Hi
So I've just listened to this : http://mises.org/media/4691
Hoppe says that one of the explanation for the industrial revolution is that Europeans were simply more intelligent. According to him, there's a long natural selection that tooks place until the Welfare state grown bigger and bigger : people who were more intelligent were more successful and earned more money than those who were stupid, so they could die older and have more children.
So centuries after centuries, this took place, but only in northern countries. Why ? Because living conditions are "harsher" in these places, and living is easier than in the so-called third world countries, where "every days look the same".
And now I wonder, how can he says that living was harsher in northern countries than in... Africa for exemple ? We've all watched reports on TV where we see people in villages in Africa eating dirt, dying from deseases, having no water, having to walk 6 hours each day to seek waters or to go to the nearest school... so how was it harder than peasants in England ?
EDIT : subsidary question : I have an economic history exams in 10 days about the industrial revolution. Can I write that northern people (French, yeay !) are more intelligent that african/asian/indians and that's why the industrial revolution happened in Europe ? =D
Obviously. England's climate isn't even that harsh. In fact, it is not harsh at all.
Of course it is. Without proper shelter and clothing you will be gauranteed to die. This is not true in the tropics, you may be uncomfortable but you can survive. I though about this the other day. Here in South Carolina the climate is subtropical and much more hospitable than Most of Europe. But even here during winter you will die without clothing and shelter. Without our technology only a narrow band between the tropics is habitable by humans.
I think Hoppe's explanation is neither particularly novel nor particularly correct, but alas, that's what happens when you try to venture into areas that you've not done the reading for. (Though Oded Galor has an evolutionary explanation of the Industrial Revolution and the break from the Malthusian regime, I've not read enough of it to decide on its merits).
Personally, I used to adhere to the institutional explanations for the occurrence of the industrial revolution. Namely that the industrial revolution occurred when and where it did because 18th Century England had the right institutions. However, Gregory Clark's explanation is quite convincing as far as I'm concerned. For anybody interested, I'd suggest that you pick up Gregory Clark's "A Farewell to Alms". His thesis is essentially that the institutional structures in England and the culture there meant that there was significant downward mobility as far as the children of the rich were concerned. This led to middle class values such as prudence , frugality and a distaste for violence (amongst others) permeating society. With these values being a prerequisite for the Industrial Revolution and subsequent economic growth.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Except for the malaria. And, if it's "harsher" in Europe, then shouldn't people be struggling to meet basic needs (e.g. food, shelter, warmth) there, while their easy-living southern counterparts can focus on higher-order goods?
African populations have developed a genetic resistance to malaria. Which is linked to sickle cell anemia, which occurs almost exclusively in African populations. For the same reasons European populations have developed a genetic resistance to the bubonic plague.
And they did for a long time. The point is that the harsh conditions put evolutionary pressure on the population. Those populations that are well adapted for thier environment dont evolve. examples are sharks and crocs.
"What is his take?"
Actually it's a her. In any case, I haven't been able to find her work on the subject but here's where I originally found out about it:
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2006/04/the_revolution_.html
Strangely enough, a longer time period might better suit your "they got out of africa and started wearing clothes" hypothesis.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
"What is his take?" Actually it's a her. In any case, I haven't been able to find her work on the subject but here's where I originally found out about it: http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2006/04/the_revolution_.html Strangely enough, a longer time period might better suit your "they got out of africa and started wearing clothes" hypothesis.
Lol thank you. Its not my theory and theres more to it than that.
A longer time period may also give further credence to the "institutional" explanation concerning the greater defence of property rights and multilateral balance of power and fractured power structure largely resulting from the unique status of the catholic church, eventually fosterin g the conditions for the so called industrial revolution. There's a reason why in arabian nights stories hidden treasure was such a unique theme, outside of Europe the only way to keep your wealth was to hide it.
The Rev: There is no racial advantage to being white...
