<i>The third-world isn't some laggard full of overbreeding simpletons.</i><p>Any concrete reason for that belief? It looks like the "overbreeding" is objectively true: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate</a> . As far as simpletons go, you tell me: is there any intelligence test you know of that routinely ranks people in Djibouti over people in Japan? If not, it sounds like your statement is unfounded.<p>The rest of your interpretation is also suspect. The places Victorians conquered weren't more advanced than the places the Victorians came from. Regardless of the reason, Europe was more technologically advanced than the rest of the world, and they used that advantage to conquer as much of the world as they could.<p>When you complain about how the Victorians ran things, you have to compare it to something. If you compare, e.g., the Congo in 1955 (<a href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,866343,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,866343,00.html</a> ) to the Congo in 2008 (<a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.htm...</a> ) you get the idea. You might not like how imperialists run things--but they run things well because they run them for profit. You can also consider Singapore (which is basically Victorian, and basically paradise on earth for law-abiding people).