Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Better DEAD than RED
Message-ID: <2133@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 13:47:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2133
Posted: Fri Jun 28 13:47:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 01:19:08 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5718@utzoo.UUCP>, <2101@watcgl.UUCP> <5739@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 66

> > One thing never agreed on in this discussion is: when do you start
> > measuring from?  Henry you seem to want to begin measuring before
> > full scale colonization; but how far back?
> 
> It's hard to say just when the rise of the West began; one can make a
> persuasive argument, I am told, for quite a bit of technological progress
> in medieval times.  Certainly the process was well underway by the time
> of the Renaissance.
> 
> > ...  Would the west have done
> > anything of major importance if they had limited themselves to, say,
> > europe?  The major force/power/whatever of the west today is the
> > US, a direct result of colonial oppression [against the Amerinds]...
> 
> Western Europe as a whole has just as big a GNP as the US, and could have
> just as much clout in world affairs if it could manage to act in unison.
 Perhaps this is another benefit of colonization; a huge, rich, land
 taken and controlled by (virtually) a single group.  Europes
 technological expertise (which is what we were talking about I think)
 has not enabled them to be a world power because the way europe runs
 "it's" society is the dominant factor.

> 
> > ...  Perhaps the extra
> > hour or more a day that someone had to cogitate because they had
> > a slave resulted in all sorts of new knowledge, techniques etc.
> 
> People who are living in Fat City -- e.g., owning slaves -- seldom are
> major sources of innovation and invention.  Having people to do the work
> for you means you think less, not more.

 If the work you are having them do for you is thought work then that is
 true but that is obviously not what I was talking about.  Having
 someone to do the grungy/menial/physical work for you (even if it
 is just providing the bare necessities and not "Fat City" stuff)
 may be all that gives you the opportunity to indulge in thought.

> 
> >  ...  I don't know the answer to these; although I have some
> >  opinions I don't think anyone can say what would have happened or
> >  how important a single facet was.
> 
> Inability to be certain != inability to know anything.
True. It does mean one should probably not state lossely supported
theories as fact though.

> 
> > Sure it's a non-zero sum game thats not the point though.  The
> > point (for me anyway) is: given the wealth that exists at any
> > given point in time - how is it distributed?, and  - how does
> > this distribution change with time? ...
> 
> Unfortunately, it *is* the point.  By asking "how does the distribution
> change with time" as the major question, you are assuming that relative
> levels of wealth are important and absolute levels are not.  The two are

Well perhaps we should just agree to disagree then because I think that
that is a very good indicator of a society's success.

> identical only if you assume a zero-sum game.  "The rich get richer and
> the poor get poorer" is only half the truth; the other half is "the rich
> get richer and so do the poor (although not as much)".  Most everyone in
> the Western nations today is richer than most anyone was 500 years ago,
> even though the distribution of total wealth is still very uneven.
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology