Chapter 2 Has There Been Progress? The Historical Record The history of civilization is the account of a progress which, in the short space of less than eight thousand years, has created nearly all that we regard as characteristic of human life. F. A. Hayek That there has been progress is obvious from the improvement in the basic conditions of mankind. Humans live longer, experience lower levels of morbidity, and suffer less infant mortality than at any time in history. They also enjoy more freedom than at any time since hunter- gatherer societies, which were probably quite restrictive for the eccentric; small groups often ostracize or otherwise make life difficult for non-conformists. Although inequality may have been less pronounced in primitive societies than in the modern world, it was the equality of poverty. This chapter will consider the progress over the long sweep of history. We will treat the human record in protecting human rights, fostering literacy and education, and providing for a safe, sanitary, and comfortable living standard. Although mankind has normally been cruel to other humans and has paid little attention to helping their fellow man, improvement in the well–being of ordinary men and women have occurred over the millenniums. Human Rights For centuries humans treated other humans inhumanely. Slavery, which has been common in most societies throughout recorded history, was legally abolished everywhere only in the twentieth century. Human sacrifice may have originated with the first agricultural people. Virtually all ancient religions killed large animals or humans in religious rites. The story of Abraham and his son, Isaac, in the Old Testament exemplifies the practice of human sacrifice among early Jews. The Chinese, Japanese, the Indians, and early Greeks and Romans put to death for religious reasons fellow humans. We now look with horror at the brutal record of the Aztec world. State Violence Putting aside religion, the state, which has usually asserted the right to monopolize weapons, has most likely been the most significant source of violence both domestically and internationally. For centuries state officials have oppressed their people, attacked neighboring territories, and repressed any dissent. Government use of torture against its own citizens, although declining, is still widespread. By international agreement, many nations of the world have tried to 1 prohibited national authorities from treating people brutally. The Helsinki Accords, the Atlantic Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are all twentieth century innovations reflecting modern concerns with the rights of man. Even countries that often violate contemporary norms take human rights seriously. Public opinion has become more sensitive to torture and wanton killing. A century or more ago, officials often whipped criminals or hanged them publicly. Only the nobility enjoyed the privilege of being executed in private; they could also elect to be beheaded rather than hanged. Today many nations have abolished capital punishment and those that keep it restrict its use to the most heinous of crimes and then normally execute the condemned in relative privacy. When the government publicly hangs a criminal as in Afghanistan in 1992, or has one stoned to death as in Saudi Arabia a few years ago, it makes headlines around the world and receives almost universal condemnation. Over the last few centuries, public opinion has become less callous. Alexis de Tocqueville quotes, for example, a letter written in 1675 by Mme. de Sévigné to her daughter (1988: vol. 2: 563): My word, dear daughter, how amusing your letter from Aix is! … So you have kissed the whole of Provence? … Do you want to hear the news from Rennes? … The day before yesterday, they [soldiers] broke on the wheel the fiddler who had started the dance and the stealing of stamped paper; he was quartered … and his limbs exposed at the four corners of the town … They have taken sixty townsmen and will start hanging them tomorrow. This province is a good example to the others, teaching them especially to respect the governors and their wives. Modern sensibilities find it is amazing that a woman of sensitivity would describe this to her daughter as if she were reporting on last night’s dinner. Tocqueville asserts that Mme. de Sévigné was not “a barbarous person; she was passionately fond of her children and showed herself very sensitive of the sorrows of her friends … she treated her vassals and servants with kindness and indulgence. But Mme. de Sévigné could not conceive clearly what it was like to suffer if one were not of noble birth.” The British navy in the eighteenth century dragooned (impressed) lower class males into a lifetime of slavery aboard military vessels. Other European countries also dragooned young men into the army. Today the British navy must attract recruits by offering competitive wages and working conditions; while those states that maintain compulsory service limit its active duration to a few years. Empires, imperialism, and simple mundane conquests of other countries have fallen out of