CMV: Everything that is worth doing was likely done poorly for 99% of recorded history.

As a teenager, I remember learning about plows. I thought it wasn't that big of a deal. I then read a book that said that most likely, plows were originally sharpened stones and sticks 6,000 years ago. During the bronze age, the bronze plow was invented, which was likely a bronze sharp stone or stick stuck into a piece of rotting wood. During the iron age, we got iron plows, which were likely a poorly sharpened sharp iron slab sticking out of a piece of rotting wood that needed to be replaced every 3 harvests because the wood wasn't treated. I am sure that plows were not perfect until the start of the 20th century.<br><br>Similarly, everything that is worth doing was likely done poorly for 99% of recorded history. Plows, printing, guns, medicine, cars, food science, and even education was likely done poorly for most of human history. It was not until the last 50 years that we got things done really really right. <br><br>**Therefore, we should have a healthy disregard for the "ways things have always been done."**<br><br>This is true for anything that is important for humanity to do, and it also applies for anything that is worth doing in your life. **We should be brutally honest with ourselves when evaluating our current methods of doing things.**<br><br>I love history, but why on earth would we use the methods of our forebears? And why should we be true to ourselves all the time? Is it good to disregard the ways things have always been done in fields like medicine, engineering, and business? Is that moving us backwards?<br><br>***by the way:*** I wrote this in 10 minutes, so some of it is going to be disorganized, I am sure. However, I have always found these kinds of discussions to be incredibly stimulating so I am happy to chat with you all :) <br><br>***EDIT:*** Wow, this got a lot more attention than I thought it would! Thank you all for your thoughtful comments :) <br><br>I will first address the contention that "what is worth doing has likely been done poorly for 99% of recorded history" is a tautology. i.e., that anything worth doing probably has a history that starts off in shittiness. This is a good point, and I probably articulated this concept poorly. I simply meant to say that this is true for virtually *every* important thing that humans have done. I can't think of anything that didn't have a shit beginning. I would love examples of things that were "done right the first time" if you have any :) <br><br>Secondly, some people said that I was saying that the past has no utility. I am 100% not saying this. History has a ton of utility in that it inform us on what not to do, and what should be avoided. I would never recommend throwing out all history books and historical knowledge. And yes, there is wisdom to be gained from our forebears, but that doesn't mean that I should make decisions that are informed by nothing but tradition. Example: If you are a doctor, you should be aware of the various stages of modern medicine, including bloodletting and lobotomies. However, just because your father was a neurosurgeon and he was an expert at lobotomies does not mean that you should do lobotomies as well. In fact, our forebears were often wrong about everything :) <br><br>Thirdly, some people have recommended books that have been written about this subject, and I would love to check them out! I will try to get to them eventually :) <br><br>Fourth, I was surprised by the number of comments that were like "why is this a CMV? This is obviously true." I figured that there would be more resistance to this idea, because I have met so many people who are afraid to experiment and try new things because they fear that they are being disloyal to tradition. I do not think that this is true at all, and I would say that this is the norm for most people in my life. However, I guess that I am on chambers and not at church, so of course you guys are going to be on board with this idea :) <br><br>Fifth, I got a lot of comments saying that this view is simply called progressivism. However, I would say that progressivism is a political philosophy that has nothing to do with the general idea that "what is worth doing was likely done poorly for 99% of recorded history." I would say that the philosophy of progressivism is closest to the second claim, which is that "we should have a healthy disregard for the 'ways things have always been done.'" Perhaps a better title would be "CMV: humanity was likely wrong about most things 99% of the time, and we rarely get things right the first time." <br><br>Finally, I got a lot of comments that were like "CMV: we should have a healthy disregard for the 'ways things have always been done' for anything that is worth doing." I think that I articulated poorly the first claim that I made, which was "what is worth doing has likely been done poorly for 99% of recorded history." I think that I should have said something closer to "humanity was likely wrong about most things 99% of the time, and we rarely get things right the first time."<br><br>**TL;DR:** I think that the past has a lot of wisdom to offer, but moving forward, we should be brutally honest with ourselves and look to the past for guidance, not for dogma. Everything that is worth doing was poorly done for most of human history, and it wasn't until the last 50 years that we were really able to do most things right. Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean that it is a good idea.