You're an expert. I'm a bit of dilettante in this area.
One of my recent suppositions here is that all safe/stable societies slide away from non-violent competition into extractive competition. And that the only way we've seen that has kept the engine of progress running on decentralized power has been external threat.
Europe grew, partly, because if France cracked down on Voltaire, he'd cross the channel, and keep going. Same for Bach and Watt and the 1930s emigration of Jews from central Europe to the US. And since the countries were competitors, there wasn't room to oppress the citizens, while wrestling with the other countries.
Thoughts?
I'm sure you've also heard northern-european bans on cousin marriage weakened clans and allowed individual deciding, and more thriving than if we had to share our gained wealth with all the aunts and uncles and cousins and niblings.
Non-violent competition is certainly hard to keep going for, but I do not think that it declines in all societies. I do believe that violent competition and extractive competition are far more likely in most of human history.
I think that if we are talking about only one society, then yes, it is likely to fall into extraction. But if we are talking about many societies that are competing against each other, the each society has the incentive to maintain what works, and if they don't other nations that do will replace them. That is what happened in Europe for the last 800 years.
Multiple levels of competition work best (within organizations, within nations, and internationally between nations). That keeps the system in balance.
Yes, I am familiar with the theory of the Christian church banning cousins marriage among other family styles. This is the best book on the subject:
Henrich is one of my favorite authors, but I am not so sure that his overall theory is correct. I think it had an important impact on Western culture, but I think geography and political decentralization played a much bigger role in the rise of Northwest Europe.
My most recent think in the space comes from my friend Michael Strong ( https://michaelstrong.substack.com/ ). He argues (which I'd never thought of, and dismissed quite a bit) that the theory of (what I'd call) discoverable, power-independent, maybe transcendental truth ... is central also to the rise of the west.
He referenced one of his Chinese friends who argued that the Euclid / Pythagoras / Plato foundation: "This is a true abstraction, no matter who says what." That idea was never developed / it never stuck in Chinese history.
From Euclid's Elements: "Hey ... you can figure out all of geometry ... Here's what I saw, and you can do all that yourself, without me" to Socrates' Slave boy and irrational numbers to Pythagorean harmonics ... these are indisputable, discoverable truths.
2+2=4 ... come king or God, if they say otherwise they're wrong.
He argued, and I'm notably-persuaded, that this "truth independent of authority" outside of the practical "use this gear ratio" explains some part of the rise of the west.
Again, thoughts?
Normally, when you talk geography of Europe, folks hear "oh, like Jared Diamond" . Is that what you're talking about?
I am a materialist in my thinking so I tend not to think much of Big Ideas being causes in history. There may be some truth in the above arguments, but there has been a huge amount a variation in the economic outcomes of Western nations over time.
As for Diamond, yes, but I take his argument much further. Diamond focuses on why Eurasia got richer than the rest of the world, which matters, but that still does not account for most of the variation in outcome.
This is my thinking on geography. I would start at the bottom and work up:
I have 2 questions.
You're an expert. I'm a bit of dilettante in this area.
One of my recent suppositions here is that all safe/stable societies slide away from non-violent competition into extractive competition. And that the only way we've seen that has kept the engine of progress running on decentralized power has been external threat.
Europe grew, partly, because if France cracked down on Voltaire, he'd cross the channel, and keep going. Same for Bach and Watt and the 1930s emigration of Jews from central Europe to the US. And since the countries were competitors, there wasn't room to oppress the citizens, while wrestling with the other countries.
Thoughts?
I'm sure you've also heard northern-european bans on cousin marriage weakened clans and allowed individual deciding, and more thriving than if we had to share our gained wealth with all the aunts and uncles and cousins and niblings.
Again, thoughts?
Non-violent competition is certainly hard to keep going for, but I do not think that it declines in all societies. I do believe that violent competition and extractive competition are far more likely in most of human history.
I think that if we are talking about only one society, then yes, it is likely to fall into extraction. But if we are talking about many societies that are competing against each other, the each society has the incentive to maintain what works, and if they don't other nations that do will replace them. That is what happened in Europe for the last 800 years.
Multiple levels of competition work best (within organizations, within nations, and internationally between nations). That keeps the system in balance.
Yes, I am familiar with the theory of the Christian church banning cousins marriage among other family styles. This is the best book on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_World
Henrich is one of my favorite authors, but I am not so sure that his overall theory is correct. I think it had an important impact on Western culture, but I think geography and political decentralization played a much bigger role in the rise of Northwest Europe.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/commercial-societies
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-geographical-preconditions-of
I also have an article about the geography of Europe which I should publish some, but I keep getting distracted by other articles
Political decentralization has seemed to me to be a Giant win for a long time.
I'm gonna keep asking questions ... feel free to stop answering.
My most recent think in the space comes from my friend Michael Strong ( https://michaelstrong.substack.com/ ). He argues (which I'd never thought of, and dismissed quite a bit) that the theory of (what I'd call) discoverable, power-independent, maybe transcendental truth ... is central also to the rise of the west.
He referenced one of his Chinese friends who argued that the Euclid / Pythagoras / Plato foundation: "This is a true abstraction, no matter who says what." That idea was never developed / it never stuck in Chinese history.
From Euclid's Elements: "Hey ... you can figure out all of geometry ... Here's what I saw, and you can do all that yourself, without me" to Socrates' Slave boy and irrational numbers to Pythagorean harmonics ... these are indisputable, discoverable truths.
2+2=4 ... come king or God, if they say otherwise they're wrong.
He argued, and I'm notably-persuaded, that this "truth independent of authority" outside of the practical "use this gear ratio" explains some part of the rise of the west.
Again, thoughts?
Normally, when you talk geography of Europe, folks hear "oh, like Jared Diamond" . Is that what you're talking about?
I am a materialist in my thinking so I tend not to think much of Big Ideas being causes in history. There may be some truth in the above arguments, but there has been a huge amount a variation in the economic outcomes of Western nations over time.
As for Diamond, yes, but I take his argument much further. Diamond focuses on why Eurasia got richer than the rest of the world, which matters, but that still does not account for most of the variation in outcome.
This is my thinking on geography. I would start at the bottom and work up:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/t/geography
I started reading those. And bought your book.
I think my "big idea" thing is more what you posted today (Nov/21/2024) (Modernity -- Objective Truth -- etc. --) When discussing postmoderns.