Epistemological theories show how the present can be observed. They describe how concepts, systems and perspectives function, how meaning emerges and how reality is organised. They explain the conditions under which something appears as reality in the first place. But they do not yet tell us whether something counts as progress.
Progress is not a neutral concept. It requires a scale against which it can be measured. And every scale is a decision about what counts and what does not.
Time is one possible scale. It is new, therefore it is progressive. Yet novelty alone is no guarantee of improvement. Something can be new and still represent a step backwards.
Power is another scale. More control, greater capacity to steer events. But from whose perspective? More power for whom—and over whom? What appears as progress for one system may represent coercion for another.
Wealth is another. Higher GDP, greater material prosperity. Yet the debates about progress beyond gross domestic product have long shown that economic indicators capture only part of what people understand as a good life. They measure what is easy to count, not necessarily what is most important.
There are attempts to define progress in terms of well-being, basic needs, opportunities or rights. These, too, are scales. None of them is neutral. Each already assumes what should count as better.
There is no universal measuring tape capable of capturing every perspective at once.
From a systems-theoretical perspective, progress can therefore only ever be described within a particular logic. A system develops its capacity to solve problems, process contradictions or create new possibilities for connection. That is meaningful—but it remains progress within that specific logic. A system may become increasingly effective at solving its own problems while simultaneously creating problems for other systems. Progress is therefore not immeasurable. It is partially measurable. Every scale makes something visible, but none makes everything visible.
And no scale is innocent.
Why I Draw a Boundary Anyway
One could conclude from this that every scale stands on equal footing with every other and that every decision is ultimately arbitrary. That would be convenient, but it would overlook one crucial point: refusing to choose a standard is itself a decision. It merely appears more neutral than it actually is.
I therefore consciously choose one particular scale: humanity.
This does not mean that I consider time, power or wealth unimportant. Quite the opposite. They describe real dynamics of the world. Time passes, power continually reorganises itself, and economic processes follow their own internal logics. Anyone who wants to understand why societies change cannot ignore them. Simply leaving them out would make reality poorer, not clearer.
But for me they still do not answer the question of why a development should count as progress at all.
Time tells us that something comes later, not whether it is better.
Power describes who gains influence, not whether that influence serves human beings.
Wealth shows that possibilities increase, not what they are used for.
That is why I keep these scales in view without considering them sufficient. I want to supplement each of them with one further question:
What does this development mean for human beings?
That is where I place my emphasis. The question then becomes why I choose precisely this point—and the answer does not lie in this scale having a higher rank, but in its vulnerability. It does not sustain itself automatically. Not because humanity stands above the other scales, but because time, power and wealth unfold according to their own dynamics whether I approve of them or not. They require no advocate in order to become effective. Humanity, by contrast, cannot rely on becoming the standard by itself. It must continually be brought into the conversation and defended deliberately. So if I have to decide where to direct my attention, I choose what can easily disappear from view without that attention.
This is less a claim to a higher truth than a decision about where I choose to take responsibility.
What This Boundary Means – and What It Does Not
Such a decision does not make humanity an objective scale. It, too, is a perspective. It, too, depends on what is meant by dignity, well-being or freedom. These are matters that can—and should—be debated.
What is therefore not unambiguous is the interpretation of this scale.
What is unambiguous is my decision to use it.
Others will choose power as their standard. Others economic success or national strength. These, too, are decisions. For me, the difference is not that my choice is objectively more correct.
The difference is that I state it openly instead of presenting it as self-evident.
Progress without a measuring tape therefore does not mean that I have none.
It means that I know every measuring tape is chosen.
The real question is not whether we measure progress.
But what we choose to measure it against.
I have decided not to lose sight of the human being. Not because this decision is without alternatives. But because I believe that this is precisely the perspective that can so easily disappear.
Written on 30 July 2026 at 16:00. © 2026 Whisper7. All rights reserved.