A relapse to old conditions would be disastrous to both-not the least so to him who serves-and would sweep away civilization with it. …
No on is suggesting a relapse into old conditions. Not moving forward because the past was bad makes no sense. I think Carnegie would get along well with Dolores Umbridge. "Progress for progress's sake must be discouraged."
The conditions of human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years. In former days there was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief and those of his retainers. . . . The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us today measures the change which has come with civilization. This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential for the progress of the race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so.
Ridiculous. He states that a few living in absoulote luxury while the rest live in squalor is better than everyone living in squalor. A fair point - IF those were the only two options. Assuming that they are is a logical fallacy.