History Article

http://www.historytoday.com/ian-morris/latitudes-not-attitudes-how-geography-explains-history?utm_source=History+Today&utm_campaign=bfc15ff197-November_Newsletter&utm_medium=email

This article isn't about economics per se. Rather, it purports to explain the West's dominance. In so doing, the author, Ian Morris, denies that West has any innate superiority, such as culture or genetics, and chalks the West's achievements up to luck. A thesis like this should raise flags, because the issue is so loaded -- and so constrained by political correctness -- that to make the opposite argument -- say that Christianity and democracy made the West better -- exposes the author to attacks on his personality. Of course, that doesn't mean his conclusion is wrong, just that one should read it with great skeptcism, because again, the opposite conclusion -- that the West's power and affluence are consequences of unqiuely Western virtues -- is not something one can suggest among the literati. And, when viewed this filter, the article is blatantly illogical and dishonest. I beg you, don't buy Morris' book.

Explaining why the West rules calls for a different kind of history than usual, one stepping back from the details to see broader patterns, playing out over millennia on a global scale. When we do this the first thing we see is the biological unity of humanity, which flatly disproves racist theories of western rule.

"Our kind, Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa between 200,000 and 70,000 years ago and has spread across the world in the last 60,000 years. By around 30,000 years ago, older versions of humanity, such as the Neanderthals, were extinct and by 10,000 years ago a single kind of human – us – had colonised virtually every niche on the planet. This dispersal allowed humanity’s genes to diverge again, but most of the consequences (such as the colour of skin, eyes, or hair) are, literally, only skin deep and those mutations that do go deeper (such as head shape or lactose tolerance) have little obvious connection to why the West rules. A proper answer to this question must start from the fact that wherever we go – East, West, North, or South –people are all much the same."

Is this true? Assuming that the differences don't matter is essentially assuming the conclusion. His argument is that genes don't matter, because by assumption we're all the same. But, he identifies several genetic differences. Could there be more genetic differences that bear on the West's dominance? Have tests ever been conducted to identify relevant genetic differences? As a practical matter, could funding ever be acquired for, and would an academic ever undertake, a study seeking a genetic basis for the West's dominance? I think the answer to the last question is no, indicating that no real research goes into these assertions, which are just axiomatic, because the alternative is something that can't even be contemplated.

"From a global perspective, Christianity, too, makes more sense as a local version of a broader trend than as something setting the West apart from the rest. As the Roman Empire disintegrated in the middle of the first millennium ad and new questions (Is there something beyond this life? How can I be saved?) gained urgency, the new faith won perhaps 40 million converts; but in those same years, in the wake of the Han dynasty’s collapse in China, Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism offered their own answers to the same questions and won their own 40 million devotees. Soon enough Islam repeated the feat in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia."

This is breathtakingly bad logic. According to Morris, Christianity can't explain the West's dominance because other religions existed as well. But, as should be obvious, the other religions were very, very different theologically, leading to very different societies. So, maybe Buddhism, which advocates the suppression of desire, is a poor philosphy for attaining military and economic superiority. To clarify, I'm not attacking Buddhism, or saying Christianity is right in any objective sense. I'm merely pointing out that Morris' reasoning only makes sense if every religion was identical, which is demonstrably untrue.

"Nor was nature even-handed within the lucky latitudes. Some places, above all the so-called ‘Hilly Flanks’, which curve from what is now Israel through Syria, southern Turkey, northern Iraq and western Iran, were extraordinarily well endowed; China between the Yellow and Yangzi rivers and the Indus Valley in Pakistan were somewhat less so; Oaxaca in Mexico and the Andes in Peru somewhat less still. Consequently, the Hilly Flanks were the first to see farming firmly established (by 7500 bc); then came China and Pakistan (around 5500 bc); then Oaxaca and Peru (by 5000 bc); and then, over the next 7,000 years, most of the rest of humanity."

