3 ms·

At the end of the Roman Empire [0] a lot of technology was lost, a lot of Europe went backwards in terms of the progress we see. A lot of people died. There was

At the end of the Roman Empire [0] a lot of technology was lost, a lot of Europe went backwards in terms of the progress we see. A lot of people died. There was even a climate catastrophe [1]. The Anglo-Saxons told stories of the Giants who built the aqueducts, because the technology for building them was lost. If you looked at GDP for Europe, it dived. Completely collapsed. Trade between areas of the former Empire ceased. Barbarians looted cities and destroyed infrastructure. It took us a few hundred years to recover. But we did recover. So, couple of points: 1. I don't see this collapse in these smooth graphs with the lines going up and to the right of the last few thousand years. 2. Like most graphs that go up and to the right, it's actually a mess of ups and downs if you zoom in. Progress isn't smooth - it's lumpy and sometimes goes backwards. And it's fractal. There's plenty of space there for things to go down as well as up on a macro scale. 3. We're in an "up" bit of the graph. Both in terms of the last few hundred years, and (zooming out) the last few thousand. That doesn't mean the whole graph always goes up and to the right. So yes, I agree with TFA that "this can't go on" if "this" is portrayed as a smooth progression from barbarism to TikTok. But I disagree that "this" has been smooth. There have been plenty of downs as well. And so "this" can go on if we agree that the value of "this" can go down as well as up, on a macro scale as well as micro. [0] The Western Roman Empire at least. The Eastern half carried on for quite a while longer. And arguably the Western half turned itself into a church instead of collapsing. But the point remains. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter_of_536 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter_of_536

derbOac 3y ago
Articles like the one that is the focus of this thread always interest me; even if they're incorrect in their main argument, I sometimes feel like a broader perspective is needed than the post world war era-present perspective that's usually the focus of discussions. Usually it seems they only go back to the 1980s or so, and even less so to the 1950s, and even less so to the 1930s. But it seems some complete history, going back throughout history, is needed? Do you or anyone here on HN have some good, quantitative references for something like World GDP per capita over all of human history? Obviously that's difficult but it seems as if some rough estimates could be obtained. I looked in the linked article but didn't see anything quite like what I was looking for. But I might have missed it. This is the only thing I could find offhand that's what I'm looking for, but I wondered if there's something more peer-reviewed: https://delong.typepad.com/print/20061012_LRWGDP.pdf https://delong.typepad.com/print/20061012_LRWGDP.pdf I think the data in there is roughly consistent with the assumptions of the linked post but it's hard to find concrete estimates. Then there's stuff like this which is what you're pointing out: https://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/rankh.htm https://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/rankh.htm It too is what I had always read and learned in history courses but without concrete economic figures.

derbOac 3y ago

Articles like the one that is the focus of this thread always interest me; even if they're incorrect in their main argument, I sometimes feel like a broader perspective is needed than the post world war era-present perspective that's usually the focus of discussions. Usually it seems they only go back to the 1980s or so, and even less so to the 1950s, and even less so to the 1930s. But it seems some complete history, going back throughout history, is needed? Do you or anyone here on HN have some good, quantitative references for something like World GDP per capita over all of human history? Obviously that's difficult but it seems as if some rough estimates could be obtained. I looked in the linked article but didn't see anything quite like what I was looking for. But I might have missed it. This is the only thing I could find offhand that's what I'm looking for, but I wondered if there's something more peer-reviewed: https://delong.typepad.com/print/20061012_LRWGDP.pdf https://delong.typepad.com/print/20061012_LRWGDP.pdf I think the data in there is roughly consistent with the assumptions of the linked post but it's hard to find concrete estimates. Then there's stuff like this which is what you're pointing out: https://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/rankh.htm https://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/rankh.htm It too is what I had always read and learned in history courses but without concrete economic figures.