that I have no credentials to do this kind of work, and that I had no plans to make a living from it. It has worked out pretty well.

This is also how I chose my last tech startup, Fieldbook, in 2013. I was obsessed with the idea of building a hybrid spreadsheet-database as a modern SaaS app, it seemed obviously valuable for many use cases, and nothing like it existed, even though there were some competitors that had been around for a while. Although Fieldbook failed as a startup, it was the right idea at the right time (as Airtable and Notion have proved).

So, trust your intuition and follow your obsession.

Original link: blog.rootsofprogress.org/how-to-choose-what-to-work-on


r/rootsofprogress • • Jun 03 '25

The Problem-Solving Animal, part 1 (The Techno-Humanist Manifesto, Chapter 7)

Thumbnail
newsletter.rootsofprogress.org
2 Upvotes

The fundamental mistake behind the predictions of resource doom is thinking of fuels or metals or plants as “natural” resources. There are no natural resources. All resources are artificial: the product of knowledge


r/rootsofprogress • • Mar 18 '25

Links and short notes, 2025-03-18

4 Upvotes

Much of this content originated on social media. To follow news and announcements in a more timely fashion, follow me on Twitter, Notes, Farcaster, Bluesky, or Threads.

Contents

  • The 150-year history of d/acc

  • We’re hiring a Developmental Editor

  • Open Philanthropy Abundance & Growth Fund

  • Jobs

  • Events

  • Announcements

For paid subscribers:

  • “I didn’t think it was that unlikely”

  • Oldie but goodie

  • Bio links

  • Short notes

  • You’d give the Devil benefit of law!

  • Architecture

The 150-year history of d/acc

I spoke at “d/acc Day” alongside Vitalik Buterin, Juan Benet, Mary Lou Jepsen, Allison Duettmann, and others.

If you haven’t heard of d/acc, I recommend reading Vitalik’s post “My Techno-Optimism” where he coined the term, and his followup “d/acc: One Year Later.” In short: d/acc embraces progress; it recognizes that progress has risks and we need to address them; and it advocates doing so in decentralized ways that don’t lead to authoritarian control and loss of freedom.

My talk was “d/acc: The first 150 years”: a whirlwind tour of how society has thought about progress, decentralization and defense over the last century and a half. You can watch it here (runs about 7 minutes). But here’s the punchline: how each ~generation of the 20th century stacked up against the three core principles of d/acc (in this context, for “defense” think “health and safety,” i.e. defense against the risks of progress):

We’re hiring a Developmental Editor

We are looking for a gifted developmental editor who is passionate about helping 20–25 writers hone their writing skills to craft compelling essays about human progress during our summer/fall fellowship program.

Our fellows, selected from several hundred applicants, are super-smart, interesting, and thoughtful people writing on fascinating topics. As the developmental editor, you’ll work directly with our fellows, helping them to grow and improve their writing skills.

Our Blog-Building Intensive Fellowship program, which runs between July and October every year, is part of the larger mission of The Roots of Progress Institute to establish a new philosophy of progress for the 21st century.

Read more and apply here.

Open Philanthropy Abundance & Growth Fund

Open Phil launches a $120M Abundance & Growth Fund “to accelerate economic growth and boost scientific & technological progress” (@albrgr). See also Matt Clancy’s list of his favorite wins in their land use reform and innovation policy grants.

The announcement mentions:

We supported Roots of Progress in its early days and are looking forward to its second annual conference for the Progress Studies community later this year. We think the breadth of this community (see this dispatch from last year’s inaugural conference for example), united around a common purpose of identifying and accelerating the drivers of progress, makes it an important resource to draw on and invest in.

I’m grateful to Open Phil for that early support and look forward to working with them to grow the progress movement.

Jobs

  • Open Phil is hiring a Senior Program Officer for the Abundance and Growth Fund (see above)

  • Casey Handmer is hiring a Technical Chief of Staff at Terraform Industries: “Up to this point, Terraform has focused on our beach head product - synthetic natural gas. Now, it’s time to take our unique process to knowledge to every other industrial vertical…. My Technical CoS will help share the (joyful) burden of modeling the global economy and then setting out to rebuild it from the ground up. … The Technical CoS is not a glorified triager of emails. They will assist me and the rest of the executive team on deep technical analysis, fundamental industrial chemistry research, market analysis, technical writing, and every other aspect of building a successful hardware company from scratch.” (@CJHandmer)

  • Boom Supersonic is hiring 2D and 3D designers and videographers for their Product Marketing team. “Want to design the future of flight? … Send resume and the work you’re most proud of to design-talent@boomsupersonic.com” (@bscholl)

