The problem with pure statistical analysis is that numbers never tell their own story, but I find this interesting nonetheless. I am also tentative about the use of the word "progress", as it tends to get loaded with a variety of assumptions. [HDYT]jbkSRLYSojo[/HDYT] This graph traces the history of GDP over 2,000 years. Interestingly China has been a high economic performer for most of last two millenia and had about 1/3 of the world's GDP in 1820. Had they chose capitalism after 1949, they would undoubtedly be even closer to the U.S. in terms of economic power.
It's funny to see the US come into play on that graph. saty, what do you mean by numbers not telling their own story because they are not subjective?
Yes they're numbers so they don't primarily serve a narrative function, although they are invaluable to the telling of stories in the realms of science, economics, etc. The U.S. eventually made the decision to follow England's footsteps and industrialized in the 19th century, which produced explosive economic growth moving forward. Interestingly Thomas Jefferson advocated an agrarian economy over an industrial one, because he felt that industrialization and crowded cities led to moral degeneracy. The agrarian track that the South remained on well into 20th century partially explains why they've underperformed economically in comparison to the North.
Based on what you said, I believe Jefferson was on the right path in his thinking. I believe a subsistence type if life style, is a simpler one, one closer to nature in which we were intended to live. I think we are advanced, but we should be advanced in more of Bio-mechanical sense, not a mechanical-bio way in which we are. does that make sense. Industrialization is going to lead to over population-to much economy; hence the income gap, global poverty, the recent food crisis, global warming etc. If indeed industrialization was the way to go, we have a long way to reach a happy medium.