The relevant modern phrase for what you’re describing is ‘The arc of history’. There are many patterns to history, and many things you can/should learn from it, but there is no arc to it. The key things to learn are human nature an immensely large topic), and the nature of real improvements.
Small, local changes to things we personally understand and have responsibility for, as we go about our lives, are what cause improvement. This the key both to capitalism, and our own personal lives. Centralizing the planning enables things that look impressive, but prevents all of these small improvements that actually make things better. This is true both for systems, and our own personal lives. If they hold to their story, Individuals become dulled and broken too when pushing ahead without letting themselves adapt to the world as they find it.
‘The arc of history’ is definitely a problem within democracies too, and this fact seems to tie together the two segments of the piece. Based on your description, I think Popper fell a bit astray from his own advice, as he tried to centralize the planning to much himself. Atomization and alienation are not necessary parts of this openness and freedom. Communities can be spontaneously organized to allow both freedom and a sense of true belonging at the same time. The primary force against it is the belief that it can’t (or shouldn’t) happen.
On a side note, I would argue against increasing levels of specialization, as that causes people to lose touch with the ways they can improve their lives that do not lie in their specialization. Or, at least, I would argue everyone should be open to expanding outside of their specialties as the impetus arises.
The relevant modern phrase for what you’re describing is ‘The arc of history’. There are many patterns to history, and many things you can/should learn from it, but there is no arc to it. The key things to learn are human nature an immensely large topic), and the nature of real improvements.
Small, local changes to things we personally understand and have responsibility for, as we go about our lives, are what cause improvement. This the key both to capitalism, and our own personal lives. Centralizing the planning enables things that look impressive, but prevents all of these small improvements that actually make things better. This is true both for systems, and our own personal lives. If they hold to their story, Individuals become dulled and broken too when pushing ahead without letting themselves adapt to the world as they find it.
‘The arc of history’ is definitely a problem within democracies too, and this fact seems to tie together the two segments of the piece. Based on your description, I think Popper fell a bit astray from his own advice, as he tried to centralize the planning to much himself. Atomization and alienation are not necessary parts of this openness and freedom. Communities can be spontaneously organized to allow both freedom and a sense of true belonging at the same time. The primary force against it is the belief that it can’t (or shouldn’t) happen.
On a side note, I would argue against increasing levels of specialization, as that causes people to lose touch with the ways they can improve their lives that do not lie in their specialization. Or, at least, I would argue everyone should be open to expanding outside of their specialties as the impetus arises.