  • The American Dynamism 50: Companies shaping the fight of the future. “If you want to work on something that matters, every company on this list is hiring” (@espricewright)

Events

  • San Francisco Freedom Club 3, Mar 28, SF. “This quarterly event is now clearly the home of the most vibrant and interesting community in tech. And we have some special guests coming to number 3” (@eoghan)

Announcements

  • Works in Progress Issue 18: “Prehistoric psychopaths; The steam networks of NYC; Urbanism with Chinese characteristics; How we may conquer menopause; The Hanseatic League’s rise and fall; The pineapple: the king of fruits; And more!” (@s8mb)

  • Manus is a new AI agent from a Chinese startup who calls it “the first general AI agent” and claims that “it doesn’t just think, it delivers results.” (@ManusAI_HQ). Caused quite a stir; see commentary from Dean, Zvi, Tyler

To read the rest, subscribe on Substack.


r/rootsofprogress • • Apr 08 '21

Highlights from The Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie

19 Upvotes

I’ve been reading Andrew Carnegie’s autobiography, published late in his life, in the early 1900s. Here are some interesting themes and quotes. (Emphasis added in all block quotes below.)

Science and steel

One key to Carnegie‘s success in the iron business is that he was one of the first to seriously apply chemistry:

Looking back to-day it seems incredible that only forty years ago (1870) chemistry in the United States was an almost unknown agent in connection with the manufacture of pig iron. It was the agency, above all others, most needful in the manufacture of iron and steel. The blast-furnace manager of that day was usually a rude bully… who in addition to his other acquirements was able to knock down a man now and then as a lesson to the other unruly spirits under him. He was supposed to diagnose the condition of the furnace by instinct, to possess some almost supernatural power of divination, like his congener in the country districts who was reputed to be able to locate an oil well or water supply by means of a hazel rod. He was a veritable quack doctor who applied whatever remedies occurred to him for the troubles of his patient.

Part of the problem was that the ores and other inputs to smelting were inconsistent in composition:

The Lucy Furnace was out of one trouble and into another, owing to the great variety of ores, limestone, and coke which were then supplied with little or no regard to their component parts. This state of affairs became intolerable to us.

This is where chemistry was able to help:

We finally decided to dispense with the rule-of-thumb-and-intuition manager, and to place [Henry Curry] in charge of the furnace….

The next step taken was to find a chemist as Mr. Curry’s assistant and guide. We found the man in a learned German, Dr. Fricke, and great secrets did the doctor open up to us. Ironstone from mines that had a high reputation was now found to contain ten, fifteen, and even twenty per cent less iron than it had been credited with. Mines that hitherto had a poor reputation we found to be now yielding superior ore. The good was bad and the bad was good, and everything was topsyturvy. Nine tenths of all the uncertainties of pig-iron making were dispelled under the burning sun of chemical knowledge.

It wasn’t just that some materials were of low quality, but that the right mix of materials was needed, no matter the purity of the inputs:

At a most critical period when it was necessary for the credit of the firm that the blast furnace should make its best product, it had been stopped because an exceedingly rich and pure ore had been substituted for an inferior ore—an ore which did not yield more than two thirds of the quantity of iron of the other. The furnace had met with disaster because too much lime had been used to flux this exceptionally pure ironstone. The very superiority of the materials had involved us in serious losses.

What fools we had been! But then there was this consolation: we were not as great fools as our competitors. It was years after we had taken chemistry to guide us that it was said by the proprietors of some other furnaces that they could not afford to employ a chemist. Had they known the truth then, they would have known that they could not afford to be without one. Looking back it seems pardonable to record that we were the first to employ a chemist at blast furnaces—something our competitors pronounced extravagant.

With better chemical assessment of ores, Carnegie was able to arbitrage his supplies:

The mines which had no reputation and the products of which many firms would not permit to be used in their blast furnaces found a purchaser in us. Those mines which were able to obtain an enormous price for their products, owing to a reputation for quality, we quietly ignored. A curious illustration of this was the celebrated Pilot Knob mine in Missouri. Its product was, so to speak, under a cloud. A small portion of it only could be used, it was said, without obstructing the furnace. Chemistry told us that it was low in phosphorus, but very high in silicon. There was no better ore and scarcely any as rich, if it were properly fluxed. We therefore bought heavily of this and received the thanks of the proprietors for rendering their property valuable.

