> We think civilization is progress, and progress is civilization, that classical liberal ideas and the scientific revolution are the necessary conditions of th

> We think civilization is progress, and progress is civilization, that classical liberal ideas and the scientific revolution are the necessary conditions of this progress. The author must be working from a very funny definition of the word "civilization." Most of the world's civilizations espoused few or no liberal ideas, and predate the scientific revolution. Besides, his core thesis is obviously flawed. If progress is everything, how is it that the "golden ages" of everything from physics, to art, to pharmaceutical drug development, are so clearly behind us? If we must take a narrow view, there are a number of states that are materially poorer than they were 30 years ago. And why do we need a new, codified philosophy of technology when our grandfathers were able to build the world without it? Seems to me that the extremely online author has a solution in search of a problem.