fashion. The public in Western countries has become wary of war as an instrument of politics, and governments must make a strong case for limited aims to convince voters of its necessity. Violence has diminished even in the brutal twentieth century. Jared Diamond, UCLA Professor of 2 physiology, contends that a smaller proportion of the population of industrial states died in the savage twentieth century wars than perished from violence in stone age societies (1992: 4). In earlier centuries, the Gulf war would have resulted in the United States occupying and controlling much of the Middle East. Niceties such as securing U.N. authorization would have been considered irrelevant. In fact, the twentieth century invented the United Nations, its predecessor, the League of Nations, and international law. Although the history of mankind is one of almost constant warfare, a number of observers have claimed that these wars have promoted change and advancement for mankind. Without wars civilization would have stagnated. Robert Nisbet wrote recently (1989: 5): Without wars through the ages, and the contacts and intermixtures of peoples they — and for countless eons they alone — instigated, human would quite possibly be mired in the torpor and sloth, the fruits of cultural and mental isolation, with which its history begins. Before trade and commerce broke down cultural barriers and yielded crossbreeding of ideas as well as genetic systems, wars were the sole agencies of such crossbreeding. Individualism, so vital to creativity, was born of mingling of peoples, with their contrasting cultural codes — the very diversity aiding in the release of individuals from prior localism and parochialism, always the price of cultural insularity. … Despite its manifest illth, war, by the simple fact of the intellectual and social changes it instigates, yields results which are tonic to advancement. Nevertheless, warfare is apparently becoming less fashionable. According to professor of government Jack S. Levy, an expert on war, Europe enjoyed peace for only five years during the entire sixteenth century (1983: 139). By the nineteenth century, those same countries were at war just 40 percent of the time. Although the twentieth century has experienced more combat — Europe has been at war 53 percent of the time — the time devoted to fighting has preempt many fewer years than in earlier centuries. On the other hand, warfare appears to have become more violent, especially in the twentieth century. It is significant that there has been no major conflict involving the major powers since 1945. Modern warfare has become too horrible and destructive to be fought. Notwithstanding the limited years spend in warfare during the twentieth century compared to earlier eras, the record of man’s inhumanity to man raises questions about progress. The Holocaust, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Soviet Gulags, and Stalin’s deliberate mass starvation to force agricultural collectivism horrify the senses. Previous centuries provide few comparisons. In the Third Punic War, the Romans slaughtered 450,000 of the inhabitants of Carthage taking only 50,000 prisoners. The Mongols under Jenghiz Khan are said to have spent a week sacking, killing and burning the city of Herat, reportedly murdering 1,600,000 men, women, and children — a stunning number especially considering the size of the population early in the thirteenth century. William Manchester writing about the Spanish Inquisition asserts (1992: 3 35) that “If the pogroms of the time are less infamous than the Holocaust, it is only because anti- Semites then lacked twentieth-century technology. Certainly they possessed the evil will.” One of the factors that makes the Holocaust so horrible is that its was perpetrated not by a primitive warlord but by a modern, cultivated and sophisticated people who had bred Immanuel Kant, Johann Sebastian Bach, Carl Friedrich Gauss, and Friedrich von Schiller to list only a few. Moreover, the Germans executed their “final solution” with a frightening efficiency. I am tempted to dismiss the Nazi crimes as an aberration, but the twentieth century is littered with extraordinary cruelties and mass exterminations. At the same time, modern people are more sensitive to suffering and more willing to extend help to the less fortunate than were individuals of an earlier age. Power no longer exclusively “grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Without strong military forces, countries, such as Japan and Germany play major roles on the world scene. Industrial might is arguably now more important than military might. Trade, though it may seem contentious, benefits the world. Unlike military conflict, commerce is a positive sum game — that is, it produces benefits for all participants. Substituting trade “warfare” for military warfare represents real progress for mankind. The spread of constitutional republics has conferred benefits on individuals, that is it has brought progress to the human race. Democracies, which require that the government go to the voters periodically for validation, limit the