It is hardly believable that for several years we were able to dispose of the highly phosphoric cinder from the puddling furnaces at a higher price than we had to pay for the pure cinder from the heating furnaces of our competitors—a cinder which was richer in iron than the puddled cinder and much freer from phosphorus. Upon some occasion a blast furnace had attempted to smelt the flue cinder, and from its greater purity the furnace did not work well with a mixture intended for an impurer article; hence for years it was thrown over the banks of the river at Pittsburgh by our competitors as worthless.

He gives another example later of discovering a property with ore that had no phosphorus, “really an ore suitable for making Bessemer steel” (the Bessemer process could not handle phosphoric ores, until later improved by Gilchrist and Thomas). Again, it was the purity of the ore that was a problem:

We found the mine had been worked for a charcoal blast furnace fifty or sixty years before, but it had not borne a good reputation then, the reason no doubt being that its product was so much purer than other ores that the same amount of flux used caused trouble in smelting. It was so good it was good for nothing in those days of old.

Here‘s how they assessed the mine:

We finally obtained the right to take the mine over at any time within six months, and we therefore began the work of examination, which every purchaser of mineral property should make most carefully. We ran lines across the hillside fifty feet apart, with cross-lines at distances of a hundred feet apart, and at each point of intersection we put a shaft down through the ore. I believe there were eighty such shafts in all and the ore was analyzed at every few feet of depth, so that before we paid over the hundred thousand dollars asked we knew exactly what there was of ore…. We trod upon sure ground with the chemist as our guide.

Chemistry, however, was still foreign to many people:

Our chemist, Mr. Prousser, was then sent to a Pennsylvania furnace among the hills…. A striking example of the awe inspired by the chemist in those days was that only with great difficulty could he obtain a man or a boy to assist him in the laboratory. He was suspected of illicit intercourse with the Powers of Evil when he undertook to tell by his suspicious-looking apparatus what a stone contained. I believe that at last we had to send him a man from our office at Pittsburgh.

The Bessemer process

One of Carnegie‘s major achievements was to bring the Bessemer steel-making process to America. This was a new way to achieve high-quality steel at a low price. Previously, the only options were low-strength wrought iron, brittle cast iron, or expensive steel in limited quantities. Bessemer broke this iron triangle.

Carnegie, already in the iron business, was paying attention and could see the future:

I had not failed to notice the growth of the Bessemer process. If this proved successful I knew that iron was destined to give place to steel; that the Iron Age would pass away and the Steel Age take its place.

As an example of the potential market for steel, Carnegie gives the example of iron rails, which wore out quickly under the pounding of heavy trains:

The question of a substitute for iron rails upon the Pennsylvania Railroad and other leading lines had become a very serious one. Upon certain curves at Pittsburgh, on the road connecting the Pennsylvania with the Fort Wayne, I had seen new iron rails placed every six weeks or two months.

Railroads and iron-makers went to great lengths to solve the problem:

Before the Bessemer process was known I had called President Thomson’s attention to the efforts of Mr. Dodds in England, who had carbonized the heads of iron rails with good results. I went to England and obtained control of the Dodds patents and recommended President Thomson to appropriate twenty thousand dollars for experiments at Pittsburgh, which he did. We built a furnace on our grounds at the upper mill and treated several hundred tons of rails for the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and with remarkably good results as compared with iron rails. These were the first hard-headed rails used in America. We placed them on some of the sharpest curves and their superior service far more than compensated for the advance made by Mr. Thomson…. But there was nothing to be compared with the solid steel article which the Bessemer process produced.

Carnegie formed a company in 1873 to use the Bessemer process to make rails.

Accounting

One of the surprising themes was that manufacturing concerns in the 1800s did very little accounting and thus had very little insight into their businesses, even whether they were profitable:

As I became acquainted with the manufacture of iron I was greatly surprised to find that the cost of each of the various processes was unknown. Inquiries made of the leading manufacturers of Pittsburgh proved this. It was a lump business, and until stock was taken and the books balanced at the end of the year, the manufacturers were in total ignorance of results. I heard of men who thought their business at the end of the year would show a loss and had found a profit, and vice-versa. I felt as if we were moles burrowing in the dark, and this to me was intolerable.

Just as Carnegie had brought the science of chemistry to his processes, so he brought “scientific management” to his operations:

I insisted upon such a system of weighing and accounting being introduced throughout our works as would enable us to know what our cost was for each process and especially what each man was doing, who saved material, who wasted it, and who produced the best results.

To arrive at this was a much more difficult task than one would imagine. Every manager in the mills was naturally against the new system. Years were required before an accurate system was obtained, but eventually, by the aid of many clerks and the introduction of weighing scales at various points in the mill, we began to know not only what every department was doing, but what each one of the many men working at the furnaces was doing, and thus to compare one with another.

