Time’s Arrow (spirals)
The concept of time[4] is a funny thing. It’s foundational to our model of the world, so it’s precise details must have huge implications for thought and behavior, but I haven’t heard it discussed very often. This might be because most people assume that everyone’s conception of time is more or less the same, since it’s such an important and easily verifiable part of someone’s world model. And while I think that’s broadly true, there’s a narrow way in which I’d argue that it isn’t, which I think is consequential.
There are two main components to the experience of time. The first is the linear element. One thing happens, then the next, then the next, on and on, never to return whence it came. This aspect of the experience comes up when people age, when finite resources are consumed, when objects are made or destroyed. It deals with change, and is defined by irreversible processes.
The second is the cyclical element. Something happens. Then it happens again. And again (and again[5]). The earth circles the sun, the seasons pass and return, you wake up, grow tired, and sleep. The vast majority of human life, and in fact all life, is made up of repetitive actions. Every step and breath you take, every meal you eat, the words you choose, the way you pull on your clothes, the motions and mental processes used to drive a car, are rehearsed and repeated thousands of times over. There is a first and a last occurrence for everything, but most events are routine, most actions rehearsed dozens of times over at least. The cyclical deals with consistency, and is defined by repetitive processes.
While both elements are ubiquitous, it's possible for one to be more emphasized than the other. I, personally, lean very heavily towards a linear view. The modern world is basically unprecedented, and I think it’s very likely that the world as we know it will end, sooner than later, and that the exact way in which it does is more important than anything else in human history. And speaking from that viewpoint, there’s a definite temptation to see the cyclical view as concerned primarily with the past, while the linear looks forwards. In reality, I think they both concern themselves primarily with the future. The main distinction is between the types of events they deal with. The cyclical view deals with what might be considered normal circumstances. If you’ve encountered something several times before, then however important it is, you’re most likely using a cyclical approach, matching it to similar events you’ve encountered before and more or less copy-pasting a successful approach from the past into the current issues. The linear is focused more on uniquities. When in that frame, you’ll be more likely to operate from first principles, substituting analysis for experience insomuch as possible.
On the whole, I think the modern world is pretty great, including the mindset that goes with it. The problems and risks it creates are huge, to be sure, but the opportunities that come with them are worth it. However, that the overemphasis on singular and special events as opposed to maintenance and incremental motion through what might be considered ordinary time seems like a contributing factor in mismanagement of long term resources, and I think we could resolve that issue without losing much of what makes the rest of the system work. So how could we shift focus?
The linear, I think, is inevitably the central feature on the level of the individual, because of aging. This irreversible degeneration of self makes any single human life a distinctly linear endeavor, progressing swiftly towards a fixed end. As far as worldview goes, however, it seems more variable. For most of history, I suspect the cyclical view held more precedence here. True, most cultures across the world have always had creation myths, and many believed in something like an end time, but beyond that, things would have seemed, from the viewpoint of a single human life, fairly fixed. People died, but were replaced by their children, who were replaced by theirs in turn, and those children and grandchildren would lead lives and inhabit environments similar, though not identical, to that which came before. Nations would likewise rise and fall, but seem broadly similar in many cases to the ones that preceded them.
In the modern world, this is emphatically not the case. The runaway acceleration of social and technological processes that has characterized the last five centuries have led, especially in the last century, to people whose lives are nothing like that of their parents, whose lives were nothing like their parents, on back for several generations. This common experience has led to a radical shift, in the scientific and cultural consensus, towards linearity.
And to be fair, that shift isn’t all bad. Attempts at improving the world, not just by resolving a crisis or addressing some perceived degeneracy, but by attempting to alter the status quo, are challenging when working with a cyclical paradigm. A strictly linear model enables the one who has it, to a large extent, to break free of the past. In a worldview where the present and future are thoroughly divorced from the past, lack of precedent becomes immensely less relevant in determining what is likely to be possible.
In addition to discounting the past, a linear perspective also encourages a sense of destiny. If history is a series of irreversible changes, it becomes tempting to see the path it took as inevitable, with the world as on a track leading inexorably towards utopia/rapture/singularity/extinction. This is important: if the world is inevitably going to end, then the value of conservation, and all other forms of investment in the future, become very limited. And that has some decidedly non-academic implications about how one ought to behave, both as a person and as a society. If you think that the world can go on and on, it then behooves you both to invest heavily in the future, and to prioritize ensuring its long-term stability and integrity, minimizing the risk that everything could fall apart.
To be clear, it could well be the case that we are near the end, or an end, in which case sprinting for the finish line might be an absolutely appropriate course of action. But while global civilization has never, as far as we know, had a finals week or a busy season before, people encounter crunch times regularly, and I think some lessons can transfer. In particular, something I think most of us learned sometime in high school or college is that completely neglecting food, sleep, and other basic maintenance during a crisis is a recipe for falling asleep at school, or stumbling over your words throughout the presentation your boss asked for, or otherwise tripping at the finish line. We absolutely can and should respond decisively and urgently to the threats posed by artificial intelligence, climate change, nuclear devices, and whatever else might emerge.[6]
If a linear, grand-event oriented view of time and history is helpful to that, then for those purposes, I say more power to it. But continuing the high-school student metaphor, human civilization honestly seems like the kind of guy who doesn’t do a great job feeding or maintaining himself to begin with. And the focus on a grand arc of history does seem to draw attention away from the endless, repeating litany of chores that need doing. I sympathize with the impulse towards framing life as an epic. I sometimes feel like the modern world contains some conspiracy whose goal is to suck the grandeur and mythic significance from everything,[7] and honestly, an essay about focusing less on technological singularity and more on social institutions and road repair seems more like something those people would write than something I would. But even though building roads makes a much better story than fixing them, the repair is arguably more important. And since we do need to repair the roads, brush our teeth, and what-have you, I don’t think we ought to see the chores as tedium filling the space between plot-relevant events. Instead, conceive of them as links in an unending, spiraling chain of duty and tradition stretching back into prehistory and beyond. It’s more accurate, in my opinion, and more compelling to boot.