violence which governmental authorities can inflict on their own people. Under freely elected governments, police violence declines, as do arbitrary arrests, torture, and coercion. Liberal states also limit international violence. Michael Doyle, a political scientist, ascertained that, over the last two hundred years, no liberal democracy, as he defined it, had gone to war with another such government. A number of countries that many would consider relatively democratic have engaged in hostilities: for example, both Great Britain and the United States had elected governments during the War of 1812, both sides in the American civil war enjoyed representative governments, and arguably Spain was democratic during the Spanish American War. Nevertheless, constitutional states rarely make war on each other. The concept of democracy has spread worldwide. Even countries that trample on their citizens’ rights and repress political liberalism feel called upon to style themselves “democracies” — such as the People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), or the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). When Eastern and Central Europe ousted forty years of communist tyranny, they did so in the name of democracy and moved quickly to validate that notion through contested elections. The former republics of the Soviet Union are all establishing what they characterize as democratic states. Although many “democracies” fail any reasonable definition of a liberal state — that is a society permitting a wide range of freedoms — the concept is powerful. More and more countries are moving in that direction. Only three nations — the United States, Switzerland, and France — 4 qualified for some period during the eighteenth century as liberal democracies (Fukuyama 1992: 49). By the second half of the nineteenth century 13 countries, at least part of the time, met the test. In the period 1900 to 1945, 29 governments, for some period, offered liberal institutions. From the end of World War II to 1982, a total of 50 independent nations enjoyed, for a few years at least, liberal democratic government. The number of states with popularly elected legislatures is still growing. This evolution stems in part from the perceived ability of liberal democracies to spur economic prosperity and growth — see chapters 5, 6, and 7 for a discussion on this point. In addition democracies enjoy a legitimacy absent from all other forms of government. Moreover, as mentioned above, democracies are much more likely to guarantee human rights and freedoms. Slavery and Discrimination Throughout the Western world and in parts of Asia and Latin America, human rights, freedom, and equality before the law have spread. Governments, prodded by popular opinion and civic groups, have launched strong efforts to stamp out discrimination and injustice. Reacting to the horrors of the Holocaust and Nazi concentration camps, the public has strongly rejected any hint of racism. The spread of egalitarian sentiments, which Alexis de Tocqueville recognized as early as 1830, has engendered a sharp reduction in inequality. For almost all of recorded history, the world has sanctioned slavery. Ancient Greece and Rome built their economies upon it. Today virtually all countries prohibit it, although some Moslem states are rumored to permit practices that resemble involuntary servitude. China, the last major country to sanction the practice, banned slavery in 1909 to encourage modernization of their economy (Chao 1986: 158). Slavery, which frequently inflicted harsh conditions on those without freedom, was common in ancient Rome and Greece. In Rome, slaves who were forced to be gladiators lived short lives. Serfs on very large estates, latifundia, were often chained and driven cruelly. If a helot killed his master, all of the slaves on the estate were sometimes crucified, although this practice is likely to have been rare given the value of live workers. Bondmen carried the rich in litters through the cities, to and from dinner parties, and even on trips of a day or two. Neither Christians nor others agitated to free the serfs, bondage being accepted as normal. Slavery continued until nineteenth century moralists moved to abolish it. Not only did the United States fight a very bloody war over the issue, but governments in Latin America and the Middle East legislated against the practice. Subsequently, haltingly, and too slowly, society has extended human rights to minorities. Since the Second World War, the United States government has sequentially prohibited discrimination in the workplace, public accommodations, and education on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, and handicapped status. Several states and communities have extended such prohibitions to sexual orientation, presence of children, and marital status. 5 Although feminists, and others championing equal rights, decry the failure of women to reach the highest levels of industry and commerce, females have achieved remarkable progress in education and in the labor force. Prior to the nineteenth century, “the weaker sex” could normally work outside the family only in convents or as maids, cooks, governesses, or prostitutes. Domestic work all but guaranteed poverty, however genteel; the “world’s oldest profession” often promised disease as well. In the nineteenth century, schools began to employ women as teachers and manufacturing jobs, mainly in the textile industry, became available. By the end of the century, women increasingly found work in offices as secretaries, telephone operators, and nurses. In recent decades, the development of technology has led to a decline in the proportion of work that demands heavy manual labor, thus opening more occupations to women. Until roughly the Second World War, very few young ladies attended college or received a technical or professional education. Today nearly one-fifth of all women have completed four years or more of college. Few if any jobs are closed to females and many institutions and colleges are actively attempting to attract coeds into traditional male occupations such as engineering, mathematics, and science. Even the military is now opening combat positions to women. The contrast of women and minority rights today with those in classical Greece are stark. Only adult males in ancient Athens could be voters and allowed to participate in the government. In fact, it was incumbent upon citizens to take an active role in civic affairs; commerce was despised. In the fifth century BC, Athens contained about 40,000 citizens, 20,000 resident aliens with limited rights, and perhaps as many as 300,000 slaves. In addition approximately 140,000 women and children made their home in Periclean Athens (Flacelière 1959: 52). Consequently citizens, that is, those with voting rights, made up less than 10 percent of the population. Women in ancient Athens possessed neither political nor legal rights. Those who were wives or daughters of citizens as well as females in prosperous alien families were closeted throughout their lives. Proper Athenian women in the age of Pericles were confined to their homes, virtually never to set foot in town or even to attend social functions. Young women scarcely ever left their apartments and were segregated even from brothers and other male relatives. In contrast, other Greek city–states, particularly Sparta, provided more freedom and permitted girls to mix in society. In Athens, however, they were sequestered and their mothers or female slaves provided all their education, which consisted normally of cooking, spinning, weaving and perhaps a little reading and arithmetic. Their fathers or male guardians chose their husbands. Even after marriage, respectable middle or upper class women practically never left their homes or went outdoors. Slaves or husbands did the shopping. Within the walls, however, women managed the households with the help of their female slaves. 6 Women during the Roman Empire experienced more freedom, although they still enjoyed few legal rights. Neither society nor the state considered women to be citizens in Rome, and the census ignored them. Under Roman law women, like aliens, enjoyed few legal rights. Slaves had no rights at all (Dilke 1975: 30 & 49). In that male dominated society, the extensive power of the father over his sons and their children lasted as long as he lived. His control of his daughters, however, remained only until they were married to husbands of his choice. Until the second half of the fourth century AD, the paterfamilias’ authority included executing his children. A head of the family felt justified in executing his unmarried daughter for having intercourse (Gardner 1986: 6). Men and women, however, could freely divorce each other and the wife could normally sue for her dowry successfully. If the woman’s father were alive, however, he had to grant his permission to the separation. Women’s control over money was quite limited. They could inherit only limited sums and, if their progeny were still under their husbands’ protection, were prohibited from leaving an estate to their children. In that circumstance, the assets went to her spouse (Veyne 1987: 40; Gardner 1986: ch. 5). In pagan Rome, infanticide, exposure of infants, contraception, and abortion were all legal. Fathers decided at birth whether a new child was to live. The handicapped or otherwise undesired were left to die in nearby fields. If another adult wished, he or she could take up the baby and rear it as his or her own. Fathers more often chose to expose young girls than boys (Veyne 1987: 9). Instead of being closeted, as they had been in classical Athens, young girls attended school together with boys, at least up to a certain age. Formal education for most young females consisted of attending only the first level, the elementary school. Music and dancing were important in the education of schoolgirls, possibly because these skills made them more attractive to prospective bridegrooms. Parents normally married off their daughters between the ages of 14 and 16 to a groom of their choice. Formally the maiden must give her consent, but she could refuse only if the father chose a particularly unsuitable or