From: Dave Long (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 18 2000 - 00:01:14 PST
> I think the Economist conveniently renamed 'colonialization' with 'economic
> growth' as the main engine of progress for the past 500 years.
Interesting point. Anyone on the list know much about the
establishment of the Raj? My impression is that europeans, the
brits in particular, and Clive in very particular, were able to
overrun the Indian subcontinent due to their advances both in the
military-industrial complex and in the bureaucratic obscuration of
| And so conditioned to growth have people become that most westerners
| now expect their standard of living to improve automatically year by
| year; if it does not, something is wrong.
Errrrr -- to what standard of living does the article refer? I am
not so sure my standard of living is automatically better than it
would have been thirty years ago, nor even a century ago. If I
really stretch it, I can imagine that a millenium or two might not
make a good deal of difference. Ancient Alexandria was probably
sufficiently cosmopolitan to have been gemuetlich.
(I do agree a bit with Gould's opposing viewpoint: people have a
bathtub failure curve, and we've certainly made great progress in
improving conditions for the very young and very old over the last
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 19 2000 - 15:03:10 PST