4 ms·

This seems an inane and oversimplified view. Sure, coffee would have helped. But ignoring colonization, and its huge positive impact on Western Europe and negat

by sn41 10y ago

This seems an inane and oversimplified view. Sure, coffee would have helped. But ignoring colonization, and its huge positive impact on Western Europe and negative impact elsewhere, and concluding that industrialization is a corollary of a stimulant is strange. I think these kind of "historians" rarely bother to place themselves in historical context. This article seems right in the much derided class of insight porn articles. I believe history is not the result of "one minor cause" - you could write articles equally myopic that the Chinese invention of sailing against the wind created civilization, gunpowder created civilization, double-entry bookkeeping created civilization, steam power created civilization, better glasswork and telescopes created civilization, etc. It was not one thing by itself, but probably everything together.

dublinclontarf 10y ago
> and negative impact elsewhere This is factually incorrect. The USA, Canada, Australia and NewZealand we're colonies. Certainly under British rule colonisation had a hugely positive impact.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  For the Europeans, who moved there. The original inhabitants might think different. In their point of view, these colonies actually were the most devastating.
  - waqf 10y ago
    But leaving aside whether the advantages accrued to one ethnic group or another, didn't colonization increase the economic output on those land masses? Overall, I mean (unquestionably it was destructive too).
    - sn41 10y ago
      I can speak about India. India went from controlling 25% of the world's output in the 1500s to controlling 2% of the world's output in 1947. Till about 1900, Indians were banned from starting industries. Just so that you don't think that Indians had no industries, the first Fellow of the Royal Society from India was a shipbuilder [1]. British colonization was devastating for Indian commerce. You can argue that it is only now hobbling back to normalcy. On balance, British did introduce railways, which was instrumental in unifying the country, and a unified legal system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
- gunnyguy121 10y ago
  smallpox riddled Native Americans might want a word with you
andrepd 10y ago
Absolutely. Almost no major historic events or developments had one single cause.
- qntty 10y ago
  No event period has a single cause. In order to hit a pool ball with another pool ball, you need to create the universe first. It sounds pedantic, but you can't always find more than one reasonable cause for any event. Aristotle named four, but there's always more than that.
jfoutz 10y ago
The only argument i ever really bought was the origin of agriculture. and even that is pretty suspect, but i still think it's a decent argument. 10,000 years ago, pretty much everyone was a hunter gatherer. Humans can survive on pretty much anything from seeds to whales. There's not really much need to control the environment to maintain a food source in that context. Yes, there will be lean years, yes there are other populations you're in competition with (but they could also be food...) In any case, the argument goes, somebody stumbled on fermentation. The desire for regular access to whatever plant got you drunk might actually be enough to become a farmer. It's tough to say. I think it's plausible, and probably part of the whole story. Hunter gatherers were healthier and longer lived than their farming counterparts. I think that's still true of the few hunter gatherer cultures that remain. Food security is a good reason, but for a human, especially a hunter gatherer, everything is food. Alcohol security though, that's a pretty compelling argument. Perhaps not for you personally, but i'm sure you've met people that would agree. Addiction is powerful.
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  Also domestication could have had a part, once you have a herd nomadic life is much harder and you need to tend to pastures.
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    Domestication also explains, why development has been slower in Africa. They had nothing to domesticate.
    - XaspR8d 10y ago
      Is this a testable claim? Were, say, sheep progenitors easier to domesticate than ibexes or antelope or okapi?
      - LoSboccacc 10y ago
        Well there's the American Natives, which are a conundrum because they both had hard animals to work with (I think they did manage to domesticate turkeys, but not buffaloes) but some still managed to farm and hybridize crops. many points are debated here, there are also some links to start https://www.quora.com/Farming-Why-didnt-the-Native-Americans-domesticate-buffalo-bison-and-grow-crops https://www.quora.com/Farming-Why-didnt-the-Native-Americans... disclaimer: I know nothing of the subject and my initial hunch was pure conjecture.

by sn41 10y ago

dublinclontarf 10y ago

> and negative impact elsewhere This is factually incorrect. The USA, Canada, Australia and NewZealand we're colonies. Certainly under British rule colonisation had a hugely positive impact.

allendoerfer 10y ago
For the Europeans, who moved there. The original inhabitants might think different. In their point of view, these colonies actually were the most devastating.
- waqf 10y ago
  But leaving aside whether the advantages accrued to one ethnic group or another, didn't colonization increase the economic output on those land masses? Overall, I mean (unquestionably it was destructive too).
  - sn41 10y ago
    I can speak about India. India went from controlling 25% of the world's output in the 1500s to controlling 2% of the world's output in 1947. Till about 1900, Indians were banned from starting industries. Just so that you don't think that Indians had no industries, the first Fellow of the Royal Society from India was a shipbuilder [1]. British colonization was devastating for Indian commerce. You can argue that it is only now hobbling back to normalcy. On balance, British did introduce railways, which was instrumental in unifying the country, and a unified legal system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
gunnyguy121 10y ago
smallpox riddled Native Americans might want a word with you

andrepd 10y ago

Absolutely. Almost no major historic events or developments had one single cause.

qntty 10y ago
No event period has a single cause. In order to hit a pool ball with another pool ball, you need to create the universe first. It sounds pedantic, but you can't always find more than one reasonable cause for any event. Aristotle named four, but there's always more than that.

jfoutz 10y ago

The only argument i ever really bought was the origin of agriculture. and even that is pretty suspect, but i still think it's a decent argument. 10,000 years ago, pretty much everyone was a hunter gatherer. Humans can survive on pretty much anything from seeds to whales. There's not really much need to control the environment to maintain a food source in that context. Yes, there will be lean years, yes there are other populations you're in competition with (but they could also be food...) In any case, the argument goes, somebody stumbled on fermentation. The desire for regular access to whatever plant got you drunk might actually be enough to become a farmer. It's tough to say. I think it's plausible, and probably part of the whole story. Hunter gatherers were healthier and longer lived than their farming counterparts. I think that's still true of the few hunter gatherer cultures that remain. Food security is a good reason, but for a human, especially a hunter gatherer, everything is food. Alcohol security though, that's a pretty compelling argument. Perhaps not for you personally, but i'm sure you've met people that would agree. Addiction is powerful.

LoSboccacc 10y ago
Also domestication could have had a part, once you have a herd nomadic life is much harder and you need to tend to pastures.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  Domestication also explains, why development has been slower in Africa. They had nothing to domesticate.
  - XaspR8d 10y ago
    Is this a testable claim? Were, say, sheep progenitors easier to domesticate than ibexes or antelope or okapi?
    - LoSboccacc 10y ago
      Well there's the American Natives, which are a conundrum because they both had hard animals to work with (I think they did manage to domesticate turkeys, but not buffaloes) but some still managed to farm and hybridize crops. many points are debated here, there are also some links to start https://www.quora.com/Farming-Why-didnt-the-Native-Americans-domesticate-buffalo-bison-and-grow-crops https://www.quora.com/Farming-Why-didnt-the-Native-Americans... disclaimer: I know nothing of the subject and my initial hunch was pure conjecture.