6 ms·

>While the Romans were able to build engineering marvels such as roads and aqueducts, they wouldn’t have a clue what to do with a mobile phone. But - to be fai

by jaclaz 9y ago

>While the Romans were able to build engineering marvels such as roads and aqueducts, they wouldn’t have a clue what to do with a mobile phone. But - to be fair - they wouldn't have needed to buy a new smartphone every two years or so, nor to pay subscription to any mobile carrier. With all due respect for the map (and the accuracy of the calculations by the econo-historian) that may be very valid, the comparison with modern times (i.e. the linked to article) makes (at least to me) very little sense. GDP/PPP based calculations on poverty line already (even in modern times comparisons between different countries) suffer from "skewing" because of the different needs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#Global_poverty_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#Global... let alone comparing today with 2000 years ago.

wmeredith 9y ago
To be fair, I wouldn't have a clue what to do with an aqueduct.
- ancientworldnow 9y ago
  Aqueducts are still extremely important parts of a modern water system. NYC, for example, gets most of its water from aqueducts.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  >To be fair, I wouldn't have a clue what to do with an aqueduct. I would guess that once you will have a city and a decent number of citizens in it you will quickly find out a possible use for it.
- isostatic 9y ago
  Build a city larger than 8
nerpderp83 9y ago
DNR. Technology needs to be put in context. I saw people in Nepal with mobile phones that didn't have access to clean water. Rather than GDP I'd measure the likelihood to die of disease, famine, war, etc. Technology is a tool. The same cognitive dissonance is seen when discussing evolution.
- jdonaldson 9y ago
  More importantly: Societies need to be put in context. It's pretty meaningless to compare a materialistic modern society benchmark to, say, that of Sparta (disallowing trade, life goals include dying in battle).
- roenxi 9y ago
  Joules Consumed / Head would be a harder-to-calculate but also much more interesting measure than GDP. It would also make it easier to talk about the uncertainty in the estimates, still capture food, transport and shelter to some degree.
  - lifeisstillgood 9y ago
    try "without the hot air" by Prof Mackay. From memory the estimate in his book was measured by 3,000 calories / person per day of output, and so that average brit consumes around 30 "slaves" worth of transport, heating and other energy services. now imagine how many people in Romans era could have 30 slaves. # https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    I cannot recommend highly enough Vaclav Smil's Energy in World History (1994), or the revised edition released just this year, Energy and Civilization. It follows pretty much precisely this metric, which is also, incidentally, far easier to calculate than you'd expect. In fact, you can pretty much plot out human development levels, from hunter-gatherer, to agricultural, to empire, to early industrial, to modern industrial, based on per capita energy consumption and availability, ranging from a low of about 10 GJ/capita to a peak of over 350 GJ/capita in the US (in very rough numbers, I don't have sources in front of me at the moment). See generally: https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumpti... There's some very interesting work going on in this area, in particular Steve Keen's recent integration of energy into production functions: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BAjN6bG7XzM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BAjN6bG7XzM
- 9y ago
stretchwithme 9y ago
You have no more need to use a mobile phone today than the Romans did. What you have is the opportunity to use a powerful tool that can save you a lot of time and provides unprecedented access to people and information. The needs these devices satisfy have always existed. If having a mobile device is worth more to you than it costs, you GAIN by having one. It's not a net loss to you.
- jff 9y ago
  > You have no more need to use a mobile phone today than the Romans did. Don't tell that to the 'digital divide' people
- mikeash 9y ago
  You're likely to have a tough time getting a job or going out with friends if you don't have a mobile phone these days, which would not be the case for a Roman. People don't exist in isolation, and if society is structured around the assumption that everyone has a phone, you could be worse off without one than in another society that isn't structured that way.
  - tinus_hn 9y ago
    You can communicate using s cheap feature phone and a small plan. You don’t need a new iPhone to get a job.
  - stretchwithme 9y ago
    Have you heard of Google Voice?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Requiring any kind of computer is no different.
      - stretchwithme 9y ago
        Have you heard of public libraries? Or friends with phones? In olden times, we had one phone number for our family. And before phones we had mail. There's are all kinds of ways to communicate, albeit slower than carrying a cellphone.
gwenzek 9y ago
Also mobile phone were really rare 15 years ago and the GDP/PPP was almost the same. So it seems to me that the article miss an important point. My explanation would be that the economy was less moneytized. Lot of slaves means few salaries means low GDP. Also the Roman economy was based on conquering and pillaging countries which allowed to sustain a negative import balance. I'm not sure if this translate well in terms of modern economy and GDP computation.
- c3833174 9y ago
  >Also mobile phone were really rare 15 years ago More like 20+, depending on the country.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Lack of monetization is fully taken into account already - the number given for income is not the sum of monetary transactions per individual but the income per individual however obtained including barter, food grown+consumed by oneself, self-built house, etc. Even in the late middle ages monetary transactions were not the common case so it would be absurd to conflate monetary transactions with average income.