undesirable mate (Friedländer: 231-232). To proper young ladies, marriage brought considerable freedom. As youths, they had been excluded from the family dinner table and largely confined to the nursery. After marriage, women attended banquets and participated in activities outside the home, unlike Periclean Athens. By the time of Augustus, married women were almost totally unrestricted in their social activity. Except for the dowry, which the husband controlled, women had the right to their own property — an estate perhaps that they inherited or acquired from a previous marriage. Even today, in many strict Moslem countries, women possess few, if any, rights. Although strictures against female infidelity have almost always been harsh, nowhere in the world was it illegal for a man to be unfaithful to his wife until in 1810 the French prohibited “a married man to keep a concubine in his conjugal house against his wife’s wishes” (Diamond 1992: 95). 7 Twenty-three countries today still practice female circumcision or infibulation to eliminate pleasure from sex for women and to make sex outside of marriage impossible. In modern Western society, although women may still experience discrimination in some areas, law and custom have increasingly supported women’s efforts to be treated equally. Women’s rights along with that of minority groups have gained strength especially in Western societies. Few countries would openly acknowledge that their society views women as inferior to man. Politicians in most places at least espouse rights for ethnic minorities. Even Moslem states claim that they provide respect and rights for women, although Westerners fail to see the benefits from Islamic practices. Japan which has been a notoriously male–dominated society has been slowly opening more opportunities for females to enter non-traditional roles. Nevertheless, on average women enjoy more rights and greater opportunity today virtually everywhere than they have at any time in recorded history. Survival and Life Expectancy Since modern man first walked on earth about 200,000 years ago, when according to genetic studies he evolved from hominids, Homo Sapiens have made substantial progress (Vigilant 1991). Over most of the intervening period, humans have been struggling to feed and house themselves. The population of the world has risen very slowly — about 0.01 percent per year — for most of those two hundred millennia. Until recently, most humans were operating near the subsistence level and poor harvests or a hunting failure led to a fall in the population. One scholar asserted that “As late as the 1690’s a succession of poor and indifferent harvests created severe subsistence crises in almost all countries of Europe … the population declined here and there, as death and starvation stalked through the lands from Castile to Finland, and from the Scottish Highlands to the foothills of the Alps” (Helleiner 1965: 79). As mentioned in the previous chapter, the number of hunter-gatherers that can sustain themselves is fixed by the size of the area and the richness of fauna and flora. For a band of primitive people to stay within the limit requires either that the birth rate be low or the death rate, high. Anthropologists reports indirect evidence denoting that primitive hunter-gatherers experienced high mortality rates coupled with high fertility. Skeletons reveal that at least a few Cro- Magnons lived to the age of 60. Other evidence from primitive societies shows that few people reached half a century, while analysis of fossil remains also connotes that most died violently. The most common cause of death being infanticide, war, and head-hunting (Cipolla 1962: 73; Diamond 1992: 50). Since so little is known about life in hunter-gatherer societies of 10,000 to 200,000 years ago, comparing modern life with that of primitive man requires speculation. Art in the form of cave paintings and jewelry — rings and earrings — first appeared about 30,000 years ago, almost simultaneously around the world. This development reveals that mankind had reached a point 8 where after providing for subsistence, time remained for pleasure and the superfluous. Thus with this “affluence” aboriginal man demonstrated his wealth and vanity through personal ornamentation and his ability to appreciate beauty. Evidence from existing hunter-gatherer tribes substantiates the anthropological evidence that life expectancy was much lower than today, infant mortality higher, and morbidity more acute. Through-out most of the history of mankind, life expectancy was between thirty and forty years. (Rusting 1992: 132). Hunter-gatherer tribes enjoyed greater equality among males than most “more advanced” cultures. Women played a subordinate role; they were expected not only to care for the children and prepare the sustenance. but also to gather a great deal of the food. Judging from the practice among modern primitive tribes, men spent much of their time in leisure and hunted only sporadically. Freedom in the sense of choosing their leaders or expressing unorthodox ideas was limited. Romanticists have idealized the “noble