quantitative as well as
qualitative, and the greater the number of faculties, the greater is the
possible enjoyment derivable from their normal exercise. To say that
primitive man is happier than enlightened man, is equivalent to saying
that an oyster or a polyp enjoys more than an eagle or an antelope. This
could be true only on the ground that the latter, in consequence of
their sensitive organisms, suffer more than they enjoy; but if to be
happy is to escape from all feeling, then it were better to be stones or
clods, and destitute of conscious sensibility. If this be the happiness
which men should seek, then is the Buddhist in the highest degree
consistent when he prays for the promised _Nirvana_, or annihilation.
But this is not happiness--it is only the absence of it. For happiness
can only be increased by increasing the capacity for feeling, or
emotion, and, when this is increased, the capacity for suffering is
likewise necessarily increased, and suffering must be endured unless
sufficient sagacity accompanies it to prevent this consequence. And that
is the truest progress which, while it indefinitely multiplies and
increases the facilities for enjoyment, furnishes at the same time the
most effective means of preventing discomfort, and, as nearly all
suffering is occasioned by the violation of natural laws through
ignorance of or error respecting those laws, therefore that is the
truest progress which succeeds in overcoming ignorance and error.

Therefore, we may enunciate the principle that progress is in proportion
to the opportunities or facilities for exercising the faculties and
satisfying desire.

2. Progress and Prevision[338]

We have confused rapidity of change with progress. We have confused the
breaking down of barriers by which advance is made possible with advance
itself.

We had been told that the development of industry and commerce had
brought about such an interdependence of peoples that war was henceforth
out of the question--at least upon a vast scale. But it is now clear
that commerce also creates jealousies and rivalries and suspicions which
are potent for war. We were told that nations could not long finance a
war under modern conditions; economists had demonstrated that to the
satisfaction of themselves and others. We see now that they had
underrated both the production of wealth and the extent to which it
could be mobilized for destructive purposes. We were told that the
advance of