According to Morris, geography dictates outcomes, and Iran, China, Turkey, Pakistan, Mexico, and Peru were "extraordinarily well-endowed." However, those countries are all very poor, and have per-capita GDPs that are a fraction of a place like say Norway. Morris doesn't even attempt to reconcile that a) geography determines wealth and b) the places that he identifies as geographically fortune are impoverished.

"For most of their existence, humans lived in small, egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands. After the Ice Age some hunter-gatherers settled down in villages, where they domesticated plants and animals; some villages grew into cities, with ruling elites; some cities became states and then empires and, finally, industrialised nations. No society has ever leaped from hunting and gathering to high technology (except under the influence of outsiders). Humans are all much the same, wherever we find them; and, because of this, human societies have all followed much the same sequence of cultural development. There is nothing special about the West."

Another massively dishonest statement. Human societies do not all follow the same sequence; some stall out at lower levels of development. Only a handful of nations have ever industrialized, even today. Its simply not true that say Africa and Western Europe are identical societies -- Europe has industrialized, and Africa has not. Bizarrely, Morris tries to pretend otherwise, that all societies are at the same level of development, something that is demonstrably false.

"For centuries, Chinese wealth and power dwarfed the West’s. Between 1405 and 1433, while little Portuguese caravels tentatively nosed down Africa’s west coast, Chinese emperors dispatched gigantic fleets across the Indian Ocean under the leadership of the eunuch admiral Zheng He (who, according to legend, was nearly three metres tall and 230 cm around the belly). Zheng’s flagship was on the same scale as its skipper. At 80 metres long, it was the largest wooden ship ever built. When Columbus set sail in 1492, his own flagship was shorter than Zheng’s mainmast and barely twice as long as the big man’s rudder. Columbus led three ships and 90 sailors; Zheng led 300 ships and 27,870 sailors. His fleet extracted tribute from the cities of India, visited Mecca and even reached Kenya, where today Chinese archaeologists are diving to locate wrecks of Zheng’s ships."

OK, the Chinese had a great start. Why, however did all this progress end? Why was China so dominant in the 15th century and a non-factor later? Because the Chinese state consciously isolated China, closing its borders, guaranteeing stagnation. This was a disasterous decision, but one made by politicians, not dictated by geography. China was obviously well suited for economic expansion, it just blew it.

"The glories of medieval China seem, on the face of it, to disprove any geographical explanation for why the West now rules. After all, geography has not changed very much in the last 500 years."

Morris acknowledges the incoherence of his position.

"Given time, the 15th century’s greatest sailors – the Chinese – would surely have discovered and colonised America too (in 2009 the Princess Taiping, a replica of a 15th-century junk, came within 20 miles of completing a Taiwan–San Francisco round trip, only to collide with a freight ship within sight of home). But in much the same way that geography had made it easier for people in the Hilly Flanks to domesticate plants and animals than for people in other parts of the world, it now again stacked the odds in the West’s favour. The trip from England to New England was only half as far as that from China to California. For thousands of years this geographical fact had been unimportant, since there were no ocean-going ships. But by 1600 it had become the decisive fact. The meaning of geography had changed."

Seeking to explain the unexplainable -- how to reconcile how geography, which is immutable, can dictate success (according to Morris), with the manner in which nations wax and wan -- Morris reverts to dishonesty. His theory explains why China didn't colonize California; it was too far away. Fine, this makes sense.

But it offers no explanation as to why China didn't colonize anywhere else. There were dozens of nearby nations that China could have traded with or colonized. It did not, because it followed a senseless policy of self-imposed isolation. Again, no geographical fact compelled this; it was a foolish decision made by the Chinese leaders. The fact that China is far away from New England explains why China didn't colonize New Englan, not why China didn't colonize anything.

"In the 17th century a new kind of economy took shape, centred around the North Atlantic, generating massive profits and driving up wages in north-west Europe by exploiting the geographical differences round its shores."

