Location, location and how the West was won

BBC ^ | November 10th 2010 | Ian Morris, Professor, Stanford University

[Cardhu]

On his current visit to Beijing, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said China will soon reclaim its position as the world's biggest economy - a role it has held for 18 of the past 20 centuries. But how did the US, Britain and the rest of Europe interrupt this reign of supremacy? It comes down to location.

Europeans have been asking this question since the 18th Century, and Africans and Asians since the 19th. But there is still not much agreement on the answers.

People once claimed Westerners were simply biologically superior. Others have argued Western religion, culture, ethics, or institutions are uniquely excellent, or that the West has had better leaders. Others still reject all these ideas, insisting that Western domination is just an accident.

But in the last few years, a new kind of theory has gained ground.

People, it suggests, are much the same all over the world. The reason why some groups stuck with hunting and gathering while others built empires and had industrial revolutions has nothing to do with genetics, beliefs, attitudes, or great men: it was simply a matter of geography.

China and India are, of course poised to pick up the baton of global superpowers, but to explain why the West rules, we have to plunge back 15,000 years to the point when the world warmed up at the end of the last ice age.

Geography then dictated that there were only a few regions on the planet where farming was possible, because only they had the kinds of climate and landscape which allowed the evolution of wild plants and animals that could potentially be domesticated.

The densest concentrations of these plants and animals lay towards the western end of Eurasia, around the headwaters of the Euphrates, Tigris, and Jordan Rivers

[Cardhu]

Something to peruse and perhaps contest on a Sunday morning.

[Berlin_Freeper]

When you make a nice table everyone wants to sit at it.

[Vendome]

This will only go on so long and then we’ll knee cap their basing operation around the world with our former partners kicking them out and depending on us for support.

Hopefully there will still be an America to blunt their efforts at completing their little string of pearls.

Just as in WWII when Japan lost their sources for Steel and Oil, China will act with aggression to assert their desire for global domination and unfortunately the world will have to call their hand.

Result? Probably not good.

Might be time to get a place in Idaho to escape the onslaught as the seas no longer protect us.

[J Aguilar]

Western Europe was superior because did not form an empire after the Roman one. Geography had something to do with that, but not as this professor says.

What made Western Europe so innovative was extreme competition among a new kind of political “shape”: the nations. And the formation of nations had many causes, some of them geographic, such as Europe being constitued of a series of peninsulae (it was easier to build nations on borders stabilized by geography), but also religion (Benedictine monks preserved knowledge during the Dark Ages and the Church a sense of union beyond feudal kingdoms).

When nations were constituted, during the 15 and 16 centuries, Europe was already superior than China. It might not have the same military strength or technical development, but Europe knew how to use what it had in much better way than China. And it wasn’t China the one to sail to Europe, they were Europeans the ones to reach China, coming from opposite directions!

What has made weak Europe during the 20th has been that the concept of nation has been developed to its limit and surpassed. Only “surrounded” by a belt of colonies could nations have survived, and there were not enough colonies for everyone, hence the struggle for Lebensraum. In this case, geography and demography had a lot to do, since Germany could dream of building a colonial empire (in the east) fighting rapid wars from his central position in Europe.

The West is what it is thanks to a political system that allowed innovation and competition in a extreme way. Empires that search for uniformity cannot match that. IMHO China has a deep contradiction on its political system, and each second this contradiction grows bigger and bigger (and more dangerous for everyone). Furthermore, I think that articles like this what really aim is to justify the wrong decissions of powerful people.

[wastoute]

I suspect that the rise of “technology” over the last 2 centuries made geography less important through improvements in communication and transportation. In that environment America could thrive when it’s economic engine was unleashed by freedom. Money is like a wild animal, it will go where it is least encumbered.

[November 2010]

Europe had the same location for the 18 centuries when it had a smaller economy. The difference was economic freedom. We dominated the world when we were capitalist Republics, and we’ve begun to fall now that we are socialist democracies.

[truthguy]

Others have argued Western religion, culture, ethics, or institutions are uniquely excellent,

The key word here is are. I'd substitute is that word with "were". We (US and Europe) have abandoned the things that made us successful and the results are obvious. This is a tough thing for a British Prime Minister or a Stanford professor to understand but most Americans probably still can grasp this concept. However I do think the Chinese are a bit overrated. Their economy is still a low cost manufacturing driven economy with currency manipulation. They produce a lot in total because there are 1.3 Billion of them. The old Soviet Union had a larger economy than Switzerland but would anyone prefer to live in the USSR? It's what's produced per capita that determines their standard of living.

China could never have modernized in such a short time without monstrous technology transfers from Western Countries. The intellectual capital flow from the United States to China (or even Japan before) is beyond measure. The cost is staggering. But look at the bright side, we can save a dollar or two at the Wal-Mart. That's good isn't it?

[9YearLurker]

What a strained case of fitting facts to a story. China was within 3000 sailing miles of all kinds of natural resources and material wealth. Look at Australia, for example, or India as a great trading nation for exploiting comparative advantages. But because this guy’s at Stamford and his explanation is tidily PC, this is getting trumpeted worldwide.

[eclecticEel]

Dr. Sowell (also incidentally, a professor at Stanford) talks some about the effects of geography in his “trilogy” on international history. Of course, unlike this professor, Sowell doesn’t overstate his hand. For example, he points out how the lack of navigable rivers in sub-saharan Africa historically impeded the development of large scale trade networks, with their attendant cross cultural interactions. At the same time he refrains from the conjecture that geography is the sole, or even the main, determinant of cultural development. Instead it seems that Prof. Morris is milking his pet theory for all it’s worth.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Cardhu.

