The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people.

The statement that the surest indicator for a nation’s greatness is the general welfare of its people and not the achievements of its artists, scientists or rulers is problematic in two aspects. First, it doesn’t define what ‘general welfare’ is. Second, it assumes that the individual achievements have little to do with ‘general welfare’ – when, in fact, they have everything to do with it.

At a first blush, the statement may seem to have some considerable merit. The overriding imperative, after all, in any democratic state is to enhance the general welfare of its citizenry. Still the argument fails to provide a clear litmus test to measure that. When someone talks about promoting ‘general welfare’, the following aims come to the mind: public safety and health, individual autonomy and freedom, security against military invasion, and the overall comfort – that is, a high standard of living. Curiously, it is a nation’s scientists, artists and political leaders (or so-called ‘rulers’) who through their achievements bring these aims to fruition. Hence, to evaluate a nation’s greatness, one must examine the contribution of individual achievements promoting the above listed aims.

Few would disagree that many scientific achievements promote general welfare of people. Advances in health sciences have enhanced the physical well being, life-span and the comfort of the citizens. Technological advancements have enabled people to travel to more and more distant places with greater speed and accuracy; made the abodes and other buildings safer; to connect with people from all walks of life; to learn about the world from a desktop and so on. Artistic achievements are also crucial for a healthy psychological well-being of a nation. Advances in arts provide inspirations, lifts spirits, incites creativity and imagination spurring people onto greater individual accomplishments. Yet the achievements of scientists and artists, in integral, do not suffice for a nation’s general welfare. In order to survive, let alone be great, a nation must be able to defend its borders and live peacefully with other countries. Military and diplomatic achievements of political leaders, thus, provide an integral contribution to the welfare of their citizens.

Despite the evidence that achievements of the sorts listed above, in aggregate, promote the general of people, one must not hastily assume that individual achievements are enough for a nation to be great. Once having secured safety and security of the citizens, political leaders must not exploit or oppress them. People should also embrace and learn to appreciate artistic achievements. They must also learn to use, rather misuse or abuse technological advancements. Of particular concern are the many ways in which scientific and technological achievements have diminished the quality of people and hence, impeded the ‘general welfare’. It is though ‘scientific achievements’ that chemicals have penetrated into food, water and air, thereby increasing the variety and incidences of cancer; that the existence of homo sapiens is jeopardized by the threat of nuclear warfare; that the green house gases which are depleting ozone layer and heating the earth’s atmosphere have threatened the civilization itself and so on.

Therefore, in the attempt to assert that general welfare of people – not the achievements of scientists, artists or rules – makes a nation great, the author misses the point that general welfare itself is the end product of those individual achievements. Besides, the benefits of the achievements of the scientists, artists and political leaders are not confined to a particular nation. People around the world tend to benefit from them. Accordingly, these achievements help the whole world, not just a nation, to grow into its greatness.