A similar point was recently made by Joel Waldfogel in his Slate article, "Master of the Island: Which country is the best colonizer?" In particular, Waldfogel describes the work of James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth College who consider the length of European colonization on the current standard of living of a group of 80 tiny and isolated islands. They essentially ask: Are the islands that experienced European colonization for a longer period of time richer today?
The answer is yes. Their key findings are that,
the longer one of the islands spent as a colony, the higher its present-day living standards and the lower its infant mortality rate. Each additional century of European colonization is associated with a 40 percent boost in income today and a reduction in infant mortality of 2.6 deaths per 1,000 births.Reasons for the improvements, say the researchers, include trade, education, and democratic government. They also concluded that exposure to European colonizers benefits living standards for reasons apart from these advantages. My own feelings as to what may account for this are the synergistic effects of cross-cultural transmission. It's well known, for example, that the Iroquois Great Law of Peace was a direct influence on the make up of the U.S. constitution. The cross-pollination of ideas is often a good thing.
Looking ahead to the future, and in considering the welfare of nonhuman persons, we will likely witness the transmission of both memes and genes to animals. Human societies will apply uplift biotechnologies for humanitarian purposes and help nonhuman animals live safer, healthier and more dignified lives.
This proposed call to action has been criticized as being a form of imperialism (although I'm somewhat partial to the notion that this is a type of Fabian imperialism). But as history has shown, it is arguable that 'imperialism,' aside from its frequent use as a pejorative, can be a good thing and a driver for progressive change.
These issues are already pertinent today. Take the recent issue of the Ebola virus spreading to the Congo's gorillas. The virus is being transmitted to this already endangered species by bats. It's been proposed that the gorillas should be vaccinated against Ebola -- an intervention that would most certainly qualify as biological uplift (an immunity to a virus is a biological enhancement). This is just one small example of what is possible.
Imperialism or mercy? At what point do humanitarian efforts cross into the murky waters of imperialism? And if it's imperialism, for what possible gain?
[As an aside, I'm not quite sure this qualifies as uplift, but a male panda in China is being shown sexual instructional videos (i.e. "panda porn") to encourage him to get it on with the Mrs.]