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
The theory refers to a time long before the industrial revolution. It refers to the evolutionary period prior to what we know as civilization. I do agree that institutional factors very, very important to the advancement of human civilization. But why did certain areas of the globe develop the institutions neccessary for an industrial revolution? Then prior to that why did certain areas develop the institutions that led to the institutions that led to the industrial revolution? Then back futher and further. This leads to the theory about evolutionary differences and its competing theories (which mostly boil down to luck). geography, animals and plants ripe for domestication, etc.
The smartest Africans are far smarter than the average Caucasian. When speaking of intelligence differences between races, we are not speaking of non-overlapping IQ* bands but, rather, averages that are shifted slightly higher or slightly lower within the same band of greatest and lowest. There are people of every race who get PhDs in mathematics and physics and all the hard stuff - things that the average person in any race is not capable of.
I'm skeptical that it is possible to meaningfully isolate "intelligence" from all the other differences between races. What is clear is that races and cultures vary significantly in ways that confer a variety of advantages and disadvantages on the members of those respective races. Athletic ability, academic aptitude, business acumen, security awareness, artistic expression, and so on, vary significantly between race and race, culture and culture.
Such information is useful to scholars, underwriters and politicians seeking to divide and conquer the population. Not sure what else it is good for.
Clayton -
*I'm using "IQ" colloquially, here... IQ tests do not measure anything meaningful, IMO, except, perhaps, puzzle-solving aptitude. It goes a long way toward understanding white culture to note that we identify intelligence with ability to solve puzzles.
They say neccessity is the mother of all invention, and I tend to believe that it was Turkish control of Asia minor that forced Europeans to expore ocean routes to get to India. Other advances may of also had environmental causes.
Whether climate selected for higher intelligence, I don't know. But I do feel that this is a legimate hypothesis that should be free of policially correct baggage when explored. I'm sure we all heard of the case of DNA co-discoverer James Watson and his racist tyraid:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
He claimed genes responsible for human intelligence would be found soon, but didn't wait for the evidence before coming to his own conclusions:
"all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
I'm willing to wait and see what the facts are, and am confident that future advances in genetic engineering will allow members of all cultures & ethnicities to share in any 'intelligence gene' that is discovered.
Also, by the logic of "cultures from all over the world contributed to Western progress", it would be fair to also say that said cultures can also work against western "progress", as well as the more obvious observation of "all cultures tend to interact & influence each other in some way per influence."
Yes they can. But did they?
Oviously they did not. Aside from the Arab expansion and a few incursions by the steppe peoples the West was left undisturbed - courtesy of its favourable (somewhat remote) geographic position. Contrast this with the belligerent West working against everybody elses progress - in particular its near constant harrassement of East Europe - already strained under the pressure of peoples further east.
That is fine but it does not go deep enough. Why would such institutions be able to flourish here, but not elsewhere is the real question. The answer is the relative security from foreign threat. Embattled regions will enact regimentation which squashes independent institutions, does away with political fragmentation and introduces rigid hierarchies.
So in the long term the real harm of being invaded is not in the direct damage done by the invader, but in the regimentation subsequently enacted by the invaded.
Shelter-building is not something Africans learned from Europeans. Necessity or not they also built shelters.
Backward in relation to who?
The Mediterranean.
I cant believe we still need to argue over this.. Race and intelligence correlations have been shown beyond doubt, its just the way it is. Europeans and east asians have the highest IQ, other races have.. a bit lower. Check out "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis", it has a ton of studies and analysis put together. Its like geocentric or flat earth society still arguing against it. Hoppe is right, give the man a berak.
BTW, this can also be used to explain the scandinavian socialism's effectiveness.
Of course not. But thats not the theory. It says that the technology reached a certain level in africa. Once it reached a certain point the environmental pressures were eliminated. When africans first left africa and took their technology they encountered environments where their technology was insufficient. This reintroduced the pressure on the populations. This pressure forced them to create new technologies. Those populations that were better able to develop technology were able to survive.
This process is connected with shelter, clothing, hunting, planning, etc.