I have no idea what this means. He acknowledges that the economy in the North Atlantic flourished, by doesn't explain how. What geographical differences is he referring to? This is a thoughtless sentence, trying to glide over a basic fact, that the Europeans, alone among the world, began to industrialize. His theory doesn't explain it, so he doesn't even try and explain the West's industrialization. Why didn't China industrialize? No explanation is even offered.

<strong>"Newton and Descartes were geniuses, but so too were Chinese scholars like Gu Yanwu (1613-82) and Dai Zhen (1724-77), who also spent lifetimes studying nature."

Newton was a genius who discovered the fundamental properties of force, motion, optics and arguably invented calculus. Nobody had ever done anything remotely approaching that, including Gu Yanwu and Dai Zhen. The Chinese may have spent time studying nature, but they never figured it out to nearly the extent that Newton, and the West generally, did. Morris is confusing efforts with results.

Also, I'll note that Newton and Descartes predated the Industrial Revolution, and had very little to do with it, if anything at all.

"It was just that geography thrust new questions on Newton and Descartes."

Ir wasn't geography that explains Newton's brilliance -- I'm pretty sure that they have gravity and light in China. It was there for the Chinese to explain, they just couldn't do it.

"All barriers crumbled. British warships forced China to open to western trade in 1842; Americans did the same in Japan 11 years later. The age of western rule had arrived."

It is again noteworthy that China and Japan isolated themselves, meaning that they lost all of the benefits of contact with other societies.

"So what do we learn from all this history? Two main things, I think. First, since people are all much the same, it is our shared biology which explains humanity’s great upward leaps in wealth, productivity and power across the last 10,000 years;"

This makes no sense. How can shared biology lead to increased wealth? His article doesn't even support this position. His thesis is that our biology is shared, so that disparaties in wealth can't have biological roots, not that common biological roots cause wealth. A bizzare, nonsensical mischaracterization of his own argument.

So, according to Morris, human existence and the fate of societies boils down to geography. Differences in values, religion, character, intelligence, political and economic institutions -- they are all either nonexistent or meaningless. So, the next time you wonder why the West enjoys greater freedom, equality, democracy, affluence, and technology than the rest of the world, remember that its solely because zebras are difficult to ride and Shanghai is far away from Boston.

Article

Sorry for the lack of posts -- I've been swamped at work. I have some posts in the works for this weekend. In the interim, take a look at this fascinating article, which demonstrates that the poor's only chance at a better life is the interplay between markets and rational self-interest -- altruism and aid are at best worthless, and possibly actively harmful:

http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.6351583/

Proposition 19

For several reasons, I supported Proposition 19, California's proposed law to decriminalize marijuana. Proposition 19 ultimately lost; however, it received approximately 45% yes votes. Oddly, 45% of California voters favor the decriminalization of marijuana, but as far as I know, no major politician in a position to effect any change, or either the right or the left, has publically supported the decriminalization of marijuana.

This is remarkable, as it shows a huge disconnect between the beliefs held by California's (and to a lesser extent America's) voters and the policies of the political elite. Generally, the left and right disagree on virtually every major issue, mirroring their supporters' beliefs. However, with respect to the Drug War, the left and right seem to be in total agreement, the only controversial issue that I can think of for which that is the case. The unanimity with which the right and left support policies that are expensive, engender violent crime, are destructive to families, and trample individual liberty is truly distressing.

Hayek v. Keynes

In terms of intellect, Hayek v. Keynes is a bit like the Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals, but a brilliant video illustrates their disagreement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

The Perils of Deflation

We hear so much about the perils of deflation that it's worth noting that the computer industry, which has endured massive deflation in the past 30 years, has during that time flourished, benefitting consumers immensely. This picture tells the tale.

According to Wikipedia, these are photos of an Osborne Executive portable computer, from 1982, and an iPhone, released 2007. The Executive weighs 100 times as much, has nearly 500 times the volume, cost 10 times as much, and has a 100th the clock frequency of the iPhone.

It illustrates a basic point, that deflation is often a wonderful thing that coincides with better products and prices for consumers. It is certainly not, as pundits would suggest, a necessarily bad thing.