When Did the ME Go Wrong?

[The Minsky Moment]

They still plant them right?  At it's most basic (which is what I thought JR was talking about it) it's still put in seeds and take out crops.

Plop a peasant from the time of pre-Roman Gaul into France at the time of the Sun King or even Louis XVIII - there would be serious culture shock, but he could adjust.  The rhytms of agrarian life would be similar, he would find himself in hierarchical social system but one that is rather localized - the methods and means of production would differ somewhat, but many of the basic tools and concepts would be the same.

Now take the early 19th century French peasant and make him proprietor of a modest-sized modern French farm.  Now he has to think about things like hybrid and clonal selection, pest management techniques, types of fertilizer, purchasing and maintaining machinery, managing a workforce, insurance, depreciation accounting, commodity hedging, transport options, fuel, export markets, CAP regulations, etc.  It is an entirely alien universe.

[Pat]

I note that the argument between Minsky and Malthus has turned to Malthusian dynamics - with Minsky being the more Malthusian. (Plus royaliste que le roi?)

I think it would be interesting to apply some principles of population to the matter of Islam and war. The beliefs of Islam took shape during an era of military victory and expansion. It was for a long time customary to slay the men of defeated peoples and keep the women as spoils of war, as indeed the God of the old testament at times instructs his people to do. War in itself, of course, leaves a shortage of men. It is thus probable that there were many women to every man, and indeed we find that a man is allowed four wives.

This works well in a time of expansion, as was the time of early Islam. In times of peace, however, you end up with the rich having many wives and the poor none at all. The sexually frustrated masses of people, then, eagerly risk their lives in battle hoping either for victory and wealth or death as a martyr and virgins in heaven.

[Pat]

Anyway I agree with Minsky - the pre-industrialised world was essentially caught in a malthusian trap where increases in material wealth soon begot an increase in population. For the masses of people material standard of living never stayed above sustainance for long - and similar material conditions begets similar ways of life (hence stratospheric societal organizations with a small elite cultured for otherwise impossible specialization).

[Razgovory]

They still plant them right?  At it's most basic (which is what I thought JR was talking about it) it's still put in seeds and take out crops.

Plop a peasant from the time of pre-Roman Gaul into France at the time of the Sun King or even Louis XVIII - there would be serious culture shock, but he could adjust.  The rhytms of agrarian life would be similar, he would find himself in hierarchical social system but one that is rather localized - the methods and means of production would differ somewhat, but many of the basic tools and concepts would be the same.

Now take the early 19th century French peasant and make him proprietor of a modest-sized modern French farm.  Now he has to think about things like hybrid and clonal selection, pest management techniques, types of fertilizer, purchasing and maintaining machinery, managing a workforce, insurance, depreciation accounting, commodity hedging, transport options, fuel, export markets, CAP regulations, etc.  It is an entirely alien universe.

Two things:  First off you underestimate the complexity of the agrarian worker in the pre-modern world.  Second you are mixing two separate occupations.  The pre-modern French peasant's modern equivalent would be a laborer at an agro-business not the proprietor of a modest sized farm.  If we plop him from his peasant work to a modern equivalent he'd do okay.  The proprietor fellow is the equivalent of a schenchel or manor lord and he does have to worry about management techniques, transport, export, etc.

[Queequeg]

Minsky-Oex; Could you really argue that the notion of progress was unknown throughout the entire pre-Industrial history of Agriculture? The Muslim idea (to return to the topic) of the constantly expanding dar el-islam leading irrevocably to the End Times?  This is especially true of traditional Sunni Islam.  The pre-Sullan Republic might have had something similar before the breakdown into Optimates-Populares, as would the Greeks in certain periods.

[Razgovory]

Minsky-Oex; Could you really argue that the notion of progress was unknown throughout the entire pre-Industrial history of Agriculture? The Muslim idea (to return to the topic) of the constantly expanding dar el-islam leading irrevocably to the End Times?  This is especially true of traditional Sunni Islam.  The pre-Sullan Republic might have had something similar before the breakdown into Optimates-Populares, as would the Greeks in certain periods.

I have often wondered if pre-modern peoples understood technological progress.  I really don't know.  I mean you often have art work depicting historical or mythical events in a comtemporary setting.  Such as medieval illuminations showing plate clad knights sieging Troy or something.  I don't know really.

[dps]

it matters because "progress" requires a society that is specifically set up to achieve it.  it requires an ideology of progress to have progress.  It's not like the economy grows at a trend rate of 3 percent and applied innovations roll out of research facilities on their own. 

Are you arguing that western Europe c.1500-1800 was "set up" to achieve progress? 

[Sheilbh]

Are you arguing that western Europe c.1500-1800 was "set up" to achieve progress?

Progress is even more modern than that, I'd say it's a relatively 18th century thought.  I think it came out of a combination of knowing that modern Europeans had surpassed even the Greeks and Romans in certain aspects of knowledge and the exhaustion of religious war which often carried a strong millenarian impulse.  The failure of the sort of cores of Medieval knowledge (the superiority of classical civilisation and eschatology) had a huge intellectual impact.

[Razgovory]

Are you arguing that western Europe c.1500-1800 was "set up" to achieve progress?

Progress is even more modern than that, I'd say it's a relatively 18th century thought.  I think it came out of a combination of knowing that modern Europeans had surpassed even the Greeks and Romans in certain aspects of knowledge and the exhaustion of religious war which often carried a strong millenarian impulse.  The failure of the sort of cores of Medieval knowledge (the superiority of classical civilisation and eschatology) had a huge intellectual impact.

