@North, I do recall Diamond's arguments about how fragmentation and competition may have put Europe over the top. If I remember correctly, however, these were conjectures he tentatively put forward towards the end of the book that were not as well supported as his other research. His ideas about the Industrial Revolution strike me as plausible, but they were nowhere near as well developed as the rest of Guns, Germs and Steel.
@North, I have! One of my frustrations with Diamond is that he can't really explain why Europe beat China to the Industrial Revolution (although he does a pretty convincing job of explaining why Eurasia outstripped the rest of the world). Clark, on the other hand, has developed a pretty interesting thesis that explains why Europe industrialized first.
@Jason Kuznicki, I think Jim Manzi's recent article on "causal densities" and the need to repeat social experiments over and over again is worth re-reading in this context:
@Transplanted Lawyer, Even if it was obvious to the judge that the anti-SSM experts were incompetent, as a rule, I'm not sure I'm comfortable allowing judicial appointees to make those determinations.
So I headed West, eager to escape memories of a keg stand gone awry. But no vehicle known to man could outpace Google, flickr, or Facebook, whose formless tendrils haunted my every move.
@russell, I agree with your skepticism re: the aristocracy's smarts (I expressed a few similar reservations in the original post), but as far as the connection between intelligence and industrialization goes, I think Clark is referring to the engineers and entrepreneurs who kick-started the economic shift away from agriculture, not the factory workers who provided unskilled labor.
@James Vonder Haar, Yeah, it occurs to me that the original post isn't entirely clear. I meant to convey that the limitations on personal freedom Bloomberg does favor reflect his own set of cultural biases.
@Jason Kuznicki, In the introduction, Clarke seems to be arguing that Asian elites didn't, as a rule, produce as many offspring. As for the Jews, I'd say that outside factors like the diaspora and intermittent persecution could very well have swamped any "selective breeding" program.
@Simon K, My first thought was the old description of the British Army: "Lions led by donkeys." The donkeys, of course, were largely drawn from the aristocracy.
My knowledge of this era is limited, but I seem to recall reading that the English aristocracy was a lot more fluid than you might think. The gentry, for example, were less established and often inter-married with wealthier yeomen and merchants. Is it possible that this process made the English upper classes better adapted to commercial activities than other, more established aristocracies?
@JosephFM, I think you can point to plenty of European countries - Denmark, Sweden, and Finland immediately come to mind - that didn't benefit from colonial land grabs and are still incredibly prosperous. You seem to be suggesting that imperialism = wealth. I think causation runs the other way (ie wealth allows for imperialism). For example, I've read a few interesting studies that suggest the British Empire was an enormous financial drag on Great Britain proper. England's overseas colonies were only sustainable because it enjoyed such enormous material wealth to begin with.
At the risk of picking nits, did the plague really defeat the Athenians? The Sicilian expedition and Lysander's naval campaign are the proximate causes that immediately come to mind, and both fit more comfortably within Hill's interpretive framework.
Full disclosure: I was one of those students who migrated from poli sci to history in search of "grand narratives."
@JosephFM, I don't deny that American history involves a lot of thinly-veiled land grabs. But I don't think that straightforward imperialism has much to do with the social, political, and cultural norms that make the United States (and other, less aggressive, Western countries) work.
On “Beerblogging: Some Stats”
@RTod, Cosign.
On “Your friday night jukebox and a brief announcement about League Beer Week”
@Rufus, Motion carried by acclamation!
On “Fresh as boiled cabbage”
@North, I do recall Diamond's arguments about how fragmentation and competition may have put Europe over the top. If I remember correctly, however, these were conjectures he tentatively put forward towards the end of the book that were not as well supported as his other research. His ideas about the Industrial Revolution strike me as plausible, but they were nowhere near as well developed as the rest of Guns, Germs and Steel.
"
@North, I have! One of my frustrations with Diamond is that he can't really explain why Europe beat China to the Industrial Revolution (although he does a pretty convincing job of explaining why Eurasia outstripped the rest of the world). Clark, on the other hand, has developed a pretty interesting thesis that explains why Europe industrialized first.
But yeah, Guns, Germs and Steel is great.