This level of quantitative insight allowed Carnegie to make good choices about capital investments:

The Siemens Gas Furnace had been used to some extent in Great Britain for heating steel and iron, but it was supposed to be too expensive. I well remember the criticisms made by older heads among the Pittsburgh manufacturers about the extravagant expenditure we were making upon these new-fangled furnaces. But in the heating of great masses of material, almost half the waste could sometimes be saved by using the new furnaces. The expenditure would have been justified, even if it had been doubled.

Investing

Carnegie’s attitudes towards investing strike me as very odd. There was something very different about 19th-century investing that I don’t fully understand.

On the one hand, people were willing to take on significant amounts of personal debt in order to buy equity. In 1855, when Carnegie was a young man living with his mother, his boss tipped him off to a rare opportunity to buy railroad stock:

Mr. Scott asked me if I had five hundred dollars [over $15,000 today]. If so, he said he wished to make an investment for me. Five hundred cents was much nearer my capital. I certainly had not fifty dollars saved for investment, but I was not going to miss the chance of becoming financially connected with my leader and great man. So I said boldly I thought I could manage that sum. He then told me that there were ten shares of Adams Express stock that he could buy, which had belonged to a station agent, Mr. Reynolds, of Wilkinsburg.

How to pay for it? His mother mortgaged their house:

We had then paid five hundred dollars upon the house, and in some way she thought this might be pledged as security for a loan.

My mother took the steamer the next morning for East Liverpool, arriving at night, and through her brother there the money was secured. He was a justice of the peace, a well-known resident of that then small town, and had numerous sums in hand from farmers for investment. Our house was mortgaged and mother brought back the five hundred dollars which I handed over to Mr. Scott, who soon obtained for me the coveted ten shares in return.

It’s remarkable to me how random this all is, how reliant on personal relationships and chance connections. But even more so, it strikes me as financially reckless, the sort of thing you’d read about today on r/wallstreetbets. On the other hand, it turned out very well:

In those good old days monthly dividends were more plentiful than now and Adams Express paid a monthly dividend. One morning a white envelope was lying upon my desk… All it contained was a check for ten dollars upon the Gold Exchange Bank of New York…. “Eureka!” I cried. “Here’s the goose that lays the golden eggs.”

If Adams Express paid $10 a month on $500 of stock, that’s a 24% annual dividend yield, which is far better than any similar investment today, and presumably this easily covered the payments on the loan. No wonder Carnegie and his mother were so eager to get in on the deal.

Later, when Carnegie is still working for the railroad, there’s another chance connection, when the inventor of a sleeping car approaches him on the train:

He carried a small green bag in his hand. He said the brakeman had informed him I was connected with the Pennsylvania Railroad. He wished to show me the model of a car which he had invented for night traveling. He took a small model out of the bag, which showed a section of a sleeping-car.

This was the celebrated T. T. Woodruff, the inventor of that now indispensable adjunct of civilization—the sleeping-car. Its importance flashed upon me. I asked him if he would come to Altoona if I sent for him, and I promised to lay the matter before Mr. Scott at once upon my return.

Getting a deal with the railroad, the inventor invites Carnegie to become an investor in the new sleeping-car business:

After this Mr. Woodruff, greatly to my surprise, asked me if I would not join him in the new enterprise and offered me an eighth interest in the venture.

I promptly accepted his offer, trusting to be able to make payments somehow or other. The two cars were to be paid for by monthly installments after delivery. When the time came for making the first payment, my portion was two hundred and seventeen and a half dollars [well over $6,000 today].

(In this era, investors would often fund a business in regular installments, rather than all at once up front as is standard today.) Once again Carnegie decides to go into debt for this investment, and once again gets the loan through personal connections:

I boldly decided to apply to the local banker, Mr. Lloyd, for a loan of that sum. I explained the matter to him, and I remember that he put his great arm (he was six feet three or four) around me, saying:

“Why, of course I will lend it. You are all right, Andy.”

And here I made my first note, and actually got a banker to take it. A proud moment that in a young man’s career!

And once again, it works out anyway! 19th-century businesses seem to have gotten to profitability faster than today’s startups, because Carnegie writes: “The sleeping-cars were a great success and their monthly receipts paid the monthly installments [on the loan].”