Ian Morris of Stanford U: "...how did the US, Britain and the rest of Europe interrupt this reign of supremacy? ...Europeans have been asking this question since the 18th Century, and Africans and Asians since the 19th. But there is still not much agreement on the answers... The reason why some groups stuck with hunting and gathering while others built empires and had industrial revolutions has nothing to do with genetics, beliefs, attitudes, or great men: it was simply a matter of geography... to explain why the West rules, we have to plunge back 15,000 years to the point when the world warmed up at the end of the last ice age. Geography then dictated that there were only a few regions on the planet where farming was possible, because only they had the kinds of climate and landscape which allowed the evolution of wild plants and animals that could potentially be domesticated. The densest concentrations of these plants and animals lay towards the western end of Eurasia, around the headwaters of the Euphrates, Tigris, and Jordan Rivers

Clearly the joker who wrote it either knows less than he's telling, or is just pushing the usual leftist drivel that passes for ideology.

---

The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created by William Bernstein Paperback Audio Download

---

[todd_hall]

“What a strained case of fitting facts to a story. China was within 3000 sailing miles of all kinds of natural resources and material wealth. Look at Australia, for example, or India as a great trading nation for exploiting comparative advantages. But because this guy’s at Stamford and his explanation is tidily PC, this is getting trumpeted worldwide.”

Here’s the thing, they did exploit the resources of those surrounding regions. During the 15th century the Chinese had set up colonies and trading posts across the Western pacific and the Indian ocean from Indonesia to the coasts of Madagascar. It got to the point where the local kingdoms in Indonesia, the Philippines, and as far out as Sri Lanka were tribute-paying “vassal” states of the Chinese empire.

The Ming Chinese made a strategic mistake in completely halting their maritime expansion by the mid 15th century to devote their resources on ruinous wars with first the Mongols and later the Japanese.

[todd_hall]

“Europe had the same location for the 18 centuries when it had a smaller economy. The difference was economic freedom. We dominated the world when we were capitalist Republics, and we’ve begun to fall now that we are socialist democracies.”

I tend to believe it was more due to geographical luck. It was pure chance that Western Europe was the first region on earth to industrialize simply because at least 3 other regions(all in Eurasia) also were at the cusp of the industrial revolution at around the same time only to have it be destroyed by external conditions.

[November 2010]

China was on the cusp of industrializing in the middle ages. Gunpowder in the 9th century. Clocks in the 10th century. The most advanced looms, iron and steel works, in the world at the time. I read a history that provided evidence that they intentionally pulled back because it was destabilizing. I think Christianity, Republican governance, and individual liberty played a huge role. Geography not so much.

[9YearLurker]

You’ve got it right, November.

[todd_hall]

I was talking specifically about the manufacturing pre-requistes of an industrial society.

All of those medieval Chinese inventions you mentioned were still crafted one at a time by the hands of artisans. Each loom or water clock was unique and different from every other one.

It was only in the 18th century that cottage industries using core manufacturing concepts began emerging in several different places in Eurasia. Concepts like assembly lines, simplification of tasks to utilize unskilled labor, replaceable/semi-replaceable parts, non-muscle powered looms/lathes/mills provides the basis of Industrialization, not ad hoc inventions.

All of these ideas began popping up in Southern England, Southern China, India, and Syria/Trans-Jordan all within the same century.

[todd_hall]

Southern England was unique from the other hotspots of innovation in one regard, it was on an island, and somewhat shielded from turmoil on the European continent.

In contrast all of the other “proto” industrial regions were geographically unlucky and were snuffed out one by one.

Kerala in India was sacked by the British in the late 18th century and their entire textiles industry was systematically destroyed by the British Raj.

Southern China in the early 18th century was devastated by the invading Machurians who basically demolished the early steel mills and ceramic works in that area.

Then there was Damascus that also achieved the beginnings of an Steel manufacturing industry only to have it be totally destroyed in a war between Egypt and the Ottoman Turks.

[November 2010]

They lost the race. India was taken by Britian because of technology. 18th century steel works in China were 800 years after the Chinese developed blast furnace level production facilities. Their societies held them back in my opinion.

[todd_hall]

“India was taken by Britain because of technology. “

Please read the history of the British takeover of India. Technology was NOT the deciding factor.

“18th century steel works in China were 800 years after the Chinese developed blast furnace level production facilities.”

Calling BS on that. Water mill powered iron and steel mills were late 17th century early 18th century technology. All previous Chinese efforts were muscle powered.

[November 2010]

Do a simple google of chinese blast furnace, you’ll see I’m right.

As far as technology not being the “deciding factor” of British conquest . . . it was . . . the Porteguese galleons cleared the seas of their Arab competitors or western nations would never have even gained a foothold.

[todd_hall]

“Do a simple google of chinese blast furnace, you’ll see I’m right.”

It’s quite clear that ancient Chinese blast furnaces(for the production of cast iron) was largely muscle powered and entirely fueled via charcoal from wood. The major limitations for industrialization and the real expansion of this technology was the lack of an exploitable, high energy fuel source and mechanical power(coal/coke and large scale water mills respectively).

Were there earlier designs for water powered furnaces? Sure, but they obviously did not become economically practical (along with the discovery of coal/coke in the 15th century) and regionally widespread until the late 17th/early 18th century. By your measure, just because the ancient Greeks had devised primitive toy steam engines and mechanical computers in the 2nd century BC, they should have industrialized first right?