savage.” Even today, it is “politically correct” to assert that the American Indian lived a life in harmony with nature, unpolluting, and caring for fellow tribesmen and the earth (Sale 1990: 311-324). No doubt primitive American Indian life embodied many attractive features, but their hunting practices contributed greatly to the demise of the buffalo. Moreover, native American tribes spent much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries warring among themselves, and the people lived lives that were primitive, unlettered, and short. With the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, human populations could multiply and grow more concentrated. Cities arose and with them the development of complicated cultures made feasible through specialization. Some could bake bread, others fashion shoes, and still others trade in exotic products. Law givers, priests, and scribes could enrich lives, expand knowledge, and facilitate an exchange of ideas. Although some may deprecate the growth of population that farming made possible, few would choose to eschew their own existence. Virtually all the men and women in today’s world would prefer to be alive than never to have had the opportunity. On the down side, the domestication of plants and animals and the concomitant population upsurge and concentration may have spread infectious diseases, aggravated malnutrition, and brought a shorter life span (Diamond 1992: 139). Agriculture may have worsened the lot of women, and urban life certainly magnified income inequalities by empowering a few to enjoy previously unheard of luxuries. Although the spread of the cultivation of the soil resulted in a population explosion, death rates remained high, especially among infants. Recent studies of bones in a cemetery in an ancient Greek colony from the period 600 to 250 BC indicate that malaria was widespread (Wilford 1992: B5-B7). This study of 272 individuals found that the people in this “prosperous agricultural colony” were “plagued with anemia and malnutrition” were physically small which suggests poor 9 nutrition and had a life expectancy of only 32 years. Carlo Cipolla, an economic historian, reports that infant mortality was typically between 200 and 500 per 1000, at least partly due to infanticide (1962: 77 & 80). Almost no place in the world today experiences such horrendous death rates. At the height of the Roman Empire, the average standard of living for the denizens of the capital must have reached its greatest level of affluence, yet life expectancy and infant mortality were probably atrocious. Although data on infant mortality are nonexistent, as far as I know, the death rate among children must have been quite dreadful. Girls and deformed baby boys were often exposed to die alone on a hillside. Scholars believe that Romans on average enjoyed much shorter lives than modern Europeans. Classical historian O. A. W. Dilke judges that the average age of death was forty to fifty (1975: 84). Obviously slaves endured even shorter existences. Carlo Cipolla estimates that life expectancy in farming communities in medieval Europe averaged between 20 and 35, down from what hunter-gatherers typically enjoyed. Women suffered extraordinarily high rates of deaths in childbirth. Manchester estimates that the average peasant girl would die by the age of 24 (1992: 55). For some unexplained reason, in the early part of the fifteenth century, one out of ten people in rural Tuscany were over sixty-five — an extraordinarily large number of elderly for that time, but by the middle of the century the proportion of old had declined. Normally the elderly made up less than one out of twenty of the populace.* Parents often smothered or abandoned unwanted infants, especially baby girls (de la Roncière 1988: 169, 223 & 228). The average length of life that Europeans could look forward to and the prospect of early death for their children failed to improve before the industrial revolution, but, as is well–known, have advanced remarkably in the last two centuries. Literacy and Education Primitive man was, of course, uneducated and uncultured. Without writing, only the simplest of knowledge could be passed on to future generations and even then error was prone to creep in. Science, which depends on a progression of observations and the elaboration of analysis, was unlikely to advance. Oral traditions, however, produced stories, which repetition embellished, that simple tribesmen often accepted as facts. Out of these sagas came the myths that underlay many primitive religions. Not only did the absence of letters contribute to superstition and supernatural tales, but the lack of script made poetry, the theater, and elaborate music impossible. Writing, invented to facilitate commerce and taxation, led to an expansion of knowledge and an interchange of ideas. Jared Diamond wrote (1992: 56) that “the spoken word … made us free,” but it was the written word that permitted human knowledge and learning to accumulate, making science and literature possible. * For comparison, those over 65 made up 12.5 percent of the U.S. population in 1989. 10