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
Aside from the Arab expansion and a few incursions by the steppe peoples the West was left undisturbed - courtesy of its favorable (somewhat remote) geographic position.
Geographic isolation is also favorable to evolution. But you are right its hard to develop when marauders are burning your crops and villages. However just to be fair, just because eastern invaders were not burning the crops dosent mean that western europe was immune. ex) the Germanic invasions of Rome, Viking raids throughout northern europe, Moorish and Arab incursions in the Mediterranean, constant warfare between themselves.
I think it's worth noting "even" as late as 1700, India and China had a 22.6% and 23.1% share of world GDP respectively, with the whole of Europe at 23.3%, with living standards and per capita income hardly distiniguishable for the average peasant(though slightly higher for the Europeans I think). So even up until fairly recently the more "highly evolved" whites had not greatly surpassed other parts of the world in terms of economic performance, taking with a pinch of salt of course, the above aggregate measures. To me this points more towards better instiutional conditions, both India and China being largely ruled by despotic regimes, with a rigid caste system in the former and becoming increasingly isolationist in the latter, though a I'm sure there are a whole host of other socipolitcal factors that contribute towards the later shift in relative economic performance.
Figures were obtained from: Angus Maddison, Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run, OECD, Paris, 1998.
"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."
Hoppe is so wrong on this one. Lets assume that the people in North are better generally. Then even with the dumbing down they would still be at par or above the lesser Third world.
Japan and China are almost better and dominant than many Northerners. And if the argument arises that the difference in intelligence is nominal exemplified by only the climate than such a difference is negglible.
The west just had better ideas. Now that they have rejected these better ideas, the results are showing.
Southern, the thesis breaks down completely when you look at Native American History. Which was the exact opposite. Those who went towards warmer climate became a more advance civilization and those who stayed up north lived in huts. As a matter of fact it breaks down completely by just looking at history!
I wonder what percent of people actually listed to the audio. Here's a couple points people seem to be talking about which Hoppe didn't make:
I have some problems with how Hoppe presents stuff like this sometimes, but he makes some good ideas too.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Hoppe is so wrong on this one. Lets assume that the people in North are better generally. Then even with the dumbing down they would still be at par or above the lesser Third world. Japan and China are almost better and dominant than many Northerners. And if the argument arises that the difference in intelligence is nominal exemplified by only the climate than such a difference is negglible. The west just had better ideas. Now that they have rejected these better ideas, the results are showing.
and that has nothing to do with the fact that all those above mentioned countries have undergone rapid economic development and rises in their standard of living upon economic liberalisation? Back in the 60s, when the gdp per capita income of both India, South Korea and China were not only pathetically low but very similiar, South Korea made broad sweeping reforms in a free market direction, with China following later. India made modest reforms in the 1990s when on the brink of bankruptcy and a foreign exchange reserve crisis, but is still pretty socialist in important areas with miles of red tape. And then notice the differences in nutrition scores, income and IQ scores? I think we should be more careful making such broad sweeping statements based on historical data, especially when we have not accounted for conditions that are not the same and did not remain so when making comparisons like that.
Before a case is made differentiating regions by genetic intelligence it must be proven that there are genetic differences in intelligence. That has not been done.
From a review of the data used in Race Differences in Intelligence:
"The majority of the data points were based upon convenience rather than representative samples. Some points were not even based on residents of the country. For instance, the “data point” for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the “data point” for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population."
Hunt, E. & Wittmann, W. (2008). National intelligence and national prosperity. Intelligence. Vol. 36, 1, January-February pp. 1-9.
Certainly not a reason to reject the work out of hand, but this does raise a few eyebrows for me. I find the claim that the genes that "determine" intelligence have been "found" strange, especially when we still struggle to find the causal factors influencing much simpler and better defined characteristics. Up until recently(and I was taught this crap at high school), microbiologists were absolutely convinced that only the genes themselves and not their arrangement within DNA as a network had any influence on biological characteristics.
Yes it has.. Read the book i pointed or exerts that are available. It is very comprehensive on the topic
I can tell that it is junk just by your summary of it.
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.
This process is connected with shelter, clothing, hunting, planning, etc.
If the thesis is that the dumb died off under evolutionary pressures it should be easy enough to prove. All that needs to be shown is that Africans have a broader range of intelligence levels, no?
Hoppe is off base here.
First, his IQ hypothesis is unlikely on its own, but his climes explanation is simply false. Why do Eskimos not rule the earth? Or better yet, why did the industrial revolution occur in England and not Finland?
Peace
"China's, Japan's and Korea's great performance does not go against the genetic advantage theory, on the contrary, it completely supports it. Eastern Asian people have the highest average IQ in the world, from ~100 in china to a superhuman ~108 in japan."
Yes it does.
One, it disproves the hypothesis that the highest IQ race develops the fastest. Two, it disproves the climes theory of IQ.
(But IQ is deliberately scaled to make 100 the average, so averaging a 100 is not exactly a feat.)
No it doesnt. The technology level possessed by the native americans was at a level sufficient to allow them to thrive in the warmer climates. Their technology was insufficient to allow them to thrive in colder climates. Survive yes, thrive no.