Interesting article

[Borodog]

This guy's ideas appear to be very Austrian, and yet incorporate some of my own thoughts on being "bred" to capitalism, although the time period is vastly different (he's looking at the industrial revolution, rather than the Upper Paleolithic like I did).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/scienc.../YoGto4NtulaNoQ

While the evolutionary effect he talks about might be real to some unknown extent, I think he is underestimating the most important factor, which is a strong cultural of property rights that descended from the feudal allodial system. His point about the descendents of the wealthy displacing the poor would support this, as they would culturally transmit that property right ethic into future generations.

Furthermore, reading him, he seems to be saying that non-Europeans may be on average less genetically equipped to be highly productive relative to Europeans. I can't believe there aren't cries of "Racism!" and people calling for this guy's head and job.

By the way, if anyone is interesting, Hoppe gave a fantastic series of 10 lectures where he reconstructed all of human history from first principles. Truly amazing stuff. All available as mp3s at mises.org if you're interested.

[tshort]

The idea the industrial revolution was caused by evolutionary changes in human nature over a short time period seems absurd. I always assumed it had to do with usage of new energy sources leading to rapid developments in travel and communication amongst other many other technologies.

The idea we are bred or evolved to capitalism seems acceptable, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, reading him, he seems to be saying that non-Europeans may be on average less genetically equipped to be highly productive relative to Europeans. I can't believe there aren't cries of "Racism!" and people calling for this guy's head and job.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has to be some answer to why third world populations continue to exist although the resources and technology of more advanced societies seem well within their reach.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea we are bred or evolved to capitalism seems acceptable, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Food for thought: Capitalists/imperialists plundered many of the societies who on the face of it seemed to be very non-capitalist in nature. If group A destroys most of the group B and forces what's left of group B to look and act like group A, then are the traits of group A really "bred" or "evolved" into our species? Or did they just assert their dominance through the sword?

[ALawPoker]

I tend to think the evolutionary stuff exists but isn't as important as he makes it to be. It seems like it would be sort of negligible in beating the Malthusian trap compared to the other issue at play, which is simply technology growing exponentially and finally reaching the point where it can increase a growing society's production. (In other words, Clark's theory works fine without the evolutionary stuff.)

It's hard and pretty useless though to speculate much on such a developed idea without studying and analyzing the actual numbers. Ultimately, I don't really disagree with the concept (evolution in favor of the wealthy MUST occur in that society, to some degree), so if he claims his numbers are good evidence of this happening to a significant degree, then I can't really doubt it on face value. But I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Clark played up the evolution effect because it has the most sex appeal, to his otherwise boring but still deeply developed, worthwhile theory.

EDIT: I'd like to simply ask Clark how many years he thinks the evolution factor actually sped the start of the industrial revolution by, or in other words when would it have happened happened if the evolutionary changes can somehow be ignored.

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea we are bred or evolved to capitalism seems acceptable, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Food for thought: Capitalists/imperialists plundered many of the societies who on the face of it seemed to be very non-capitalist in nature. If group A destroys most of the group B and forces what's left of group B to look and act like group A, then are the traits of group A really "bred" or "evolved" into our species? Or did they just assert their dominance through the sword?

[/ QUOTE ]

In this particular scenario, the group B of conquered people didn't evolve into capitalism. I think the society of all people would be evolving towards capitalism.

I by no means have a proof the world is evolving towards capitalism. The idea seems acceptable to me.

[ALawPoker]

Boro do you have any more thoughts on this article/idea? I thought the article was good, and was hoping to see more discussion on here when I woke up this afternoon.

I'll probably buy Clark's book. It will sit on my desk with all my other books that I buy and never feel like reading.

[Borodog]

Yes; I'll post more later.

[kbfc]

I'm hesitant to criticize based simply on a journalist's summary of a work, but there seems to be a lot "off" here.

I wasn't aware that there was so much uncertainty as to the causes of the Industrial Revolution. How exactly does technology growth (as mentioned by multiple others) not suffice?

Biological evolution seems not only exceedingly unlikely as a reason, but superfluous.

Cultural or memetic evolution would be a more likely candidate, but even those have problems. It looks like environment is a prime factor, as in the case of time-preference. Societies may well evolve in a manner such that the middle-class working tradition becomes widespread, but pluck an individual out of that society and the hereditary chain is snapped.

As for the continued existence of 3rd-world societies, I think it's a combination of "losing" the technological or cultural race along with the "winners'" incomplete desire to simply wipe out the rest and take over their land and resources (in those situations where they even have value). This state of affairs also allows for the continued exploitation of third-world societies, and gives the first-worlders some incentive to keep things that way.

I realize this comes off as a bunch of handwaving and asserting, but it's just a starting off point.

[rubberloon]

I think we are bred to pass on accumulated wealth to (a) our offspring (in my case BIO bestial ingrate offspring) or (b) failing them blood relatives. I don't think this is capitalistic merely human. It obviously encourages capitalism. Through chance I inherited a fair chunk of change from both (a) and (b) which I have invested since my wants and my other income is small but adequate. By chance although my ancestry had in fact accumulated considerable wealth they were unable to pass it on to later generations for various reasons. Other branches of the family kept and expanded their wealth from around 1760, multimillionaires and all that.

Since there are societies were accumulation and transmission of wealth are difficult, usually from practical circumstance rather than ideology, it seems that capitalism is not inherent in our genes - but rather when the chance arises we seize it.

Do 2plus2ers feel guilty when they win money?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
This guy's ideas appear to be very Austrian, and yet incorporate some of my own thoughts on being "bred" to capitalism, although the time period is vastly different (he's looking at the industrial revolution, rather than the Upper Paleolithic like I did).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/scienc.../YoGto4NtulaNoQ

While the evolutionary effect he talks about might be real to some unknown extent, I think he is underestimating the most important factor, which is a strong cultural of property rights that descended from the feudal allodial system. His point about the descendents of the wealthy displacing the poor would support this, as they would culturally transmit that property right ethic into future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]


With regards to the industrial revolution and historical causality:
http://ca.[censored].com/s.molyneux@rogers.com/Essays/history/historical_causality.htm

Inventions:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...e/time0002.htm
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...e/time0003.htm

Information-sharing (which relates to the property rights you mention and that Molyneux also mentions):
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1



The relatively brief period of time from the first cities to today where there was a ruling class in the history of man, seems to be a children's disease in the maturing of mankind.