Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Dragonlich · 06-02-2003, 10:48 PM

Well, Smooth... I just happen to have lying around a copy of David S. Landes' "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations", which *seems* credible to say the least. He takes an historic look at why certain countries are richer than others. Over time, the western world has grown rich because of our environment and culture. (*very* short summary, of course)

You say that "the poorest countries have the most natural resources--I won't belate this point, look at a map." This may be true, but what natural resources? And what exactly do natural resources have to do with wealth? That may seem like a stupid question, but stay with me for a moment... Take oil, a *very* important natural resource: without modern tools, and a lot of refining, it's nothing but some black goo. You cannot eat it. Gold, Silver, etc: same thing, without lots of labor, and a market willing to buy it, it cannot feed anyone.
If a country has some of these resources, it still has to exploit them, and sell them. If they do not have the technical skills to do that, other people that do will help them out - at a price. That is only logical.
If a country then keeps depending on that external knowledge, instead of starting it's own centers of learning, they will always have to pay that high price for that assistance. This makes it impractical or too expensive to tap into some areas with natural resources. And of course, even if the country did manage to exploit it, they still have to sell at the a price dictated by the "market", which may or may not get them enough money to buy food.

You say that "early civilizations were nomadic and if people lived in places with bad soil they moved." That seems simple enough, but unfortunately, it is not. Early civilizations (pre-iron age) *had* to use the poor soil to grow food, because the better soil (wooded areas) were simply unavailable, with trees in the way and all. Southern-European people farmed on poor soil, while Northern/Western European people had to settle with poor soil too, until they invented tools capable of cutting down entire forests - only *that* allowed them to use the better soil.

Then: "Thirdly, notwithstanding technological advances in Western countries, ancient peoples lived as long, longer, and sometimes shorter lives than current trends." True, but not generally true. *Some* ancient people, particularly the rich and/or healthy, lived long lives. On average, the life expectancy was typically lower than it is now. Do not make the mistake of taking extreme examples as the norm.
I did not say people automatically live longer - I said the *average* life expectancy was higher; quite a difference. And of course the life expectancy was lower during the industrial revolution, just as it was lower during the black plague days... If you look at the general trend, however, life expectancy goes up over time. Again, you take extreme examples as the norm.

We are not "returning" to rates similar to pre-industrial days, especially if you let go of the narrow number-of-years-mean-everything interpretation of life expectancy. In the pre-industrial days, also incidentally the pre-modern-medicine days, one might expect to grow relatively old (60?) if one had managed to survive childhood, but not all of those years would be in perfect health. Now, a big if is that "childhood" bit: in the 17th century, only 58% of French kids reached their 15th birthday, which reduced the average life expectancy to a mere 20. In the early 18th century, more than 74% of the children died before reaching age five... During the industrial revolution, many medical advances were discovered, allowing the British population to double between 1750 and 1820, with childhood mortality dropping to 31.8% in 1830. Not bad, eh?
Anyway... suppose one survived childhood. One could then look forward to a life full of diseases and nasty bugs, until one finally died at a ripe old age of 50 or 60, with many health problems. Some exceptionally healthy people (usually rich) lived to become 80, 90 or even more than a hundred. And that was in Western Europe, where the soil was reasonably good, and there was quite a lot of trade. What would that be like in the savannahs of Africa, or the deserts of Arabia? Live was a constant struggle in these conditions, especially in Africa, with many deadly tropical diseases.
We could even take a look at China, with one of the best systems of food production ever seen: rice fields produced enough to feed it's entire population. Too bad most, if not all of that huge population was needed to grow the rice; and too bad that that rice production involved lots of walking through water-filled fields, leading to all kinds of nasty bugs... But luckily, the emperor had no such problems, and he could simply order his people to move from one end of the country to the other, killing thousands in the process - hell, there were plenty left.

Er... anyway... I still maintain: happy to be alive, just like the farmer in Mozambique, and just like a farmer in medieval China might have been, or a nomad in Arabia.