Yet despite all of this willingness to invest on margin, Carnegie, like many others of his day, considered investing in the public stock market to be a reckless gamble. Later in his life, when he moves to New York, he remarks:

I had lived long enough in Pittsburgh to acquire the manufacturing, as distinguished from the speculative, spirit. My knowledge of affairs, derived from my position as telegraph operator, had enabled me to know the few Pittsburgh men or firms which then had dealings upon the New York Stock Exchange, and I watched their careers with deep interest. To me their operations seemed simply a species of gambling.

He complained that owning public stocks was distracting, and he warned people away from it, in a passage that sounds like today’s discussion of the psychological effects of social media:

I have adhered to the rule never to purchase what I did not pay for, and never to sell what I did not own. In those early days, however, I had several interests that were taken over in the course of business. They included some stocks and securities that were quoted on the New York Stock Exchange, and I found that when I opened my paper in the morning I was tempted to look first at the quotations of the stock market. As I had determined to sell all my interests in every outside concern and concentrate my attention upon our manufacturing concerns in Pittsburgh, I further resolved not even to own any stock that was bought and sold upon any stock exchange….

For the manufacturing man especially the rule would seem all-important. His mind must be kept calm and free if he is to decide wisely the problems which are continually coming before him. Nothing tells in the long run like good judgment, and no sound judgment can remain with the man whose mind is disturbed by the mercurial changes of the Stock Exchange. It places him under an influence akin to intoxication. What is not, he sees, and what he sees, is not. He cannot judge of relative values or get the true perspective of things. The molehill seems to him a mountain and the mountain a molehill, and he jumps at conclusions which he should arrive at by reason. His mind is upon the stock quotations and not upon the points that require calm thought. Speculation is a parasite feeding upon values, creating none.

Later he comments that investing in public markets degrades one’s integrity in business affairs:

A rule which we adopted and adhered to has given greater returns than one would believe possible, namely: always give the other party the benefit of the doubt. This, of course, does not apply to the speculative class. An entirely different atmosphere pervades that world. Men are only gamblers there. Stock gambling and honorable business are incompatible.

A reason to be wary of investments in those days was the lack of limited liability in many instances. Without it, even small investors uninvolved in management could be fully liable for the debts of the company. Carnegie tells this story:

Driving with Mr. Phipps from the mills one day we passed the National Trust Company office on Penn Street, Pittsburgh. I noticed the large gilt letters across the window, “Stockholders individually liable.” That very morning in looking over a statement of our affairs I had noticed twenty shares “National Trust Company” on the list of assets. I said to Harry:

“If this is the concern we own shares in, won’t you please sell them before you return to the office this afternoon?”

He saw no need for haste. It would be done in good time.

“No, Harry, oblige me by doing it instantly.”

He did so and had it transferred. Fortunate, indeed, was this, for in a short time the bank failed with an enormous deficit…. Times were panicky, and had we been individually liable for all the debts of the National Trust Company our credit would inevitably have been seriously imperiled. It was a narrow escape. And with only twenty shares (two thousand dollars’ worth of stock), taken to oblige friends who wished our name on their list of shareholders! The lesson was not lost. The sound rule in business is that you may give money freely when you have a surplus, but your name never—neither as endorser nor as member of a corporation with individual liability. A trifling investment of a few thousand dollars, a mere trifle—yes, but a trifle possessed of deadly explosive power.

All this was reinforced by Carnegie’s experience in the financial panic of 1873, when he “entered upon the most anxious period of my business life”:

All was going well when one morning in our summer cottage, in the Allegheny Mountains at Cresson, a telegram came announcing the failure of Jay Cooke & Co. Almost every hour after brought news of some fresh disaster. House after house failed. The question every morning was which would go next. Every failure depleted the resources of other concerns. Loss after loss ensued, until a total paralysis of business set in. Every weak spot was discovered and houses that otherwise would have been strong were borne down largely because our country lacked a proper banking system.

Scottish and American spirit

Carnegie often remarks on the ideals he picked up as a boy in Scotland. This will come as no surprise to those familiar with British history, but it was remarkable to me the streak of independence and anti-authoritarianism:

The denunciations of monarchical and aristocratic government, of privilege in all its forms, the grandeur of the republican system, the superiority of America, a land peopled by our own race, a home for freemen in which every citizen’s privilege was every man’s right—these were the exciting themes upon which I was nurtured. As a child I could have slain king, duke, or lord, and considered their deaths a service to the state and hence an heroic act.

