[merdreubu]

>If Sweden can evolve from an impoverished hellhole to being the epitome of modern civilization in a century, why can't the same thing happen to Syria? Or Sudan? Or Myanmar? I think it can, and it will.

Except Sweden one hundred years ago was not an impoverished hellhole. In fact, it was one of the richest (maybe the richest) countries on earth, smack in the middle of the most developed, richest and urbanized part of Europe (the Baltic region) already enjoying a booming economy and 100 years of peace.

[jpatokal]

Sweden in the 1920s was indeed in a comparatively sweet spot, but so was much of Western world before the Great Depression and WW2 hit. However, by modern standards, Sweden was still quite poor and agrarian: life expectancy for both men and women was under 50 years until the 1890s, and it was the last nation in Europe to experience a major natural famine in 1867-9, with ~15% of the population dying.

http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subjec...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_famine_of_1867%E2%80%9...

[beat]

Ok, how about 150 years ago? Poverty is poverty, famine is famine, illiteracy is illiteracy. For the average Swede - not the rich - life was as bad as it is in nations we considered desperately impoverished today. That's the point. There are people living well in Syria today, too. They're just a tiny sliver of elites, while ordinary people suffer.

But back to my original point. Do you think that there are nations that can't or won't be able to modernize? Are there people or places that are just incapable of achieving peace and independence? Because I don't buy that. China has done it. Iran has done it. Syria can do it, too.