Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
let me know when you finish the book, I'll try to get a copy (after this week, finals are a few days away).
maybe a mod can move this portion of the discussion into politics and we can continue it.
|
I'm reading the book for the second time. Thus I've already read it.
Anyway... The comments your reviewer has are interesting.
Quote:
|
I am not sure about this part of his argument. It always seemed to me that what a pre-industrial society's standard of living was depended much more on at what level of material want culture had set its Malthusian thermostat at which the population no longer grew. I have always been impressed by accounts of high population densities in at least some "tropical" civilizations: if they were so poor because the climate made hard work so difficult, why the (relatively) dense populations?
|
I don't know exactly which densely populated areas this man is talking about, but I assume (perhaps without reason) that these areas are situated around rivers with relatively fertile soils, like the Nile delta. These areas could easily support large populations, while the areas around it could not. That might lead to high population leavels, but not to high standards of living, because of the lack of trade with other people. It's a complex system, after all.
More temperate climates allow not only high population levels, but also a good spread of that population, leading to even more population growth, and a large amount of trade - always essential to technological growth and high standards of living. This might have a lot to do with specialization of labor: increased efficiency leads to higher output, leads to higher trade levels, leads to higher standards of living. I mean, if one village is very good at fishing, while another is great at hunting...
Quote:
|
Moreover, simple appeals to an inward turn supported by confident cultural arrogance under the Ming and Ch'ing that led to stagnation leave me puzzled. Between 1400 and 1800 we think that the population of China grew from 80 million to 300 million. That doesn't suggest an economy of malnourished peasants at the edge of biological subsistence. That doesn't suggest a civilization in which nothing new can be attempted. It suggests a civilization in which colonization of internal frontiers and improvements in agricultural technology are avidly pursued, and in which living standards are a considerable margin above socio-cultural subsistance to support the strong growth in populations.
|
Population growth and internal colonization do not mean a society is not technologically stagnant. Landes never states that the Chinese stopped inventing. He instead shows they are very good at inventing new things; it is just that they seemed unable to *use* those inventions for an extended period, and build on the knowledge. For example, he talks about a great mathematician, who wrote some advanced books that were simply too difficult for later generations: they forgot how to get there, so to say. There are numerous other examples of technologies that were forgotten, or even banned by the emperor. Change was okay, but too much change was bad. When the rest of the world then keeps inventing new things, the Chinese start lagging behind more and more: stagnation.
------------------
Anyway, I hope you read and like the book. I certainly did, if only because it's written so damn well. It all seems to make sense.