Yeah the Europeans were still unsure if they could achieve the glory of Rome and Greece as late the 18th century.  I think Jonathen Swift commented on this inferiority complex.

[Malthus]

Estimated world population (in thousands):

10,000 BC: 1,000

5,000 B.C: 15,000

1,000 B.C: 50,000

0 A.D: 200,000

1000 A.D: 310,000

1750 A.D: 791,000

Where is the unchanging world? Seems to me that a significant change is happening - more or less continuously.

Change /= progress.

Let's look a little more carefully at those numbers.  In the thousand years between 1000 BC and 0, population quadrupled.  In the next thousand years, it went up barely over 50 percent.  This in spite of the fact that extensivity of cultivation increased substantially (ie people spread over the landscape and chopped down forest).  Even the growth over the next 750 years doesn't look that impressive in context of what came before (and as to what was to come - fuhgettaboutit).

So one way that an observer c. 1200 or even c. 1700 would look at this data (which of course he wouldn't because nothing of the sort would be available) - would be to confirm the belief that an ancient times, great civilizations rose and did mighty things, culminating in the achievements of Rome or the Han.  And since then the unmatchable height was reached, civilization has suffered cycles of stagnation of recovery.  With the "rennaissance" of the bygone classical age being the idea to be sought (but rarely achieved).  And what is more - that observer would be "right" in the sense that the basic material underpinnings of civilization were fundamentally the same.

Assume for the moment that your hypothetical observer at year 1200 was an alien from another planet or better, a time-traveller. I disagree that he would look at these figures, examine the relative technology of the various eras, and conclude that nothing has really 'progressed' from the time of the Sumerians.

For one, world population has increased - by a factor of six.

For another, technology has changed fundamentally.

I am sort of flabbergasted that many of you appear to be arguing otherwise.

[Malthus]

Continuous" doesn't mean that it was steady.

...

Where is the unchanging world? Seems to me that a significant change is happening - more or less continuously.

Or perhaps you mean technology didn't change? People didn't start out with tools of wood and flint, and gradually adopt new technologies over time - in spite of wars, famines, and dark ages?

You are the Bloke that is trying to argue that there has been continuous (whatever you want that word to mean) progress.

The world is neither unchanging nor has there been continuous (in any sense of the word) progress.  Rather great civilizations rise and fall.  Some are replaced by other great civilizations some are not.  World history is a tale of creation followed by destruction and loss of civilization.  Far from this notion of continuous progress you want us to adopt.

The indicia of "progress" are not hard to describe - increasing population, increasing reliance on mechanical (as opposed to human) power, increasing knowledge and technology; increasing utilization of foreign materials (imported plants and animals being the most significant). All of these have demonstrated a tendancy to increase over time world-wide, in spite of local rises and falls of civilization - the fall of Mycenae was a disaster for the Mycenaens, but the Greeks that followed far surpassed them, and were surpassed in their turn by others; and this was hardly noticed in China.

Naturally, this "progress" has by no means been smooth - rather it has been punctuated by events, set-backs, dark ages. But the overall trend is clear.

The notion that there has been no progress until modernity sprung mysteriously out of Europe like Athena from the forehead of Zeus defies observed facts; the notion that there can be no progress unless some intellectual dreams up a historiography of progress makes no sense. 

[Malthus]

Just imagine an alien anthropologist came across Earth in 1200. I agree with Malthus, China would like a better bet for advancement than Europe.

Read above. You are assuming that alien antrhopologist shares your valued of what advancement is and so, will diagnose China accordingly.

Once again: this is not about changes that happen, but the types of changes we wish to implement and how we go about organizing these changes. Unless, once again, you believe in determinism (that of the market, the State or the Climate, who knows...) or happenstance - that is, that amorphous «change» happens, regardless of anything.

Incorrect - this is exactly about "changes than happen" and not about "changes we wish to implement".

A person can easily make changes without knowing their ultimate impact. Gunpowder was invented by Taoists seeking an immortality potion.

[Valmy]

My knowledge of history is sketchy, so could you remind me what happened to Galileo?

Died peacefully at his home?

[crazy canuck]

The notion that there has been no progress until modernity sprung mysteriously out of Europe like Athena from the forehead of Zeus defies observed facts; the notion that there can be no progress unless some intellectual dreams up a historiography of progress makes no sense.

If you re-read the posts in this thread you will see that there are good reasons why progress was achieved and those good reasons have a lot to do with the way in which some countries in the West created a paradigm shift toward progress.  Before that, the big advantage that the Muslim world had over Europe during the European dark ages was that Muslims had ready access to the ancient classics over time they became known Latin Europe as well.   That is not progress by the way that is trying to copy and understand a level of intellectual sophistication that had already been achieved and was largely lost - some of it forever which then had to be rediscovered.

If Latin Europe continued to live in a paradigm of conservative anti-intellectualism - largely enforced by the Church (everything there is to know is already known and it is in the Bible blah blah blah) this would be a very different world.  So yes, progress is very much influenced by the view that particular societies take.

The examples you have put forward in this thread assume that historical figures have the same world view as you, a post-modern information age law talker.  I forget what the name of that logical fallicy is but in any event you are guilty of it.

[jimmy olsen]

The examples you have put forward in this thread assume that historical figures have the same world view as you, a post-modern information age law talker.  I forget what the name of that logical fallicy is but in any event you are guilty of it.

He's not assuming anything about the world view of historical figures as he makes clear in his last post. You're simply projecting this fallacy onto him as means to discredit his argument.