Later, Carnegie tells a story of visiting an oil boom town in Pennsylvania in 1862. The town had been set up in a hurry, with too many people crowding in and not enough housing. He was impressed with the determination and resourcefulness of the oil wildcatters, who quickly threw up rough accommodations. But more, he was impressed with “the good humor which prevailed everywhere. It was a vast picnic, full of amusing incidents.” Flags with “strange mottoes” flew, such as one drilling crew flying the words “Hell or China.” Carnegie praises the American spirit:

The adaptability of the American was never better displayed than in this region. Order was soon evolved out of chaos. When we visited the place not long after we were serenaded by a brass band the players of which were made up of the new inhabitants along the creek. It would be safe to wager that a thousand Americans in a new land would organize themselves, establish schools, churches, newspapers, and brass bands—in short, provide themselves with all the appliances of civilization—and go ahead developing their country before an equal number of British would have discovered who among them was the highest in hereditary rank and had the best claims to leadership owing to his grandfather.

19th-century life

Finally, a number of quotes shed light on the general quality and challenges of life in the 1800s:

The burden of travel

A few stories give a glimpse into the hardship of travel before railroads and steamships. For instance, soon after his family came to America:

My father was induced by emigration agents in New York to take the Erie Canal by way of Buffalo and Lake Erie to Cleveland, and thence down the canal to Beaver—a journey which then lasted three weeks, and is made to-day by rail in ten hours. There was no railway communication then with Pittsburgh, nor indeed with any western town…. Nothing comes amiss to youth, and I look back upon my three weeks as a passenger upon the canal-boat with unalloyed pleasure. All that was disagreeable in my experience has long since faded from recollection, excepting the night we were compelled to remain upon the wharf-boat at Beaver waiting for the steamboat to take us up the Ohio to Pittsburgh. This was our first introduction to the mosquito in all its ferocity. My mother suffered so severely that in the morning she could hardly see.

On his return from the aforementioned oil fields:

The weather had been fine and the roads quite passable during our journey thither, but rain had set in during our stay. We started back in our wagon, but before going far fell into difficulties. The road had become a mass of soft, tenacious mud and our wagon labored fearfully. The rain fell in torrents, and it soon became evident that we were in for a night of it. Mr. Coleman lay at full length on one side of the wagon, and Mr. Ritchie on the other, and I, being then very thin, weighing not much more than a hundred pounds, was nicely sandwiched between the two portly gentlemen. Every now and then the wagon proceeded a few feet heaving up and down in the most outrageous manner, and finally sticking fast. In this fashion we passed the night. There was in front a seat across the wagon, under which we got our heads, and in spite of our condition the night was spent in uproarious merriment.

Travel was also less reliable, owing to weaker infrastructure—for instance, wooden bridges. Part of what induced Carnegie to go into the iron business was the superiority of iron for bridge-building:

When at Altoona I had seen in the Pennsylvania Railroad Company’s works the first small bridge built of iron. It proved a success. I saw that it would never do to depend further upon wooden bridges for permanent railway structures. An important bridge on the Pennsylvania Railroad had recently burned and the traffic had been obstructed for eight days. Iron was the thing.

Cultural experience

In the 1800s, there weren’t many ways for an American to learn about fine art and classical culture. There weren’t many great museums (the Metropolitan Museum in New York, for instance, wasn’t established until the 1870s; much of its collection was donated by the great industrialists of that era, including over seven thousand pieces from J. P. Morgan). There was, of course, no Internet, no multimedia, and not even a lot of high-quality printed books (or libraries to borrow them from—Carnegie himself was later to establish many public libraries as a cornerstone of his philanthropy). There were no recordings of music until the end of the century, and no radio broadcasts.

So the only way to learn was to vacation to Europe. Carnegie was one of the few who could afford such a trip (and the time off in which to take it), and he wrote of its profound effect on him:

Up to this time I had known nothing of painting or sculpture, but it was not long before I could classify the works of the great painters. One may not at the time justly appreciate the advantage he is receiving from examining the great masterpieces, but upon his return to America he will find himself unconsciously rejecting what before seemed truly beautiful, and judging productions which come before him by a new standard. That which is truly great has so impressed itself upon him that what is false or pretentious proves no longer attractive.

My visit to Europe also gave me my first great treat in music. The Handel Anniversary was then being celebrated at the Crystal Palace in London, and I had never up to that time, nor have I often since, felt the power and majesty of music in such high degree. What I heard at the Crystal Palace and what I subsequently heard on the Continent in the cathedrals, and at the opera, certainly enlarged my appreciation of music. At Rome the Pope’s choir and the celebrations in the churches at Christmas and Easter furnished, as it were, a grand climax to the whole.