06-02-2003, 10:48 PM	#30 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Well, Smooth... I just happen to have lying around a copy of David S. Landes' "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations", which seems credible to say the least. He takes an historic look at why certain countries are richer than others. Over time, the western world has grown rich because of our environment and culture. (very short summary, of course) You say that <i>"the poorest countries have the most natural resources--I won't belate this point, look at a map."</i> This may be true, but what natural resources? And what exactly do natural resources have to do with wealth? That may seem like a stupid question, but stay with me for a moment... Take oil, a very important natural resource: without modern tools, and a lot of refining, it's nothing but some black goo. You cannot eat it. Gold, Silver, etc: same thing, without lots of labor, and a market willing to buy it, it cannot feed anyone. If a country has some of these resources, it still has to exploit them, and sell them. If they do not have the technical skills to do that, other people that do will help them out - at a price. That is only logical. If a country then keeps depending on that external knowledge, instead of starting it's own centers of learning, they will always have to pay that high price for that assistance. This makes it impractical or too expensive to tap into some areas with natural resources. And of course, even if the country did manage to exploit it, they still have to sell at the a price dictated by the "market", which may or may not get them enough money to buy food. You say that <i>"early civilizations were nomadic and if people lived in places with bad soil they moved."</i> That seems simple enough, but unfortunately, it is not. Early civilizations (pre-iron age) had to use the poor soil to grow food, because the better soil (wooded areas) were simply unavailable, with trees in the way and all. Southern-European people farmed on poor soil, while Northern/Western European people had to settle with poor soil too, until they invented tools capable of cutting down entire forests - only that allowed them to use the better soil. Then: <i>"Thirdly, notwithstanding technological advances in Western countries, ancient peoples lived as long, longer, and sometimes shorter lives than current trends."</i> True, but not generally true. Some ancient people, particularly the rich and/or healthy, lived long lives. On average, the life expectancy was typically lower than it is now. Do not make the mistake of taking extreme examples as the norm. I did not say people automatically live longer - I said the average life expectancy was higher; quite a difference. And of course the life expectancy was lower during the industrial revolution, just as it was lower during the black plague days... If you look at the general trend, however, life expectancy goes up over time. Again, you take extreme examples as the norm. We are not <i>"returning"</i> to rates similar to pre-industrial days, especially if you let go of the narrow number-of-years-mean-everything interpretation of life expectancy. In the pre-industrial days, also incidentally the pre-modern-medicine days, one might expect to grow relatively old (60?) if one had managed to survive childhood, but not all of those years would be in perfect health. Now, a big if is that "childhood" bit: in the 17th century, only 58% of French kids reached their 15th birthday, which reduced the average life expectancy to a mere 20. In the early 18th century, more than 74% of the children died before reaching age five... During the industrial revolution, many medical advances were discovered, allowing the British population to double between 1750 and 1820, with childhood mortality dropping to 31.8% in 1830. Not bad, eh? Anyway... suppose one survived childhood. One could then look forward to a life full of diseases and nasty bugs, until one finally died at a ripe old age of 50 or 60, with many health problems. Some exceptionally healthy people (usually rich) lived to become 80, 90 or even more than a hundred. And that was in Western Europe, where the soil was reasonably good, and there was quite a lot of trade. What would that be like in the savannahs of Africa, or the deserts of Arabia? Live was a constant struggle in these conditions, especially in Africa, with many deadly tropical diseases. We could even take a look at China, with one of the best systems of food production ever seen: rice fields produced enough to feed it's entire population. Too bad most, if not all of that huge population was needed to grow the rice; and too bad that that rice production involved lots of walking through water-filled fields, leading to all kinds of nasty bugs... But luckily, the emperor had no such problems, and he could simply order his people to move from one end of the country to the other, killing thousands in the process - hell, there were plenty left. Er... anyway... I still maintain: happy to be alive, just like the farmer in Mozambique, and just like a farmer in medieval China might have been, or a nomad in Arabia.