| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| In Dusty Archives, a Theory of Affluence |
| 2007-08-08 |
| Extremely interesting! While the author doesn't go there (or at least this review doesn't), his thesis that the population capable of creating the modern world evolved through many generations of settled agricultural society, goes along a way toward explaining why some parts of the world succesfully adapt to modernity while others can't. I think I'll email it to fjordman as it fits rather nicely with his views. |
| Posted by:Phil_B |
| #5 Historians used to accept changes in people’s behavior as an explanation for economic events, like Max Weber’s thesis linking the rise of capitalism with Protestantism. But most have now swung to the economists’ view that all people are alike and will respond in the same way to the same incentives. This is patently false. Islam is a sterling example of people foresaking beneficial technologies and methodologies (i.e., scientific method) despite often direct penalties. Merely examine the first introduction of steam locomotion in China for further proof. While Japan embraced such advanced technology, the inability of China's ruling class to properly discern how beneficial such a quantum leap was caused their governing elite to prematurely discard it and resulted in a retrograde effect whose shadow China is just now emerging from. While increasing agricultural yields played a big part in spawning the "rare genius" like Gutenberg or Watt, such technological leapfrogs also relied heavily upon improved materials and the methods of refining them. Much as how even now significant advances in microelectronics are equally—if not more often—driven not by novel designs but by improved material properties of strength, purity or conductivity. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-08-08 19:43 |
| #4 There was (modest)affluence in Britin from about 900 on. There is evidence from archeological digs that there was a small middle-class (or something similar to a middle class) from the time of the Romans to the Dark Ages. The Plague and the stupidity in response to it, combined with the beginning of the Little Ice Age devastated that modest affluence. I've read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and find quite a bit of it refuted by my own studies in the same areas. It's a nice premise, it just doesn't stand up well to rigorous testing. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-08-08 17:03 |
| #3 There is no "multi-culti" BS whatsoever in Guns, Germs & Steel. Diamond's political views are another matter. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-08-08 10:36 |
| #2 Nice to see yet another nail in the coffin of Jared Diamond's ridiculous premises. While I think that Dr. Clark doesn't give quite enough credit to Western institutions in the evolution of better, more affluent societies (as per VDH), he certainly sees through the multi-culti BS of Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel". |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-08-08 08:53 |
| #1 Not really from the core of the story, but intriguing, nevertheless: Dr. Clark said he set out to write his book 12 years ago on discovering that his undergraduates knew nothing about the history of Europe. S'pose they know more, now? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-08-08 07:46 |