by jaclaz 9y ago

wmeredith 9y ago

To be fair, I wouldn't have a clue what to do with an aqueduct.

ancientworldnow 9y ago
Aqueducts are still extremely important parts of a modern water system. NYC, for example, gets most of its water from aqueducts.
jaclaz 9y ago
>To be fair, I wouldn't have a clue what to do with an aqueduct. I would guess that once you will have a city and a decent number of citizens in it you will quickly find out a possible use for it.
isostatic 9y ago
Build a city larger than 8

nerpderp83 9y ago

DNR. Technology needs to be put in context. I saw people in Nepal with mobile phones that didn't have access to clean water. Rather than GDP I'd measure the likelihood to die of disease, famine, war, etc. Technology is a tool. The same cognitive dissonance is seen when discussing evolution.

jdonaldson 9y ago
More importantly: Societies need to be put in context. It's pretty meaningless to compare a materialistic modern society benchmark to, say, that of Sparta (disallowing trade, life goals include dying in battle).
roenxi 9y ago
Joules Consumed / Head would be a harder-to-calculate but also much more interesting measure than GDP. It would also make it easier to talk about the uncertainty in the estimates, still capture food, transport and shelter to some degree.
- lifeisstillgood 9y ago
  try "without the hot air" by Prof Mackay. From memory the estimate in his book was measured by 3,000 calories / person per day of output, and so that average brit consumes around 30 "slaves" worth of transport, heating and other energy services. now imagine how many people in Romans era could have 30 slaves. # https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  I cannot recommend highly enough Vaclav Smil's Energy in World History (1994), or the revised edition released just this year, Energy and Civilization. It follows pretty much precisely this metric, which is also, incidentally, far easier to calculate than you'd expect. In fact, you can pretty much plot out human development levels, from hunter-gatherer, to agricultural, to empire, to early industrial, to modern industrial, based on per capita energy consumption and availability, ranging from a low of about 10 GJ/capita to a peak of over 350 GJ/capita in the US (in very rough numbers, I don't have sources in front of me at the moment). See generally: https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumpti... There's some very interesting work going on in this area, in particular Steve Keen's recent integration of energy into production functions: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BAjN6bG7XzM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BAjN6bG7XzM
9y ago

stretchwithme 9y ago

You have no more need to use a mobile phone today than the Romans did. What you have is the opportunity to use a powerful tool that can save you a lot of time and provides unprecedented access to people and information. The needs these devices satisfy have always existed. If having a mobile device is worth more to you than it costs, you GAIN by having one. It's not a net loss to you.

jff 9y ago
> You have no more need to use a mobile phone today than the Romans did. Don't tell that to the 'digital divide' people
mikeash 9y ago
You're likely to have a tough time getting a job or going out with friends if you don't have a mobile phone these days, which would not be the case for a Roman. People don't exist in isolation, and if society is structured around the assumption that everyone has a phone, you could be worse off without one than in another society that isn't structured that way.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  You can communicate using s cheap feature phone and a small plan. You don’t need a new iPhone to get a job.
- stretchwithme 9y ago
  Have you heard of Google Voice?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Requiring any kind of computer is no different.
    - stretchwithme 9y ago
      Have you heard of public libraries? Or friends with phones? In olden times, we had one phone number for our family. And before phones we had mail. There's are all kinds of ways to communicate, albeit slower than carrying a cellphone.

gwenzek 9y ago

Also mobile phone were really rare 15 years ago and the GDP/PPP was almost the same. So it seems to me that the article miss an important point. My explanation would be that the economy was less moneytized. Lot of slaves means few salaries means low GDP. Also the Roman economy was based on conquering and pillaging countries which allowed to sustain a negative import balance. I'm not sure if this translate well in terms of modern economy and GDP computation.

c3833174 9y ago
>Also mobile phone were really rare 15 years ago More like 20+, depending on the country.
Nomentatus 9y ago
Lack of monetization is fully taken into account already - the number given for income is not the sum of monetary transactions per individual but the income per individual however obtained including barter, food grown+consumed by oneself, self-built house, etc. Even in the late middle ages monetary transactions were not the common case so it would be absurd to conflate monetary transactions with average income.