In the long term (centuries) this is manifestly untrue. In western countries, the vast majority of the population now have adequate food, clothing, clean water, and shelter, necessities that were not universally available in the 18th and 19th centuries. Life expectancy has risen dramatically. Transport speeds have increased from 5 to 50 or 500 mph for everyone, not just the rich.

Even in the last fifty years technology has not `widened the gulf.' It might appear that way due to the nature of news: expensive new technologies are newsworthy but cheaper existing technologies are not. The first televisions, antibiotics, lasers, personal computers, ... were not for the poor. In addition to the necessities, the vast majority of the population now has a telephone, refrigerator, television, and automobile as well as access to vaccines and emergency medical care. On an absolute scale, the physical improvement of the poor has been phenomenal.

Only if you choose your time period carefully, define `rich' and `poor' restrictively, and define `gulf' as `the ratio of incomes' or `the relative availability of luxuries' then perhaps the `gulf' has widened. It is not reasonable, but all too human, to focus on a small relative change in the status of two groups over a time when the absolute wealth of both has increased extraordinarily.

Science clearly does have a perception problem. It stems from several sources: 1) people do not make absolute comparisons, only relative ones; 2) humans have a short memory: today's consumer good is disconnected from yesterday's scientific advance; and 3) science has been so successful within its own realm that our failure to be equally successful in the realm of societal problems causes disappointment and even hostility.

To partially overcome these perception problems, we need to remind people (and ourselves) of the tremendous differences scientific and technological advances have made in their lives.

Sincerely,
Larry Weinstein