A Short History of Progress

What is the significance of Wright describing the Victorian ideal of progress as a “myth” (4)? How does the Victorian ideal compare to other, more ancient mythologies?

Throughout the first two chapters, Wright argues that civilizational progress does not go hand in hand with moral progress. Do you agree with this statement? Have human morals changed significantly since the Paleolithic? Explain with references from the text.

In Chapter 2, Wright writes, “The flexibility of the brain’s interaction with nature, through culture, has been the key to our success” (29). What does he mean by this? Why does culture allow humanity to adapt more quickly than evolution? Is this only a good thing, or does it also have consequences?

Explain the concept of an “ideological pathology,” as Wright uses it. Give an example of a historical ideological pathology in the text. Explain an example of an ideological pathology of the modern world not mentioned by Wright.

Describe what Wright means by a pyramid scheme when he details them in Chapter 4. Are pyramids monumental architectures, economic models, elitist scams, or all of the above? Use examples from the text to describe why Wright chooses this metaphor over others.

Select an example of one of the four cultures Wright provides a detailed history of (Sumer, Rome, The Maya, and Easter Island). Summarize the history of this collapse as Wright provides it. What are the precipitating factors of this collapse, and how could it have been avoided? How is this history similar to that of another civilization covered in the text? How is it different?

As an author of fiction and non-fiction, Wright is highly capable of drawing historical information from imaginative, as well as factual texts. Do you agree that this is a suitable mode of analyzing history and human culture? Why or why not? Use examples from the text.

In Chapter 5 Wright writes that “Karl Marx was among the first economists to see that, financially, the Industrial Revolution begins with Atahaulpa’s gold” (113). Does this comment change your conception of European-American colonial relations, or the history of progress? How so? Are there other examples of historical events that surprised you within the text, or changed how you think about a history you thought you knew?