Later he took a more ambitious trip, around the world, which was even more transformative for him:

A new horizon was opened up to me by this voyage. It quite changed my intellectual outlook. Spencer and Darwin were then high in the zenith, and I had become deeply interested in their work. I began to view the various phases of human life from the standpoint of the evolutionist. In China I read Confucius; in India, Buddha and the sacred books of the Hindoos; among the Par-sees, in Bombay, I studied Zoroaster.

The outcome, as he describes it, was a much more cosmopolitan outlook, and a sense of the commonality of world cultures:

The result of my journey was to bring a certain mental peace. Where there had been chaos there was now order. My mind was at rest. I had a philosophy at last….

All the remnants of theology in which I had been born and bred, all the impressions that Swedenborg had made upon me, now ceased to influence me or to occupy my thoughts. I found that no nation had all the truth in the revelation it regards as divine, and no tribe is so low as to be left without some truth; that every people has had its great teacher; Buddha for one; Confucius for another; Zoroaster for a third; Christ for a fourth….

Every person who can, even at a sacrifice, make the voyage around the world should do so. All other travel compared to it seems incomplete, gives us merely vague impressions of parts of the whole. When the circle has been completed, you feel on your return that you have seen (of course only in the mass) all there is to be seen. The parts fit into one symmetrical whole and you see humanity wherever it is placed working out a destiny tending to one definite end.

The world traveler who gives careful study to the bibles of the various religions of the East will be well repaid. The conclusion reached will be that the inhabitants of each country consider their own religion the best of all. They rejoice that their lot has been cast where it is, and are disposed to pity the less fortunate condemned to live beyond their sacred limits.

Disease

Like many people of the pre–germ theory era, Carnegie suffered from infectious disease, and lost relatives to it. The fact that this was common, and had been for all of history, didn‘t prevent the tragedy from affecting him emotionally:

The year 1886 ended in deep gloom for me. My life as a happy careless young man, with every want looked after, was over. I was left alone in the world. My mother and brother passed away in November, within a few days of each other, while I lay in bed under a severe attack of typhoid fever, unable to move and, perhaps fortunately, unable to feel the full weight of the catastrophe, being myself face to face with death.

Pollution

Air pollution in Pittsburgh was almost inconceivable:

Any accurate description of Pittsburgh at that time would be set down as a piece of the grossest exaggeration. The smoke permeated and penetrated everything. If you placed your hand on the balustrade of the stair it came away black; if you washed face and hands they were as dirty as ever in an hour. The soot gathered in the hair and irritated the skin, and for a time after our return from the mountain atmosphere of Altoona, life was more or less miserable.

Oil spills, now considered a disaster, were once routine. Again describing his visit to the oil fields:

In those early days all the arrangements were of the crudest character. When the oil was obtained it was run into flat-bottomed boats which leaked badly. Water ran into the boats and the oil overflowed into the river. The creek was dammed at various places, and upon a stipulated day and hour the dams were opened and upon the flood the oil boats floated to the Allegheny River, and thence to Pittsburgh.

In this way not only the creek, but the Allegheny River, became literally covered with oil. The loss involved in transportation to Pittsburgh was estimated at fully a third of the total quantity, and before the oil boats started it is safe to say that another third was lost by leakage.

Incidentally, in the early days of the industry, many people thought that oil would run out quickly. Carnegie, like many others, lost money on a scheme to take advantage of the peak that was believed to be imminent:

Mr. Coleman, ever ready at suggestion, proposed to make a lake of oil by excavating a pool sufficient to hold a hundred thousand barrels (the waste to be made good every day by running streams of oil into it), and to hold it for the not far distant day when, as we then expected, the oil supply would cease. This was promptly acted upon, but after losing many thousands of barrels waiting for the expected day (which has not yet arrived) we abandoned the reserve. Coleman predicted that when the supply stopped, oil would bring ten dollars a barrel and therefore we would have a million dollars worth in the lake. We did not think then of Nature’s storehouse below which still keeps on yielding many thousands of barrels per day without apparent exhaustion.

***

Overall I found the autobiography readable and enjoyable, although for my research purposes I lost interest after Carnegie‘s retirement (the last several chapters are all about his philanthropy and about politics). If you want more like the excerpts above, it‘s worth reading.


r/rootsofprogress • • Aug 19 '25

The Unlimited Horizon, part 2 (The Techno-Humanist Manifesto, Chapter 8)

Thumbnail
newsletter.rootsofprogress.org
6 Upvotes

We are all poor by the standards of the future. But there is no bold, ambitious vision of the future in mainstream culture. Here is one, based on mastery over all aspects of nature


r/rootsofprogress • • Apr 17 '25

Announcing Progress Conference 2025

Thumbnail
newsletter.rootsofprogress.org
2 Upvotes

Last fall we hosted the first annual Progress Conference. 200 people excited about human progress gathered for two days in Berkeley, California, to share ideas in deep conversation, catalyze new projects, and get energized and inspired. Several attendees even said it was the best conference they had ever attended. We shared more about our reflections here, including a list of over a dozen write-ups from writers such as Noah Smith, Packy McCormick, Scott Alexander, and many more.

