Escaping the Malthusian Trap . . . the new Theory Of Affluence

[Cowperson]

A fascinating new study looks at what prompted certain segments of humanity to gravitate towards affluence, escaping a long cycle of poverty described as The Malthusian Trap.

Gregory Clark, an economic historian at the University of California, Davis, believes that the Industrial Revolution — the surge in economic growth that occurred first in England around 1800 — occurred because of a change in the nature of the human population. The change was one in which people gradually developed the strange new behaviors required to make a modern economy work. The middle-class values of nonviolence, literacy, long working hours and a willingness to save emerged only recently in human history, Dr. Clark argues.

Because they grew more common in the centuries before 1800, whether by cultural transmission or evolutionary adaptation, the English population at last became productive enough to escape from poverty, followed quickly by other countries with the same long agrarian past.

The tendency of population to grow faster than the food supply, keeping most people at the edge of starvation, was described by Thomas Malthus in a 1798 book, “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” This Malthusian trap, Dr. Clark’s data show, governed the English economy from 1200 until the Industrial Revolution and has in his view probably constrained humankind throughout its existence. The only respite was during disasters like the Black Death, when population plummeted, and for several generations the survivors had more to eat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html

Cowperson

[REDVAN]

Very interesting ideas, I'll read the whole thing when I get home from work. However, on the surface, it seems like an excuse to call the people of industrialized nations "better" in some way.

[nmhen]

Yeah, very interesting. I want to give it a more complete thought.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Very interesting ideas, I'll read the whole thing when I get home from work. However, on the surface, it seems like an excuse to call the people of industrialized nations "better" in some way.

It does mention in the article that there is a distinct possibility that genitically speaking, it indeed could be the case. It may not be. But should solid evidence come out to prove this what would that do to many societies such as ourselves that have always closely held the belief that 'all are created equal' regardless of where you come from?

[LIP MAN]

It's always a dangerous combination when you start to mix Anthropology and Sociology. But essentially in today's globalized world, we in industrialized nations are reaping alot of the benefits of using alot of 2nd and 3rd world labour and resources.

So in turn, unlike alot of the "Old World", essentially what we have is societies more closely tied to each other economically and socially then what we may like to believe. Just my thought, but there was some interesting points made.

[peter12]

I almost completely agree with Dr. Clark. Society's perception of human values and nature has a huge impact upon our economic system, as well as how we interact with our human environment.

My Honours Thesis is sort of about this, except I'm using the classic liberal political model as one with the possibility to renew our environmental commmittment. Interesting that he focusses on middle-class values, which to me have a lot in common with the ideas of conservative liberalism.

Prudence, modesty, and responisiblity.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It does mention in the article that there is a distinct possibility that genitically speaking, it indeed could be the case. It may not be. But should solid evidence come out to prove this what would that do to many societies such as ourselves that have always closely held the belief that 'all are created equal' regardless of where you come from?

If you are interested in how (or at all) genetics affect how a society develops, you should read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Burninator

If you are interested in how (or at all) genetics affect how a society develops, you should read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

And for the same topic with an environmental twist, read Collapse by the same author.

[worth]

Originally Posted by Burninator

If you are interested in how (or at all) genetics affect how a society develops, you should read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

I was just going to suggest that. Watched the PBS production of it and his arguments seemed pretty plausible to explain why things developed the way they did.

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Burninator

If you are interested in how (or at all) genetics affect how a society develops, you should read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

I don't think Diamond really speaks to the effects of genetics upon the diffences in development of individual human societies in GG&S so much as he speaks to the effects of geographical differences. If anything I would say that GG&S argues a point that refutes the idea that genetic differences between races are the source of current inequality.

EDIT: Maybe that's what you were wanting to point out too, as a counter argument to the inequality of genes thing. In that case I would agree that it's a good read. I certainly thought of GG&S for refuting the genetic difference point when it first came up in the thread and before I'd read your post.