Perspective chauvinism: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{A|g| | {{A|g| | ||
{{Image|Transfagarasan|png|A [[metaphor]] for immutable progress of civilisation, yesterday.}} | {{Image|Transfagarasan|png|A [[metaphor]] for immutable progress of civilisation, yesterday.}} | ||
''The [[JC]]’s very own coinages {{tm}}''</br>}}{{d|Perspective chauvinism|/pəˈspɛktɪv ˈʃəʊvɪnɪzm/|}}our own term for the fallacy of judging obsolete tricks, technologies or ideologies by contemporary standards — evaluation criteria that, [[Q.E.D.]], weren’t relevant when the old technologies or ideas were in fashion. | ''The [[JC]]’s very own coinages {{tm}}''</br>}}{{d|Perspective chauvinism|/pəˈspɛktɪv ˈʃəʊvɪnɪzm/|n|}}our own term for the fallacy of judging obsolete tricks, technologies or ideologies by contemporary standards — evaluation criteria that, [[Q.E.D.]], weren’t relevant when the old technologies or ideas were in fashion. | ||
This is a little like being told, when you are being dumped, “it’s not you; it’s me” — the only difference being in this case (i) it is not disingenuous, but true, and therefore (ii) the dump ''er'' is therefore a lot less likely to ''say'' it. | This is a little like being told, when you are being dumped, “it’s not you; it’s me” — the only difference being in this case (i) it is not disingenuous, but true, and therefore (ii) the dump ''er'' is therefore a lot less likely to ''say'' it. | ||
Revision as of 05:00, 13 August 2022
|
The JC’s very own coinages ™
|
Perspective chauvinism
/pəˈspɛktɪv ˈʃəʊvɪnɪzm/ (n.)
our own term for the fallacy of judging obsolete tricks, technologies or ideologies by contemporary standards — evaluation criteria that, Q.E.D., weren’t relevant when the old technologies or ideas were in fashion.
This is a little like being told, when you are being dumped, “it’s not you; it’s me” — the only difference being in this case (i) it is not disingenuous, but true, and therefore (ii) the dump er is therefore a lot less likely to say it.
Judged by such an arbitrary standard, outmoded technologies will, the older they get, necessarily seem more and more primitive and useless: the history of design will seem to lead inexorably to right here, right now. This in turn will create the impression, not easily dispelled, that human progress has been slow, steady, relentless march towards a perfect Platonic ideal, and any imperfection in our current locale is simply a reflection that, however far we have come, we are not there yet. We are but hobbits, on the way to Mt. Doom.
This does prompt questions, though. And doesn’t it seem a bit goal oriented? What are we going to to when we get there?
But this is not the lesson of evolution. The environment changes dynamically and capriciously, and by survival of the fittest, the prevailing community adapts to it. We are part of the environment, and as we change, so does the environment, and fitness criteria shift. But not in any particular direction. Evolution develops away from an unfit present state, not towards an ideal future one.
So it isn’t that we are progressing ever more quickly onward, but the place whence we have come falls exponentially further away as our technology meanders, like a perpetually deflating balloon, through design space. Our rate of progress doesn’t change; our discarded technologies simply seem more and more irrelevant through time.