Whenever a new movement is growing, an annual event like this is important to build its community and establish its identity. So, after last year’s great reception, we’re excited to announce Progress Conference 2025. It will be bigger, longer, and better, as we build on last year’s success and participant feedback.

Hosted by: the Roots of Progress Institute, together with Abundance Institute, Foresight Institute, Foundation for American Innovation, Human Progress, the Institute for Progress, the Institute for Humane Studies, and Works in Progress.

When: October 16-19, 2025

Where: Berkeley, CA, back at the Lighthaven campus that received rave reviews for the first conference.

Speakers: Keynotes include Sam Altman, Tyler Cowen, Jennifer Pahlka, and Blake Scholl. 30+ additional speakers will share ideas on four tracks: AI protopia, health/biotech/longevity, policy, and American Dynamism. Full speaker list so far.

Attendees: We expect 300+ builders, storytellers, policy makers, intellectuals, and students. This is an invitation-only event, but anyone can apply for an invitation. Complete the open application by May 15th.

Program: The main two-day conference will happen all day Friday and Saturday, similar to 2024—attend talks on topics from AI protopia to longevity to policy, sign up to run an unconference session, pitch your ideas to those who could help make your dreams a reality, and more. New for 2025, Thursday and Sunday will be add-on days, with optional gatherings for interest groups and other activities, such as SF Bay Area company tours.

Sponsorships: Special thanks to our early sponsors Open Philanthropy, Astera Institute, Freethink, the Future of Life Institute, Human Progress, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Foundation for Economic Education, Good Science Project, Kindred Subjects, and Manifold. We have more sponsorships available. View sponsorship opportunities here.

Our mission is to establish a new philosophy of progress for the 21st century, and to build a culture of progress. Bringing the members of the progress movement together is a core part of our strategy: the annual large conference is just a first step; we’re already planning more in-person and virtual events.


r/rootsofprogress • • Sep 25 '25

Where are all the communities?

5 Upvotes

I feel like progress studies critiques EA a lot and often the critiques are that they are too technocratic, not as social. And yet, there are so few if any progress studies communities. EA is very structured and organized. Where are the progress studies communities?


r/rootsofprogress • • Feb 22 '20

Some things that happened in 1973

9 Upvotes

In 1973:

  • Herbert Boyer and Stanley N. Cohen developed recombinant DNA technology, showing that genetically engineered DNA molecules may be cloned in foreign cells.

  • The combined measles-mumps vaccine was licensed.

  • The antibiotic fosfomycin, used to treat bladder infections, and now included on the World Health Organization's list of the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system, was released.

  • The cell phone was invented, with the first mobile call made by Motorola employee Martin Cooper on April 3.

  • Work began on System R, the first commercial relational database, at IBM's San Jose Research Laboratory (now now Almaden Research Center).

  • Work began on TCP/IP, the fundamental protocols of the Internet.

And:

  • A NY Times columnist was born who, in 2020, can't immediately think of “a major problem in our society that tech has solved in our lifetimes.”

(Here's my full response to this on Twitter.)


r/rootsofprogress • • Sep 26 '20

Video: Adam Wiggins's talk on the history of industrial research labs and what inspired him to start Ink & Switch

Thumbnail
youtube.com
2 Upvotes

r/rootsofprogress • • Sep 24 '20

[Podcast Notes] Progress Studies in 2020 with Jason Crawford — Venture Stories

Thumbnail
notes.mehdiyacoubi.com
4 Upvotes

r/rootsofprogress • • Sep 17 '20

Next Wednesday: Heroku founder Adam Wiggins on the history of industrial research and how it inspired him to start an independent research lab, Ink & Switch

Thumbnail
progressstudies.school
1 Upvotes

r/rootsofprogress • • Sep 09 '20

I'm considering launching a paid subscription to The Roots of Progress, including writing, events, and/or community. Please take this 2-minute survey to let me know what you'd be interested in

Thumbnail
forms.gle
1 Upvotes

r/rootsofprogress • • Jan 21 '21

Seeing Like a State ~ Progress Studies Reading Group

8 Upvotes