"
@Jason Kuznicki, I think Jim Manzi's recent article on "causal densities" and the need to repeat social experiments over and over again is worth re-reading in this context:
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html
Hong Kong's success is suggestive, but not dispositive, is what I'm trying to say.
On ““The Apostate””
That, or some willing Republican women. Does Erik have groupies yet?
On “For the democratic process…”
@Transplanted Lawyer, Even if it was obvious to the judge that the anti-SSM experts were incompetent, as a rule, I'm not sure I'm comfortable allowing judicial appointees to make those determinations.
On “The Gay Rights Movement’s Pyhrric Victory”
@Jaybird, Well, it could also be a Pyrrhic victory if the ruling hardens anti-gay sentiment.
On “Bloomberg’s Tribalism”
@Sonny Bunch, Oof, completely forgot about the eminent domain stuff. Another reason why you should get back to blogging, Bunch.
On “Reputation and the Realistic Novel”
So I headed West, eager to escape memories of a keg stand gone awry. But no vehicle known to man could outpace Google, flickr, or Facebook, whose formless tendrils haunted my every move.
On “The Breeders”
@russell, I agree with your skepticism re: the aristocracy's smarts (I expressed a few similar reservations in the original post), but as far as the connection between intelligence and industrialization goes, I think Clark is referring to the engineers and entrepreneurs who kick-started the economic shift away from agriculture, not the factory workers who provided unskilled labor.
On “Bloomberg’s Tribalism”
@James Vonder Haar, Yeah, it occurs to me that the original post isn't entirely clear. I meant to convey that the limitations on personal freedom Bloomberg does favor reflect his own set of cultural biases.
On “The Breeders”
@Jason Kuznicki, In the introduction, Clarke seems to be arguing that Asian elites didn't, as a rule, produce as many offspring. As for the Jews, I'd say that outside factors like the diaspora and intermittent persecution could very well have swamped any "selective breeding" program.
"
@Simon K, My first thought was the old description of the British Army: "Lions led by donkeys." The donkeys, of course, were largely drawn from the aristocracy.
On “Family Values Magic”
@North, And breeding! Don't forget breeding!
On “Breeding and Virtue”
Great post.
My knowledge of this era is limited, but I seem to recall reading that the English aristocracy was a lot more fluid than you might think. The gentry, for example, were less established and often inter-married with wealthier yeomen and merchants. Is it possible that this process made the English upper classes better adapted to commercial activities than other, more established aristocracies?
On “I write like . . . H. P. Lovecraft”
@Mark Thompson, Personally, I was shooting for Danielle Steele.
On “The Good Germans”
Haha I've been meaning to link to that. Vive l'ancien regime!
On “Wednesday jukebox – The National”
@Ryan Davidson, Cosign. That song is money.
On “My Immigration Dilemma”
@JosephFM, I think you can point to plenty of European countries - Denmark, Sweden, and Finland immediately come to mind - that didn't benefit from colonial land grabs and are still incredibly prosperous. You seem to be suggesting that imperialism = wealth. I think causation runs the other way (ie wealth allows for imperialism). For example, I've read a few interesting studies that suggest the British Empire was an enormous financial drag on Great Britain proper. England's overseas colonies were only sustainable because it enjoyed such enormous material wealth to begin with.
On “Bleg/Open Thread”
Let's talk about immigration. I'd like to hear some libertarians weigh in on the cultural assimilation arguments.
On “The Shallow Drafts of Charles Hill”
At the risk of picking nits, did the plague really defeat the Athenians? The Sicilian expedition and Lysander's naval campaign are the proximate causes that immediately come to mind, and both fit more comfortably within Hill's interpretive framework.
Full disclosure: I was one of those students who migrated from poli sci to history in search of "grand narratives."
On “My Immigration Dilemma”
@JosephFM, I don't deny that American history involves a lot of thinly-veiled land grabs. But I don't think that straightforward imperialism has much to do with the social, political, and cultural norms that make the United States (and other, less aggressive, Western countries) work.
"
@Austin Bramwell, Right, I probably should have acknowledged that Caplan is presenting an argument as opposed to endorsing it.
On “In Defense of Casting Stones at Mel Gibson”
@silentbeep, Cosign.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.