The criticism of #38 is misplaced. Historically, powerful and rich nations were ones with progressive (for its time) civil policies. Greeks were powerful, until corruption set in. When Rome was a Republic, it was powerful. When any one individual tried to become the emperor, it begun its slow decay. It's not something that occurs over night. What PG is saying that, all else being equal, the richer nation will be more prosperous. There are going to be unaccountable natural advantage a particular region will have (Middle East), that no matter how corrupt, it will be prosperous so long as it has what the rest of the world wants.
Currently, China is getting more and more powerful, and at the same time the government is implementing and exploring more liberal policies towards civil rights. This is pretty telling.
The criticism of #31 doesn't make sense. How does PG's statement (or thought process) excuse racism? I'll copy and paste PG's statement here:
I suspect the biggest source of moral taboos will turn out to be power struggles in which one side barely has the upper hand. That’s where you’ll find a group powerful enough to enforce taboos, but weak enough to need them.
First, it's really important that you recognize "Greeks" means many different city-states with completely different cultures.
Nations didn't exist until a couple hundred years ago.
Rome did not begin its decline with Julius Caesar.
What do you mean by "progressive (for its time) civil policies?" You seem to be following a linear model of history, and that's fine, but what exactly is progressive?
Currently, China is getting more and more powerful, and at the same time the government is implementing and exploring more liberal policies towards civil rights. This is pretty telling.
The criticism of #31 doesn't make sense. How does PG's statement (or thought process) excuse racism? I'll copy and paste PG's statement here: