Why is the 'west' so far ahead of the rest?

[Gil galad]

This is almost an historical question concerning economic and social development, but i've never seen a convincing argument explaining why the 'west' has ended up achieving such universal dominance over the rest of the world.

I'm thinking that it is mostly due to the avaliability of natural resources throughout history, but i'd be interested to understand how different societys and thier values contributed to the overall state of the world today. I dont believe that on average the people are smarter in the west, at least in terms of capability to learn given appropriate resources.

[Lord Mhoram]

Check out this book.

[storm]

Collapse is also a pretty good read by Diamond.

...I could honestly talk about this topic for hours, its what i spend my entire first undergraduate experience studying...since i would probably be executed for my view on this one, I'll save you the discourse...If you have the opportunity, look up "The Pursuit of Power" by William McNeil, "The Long 20th Century" by Giovanni Arrighi and any essays by Immanuel Wallerstein...McNeil is a military historian and his work is probably given the most credence by the larger socioeconomic community. His definitive work is The Rise of the West...that book pretty much shaped the landscape for Wallerstein to develop his Modern World-System theory.

[Damelon]

I've heard that that book is interesting, LM.

I read a hypothesis from somewhere, I can't remember off the top of my head, but it made sense.

The culture of Europe encouraged application of invention. The Chinese invented a great many things, and earlier in European history the ancient Greeks were familiar with how a steam engine worked. But there was something about European civilization from the Renaissance on that encouraged practical application of invention on a scale which others didn't, for whatever reason, do.

[Kil Tyme]

Hmm I think that book, reading just the numbered items, missed an important and essential item.

I thing the biggest assistance in making the West able to dominate the last 500 years or so is mostly due to the major European states vying for power and profit over their adversaries. It was a constant race for the biggest guns, ships, land, political power, et al. That made for constant inventions of power covering the whole gambit above. If I recall correctly, there were no multiple Arab states that evoked the same catalyst. Asian powers stayed amoungst themselves and then turned inward.

So, if the Europeans had never evolved into multiple nation states, who basicically hated each other and fought and strived for the biggest toys to impress their enemies and empower themselves, I don't think the West would have had the dominance they enjoyed since the post Plague era.

[storm]

Hmm I think that book, reading just the numbered items, missed an important and essential item.

I thing the biggest assistance in making the West able to dominate the last 500 years or so is mostly due to the major European states vying for power and profit over their adversaries. It was a constant race for the biggest guns, ships, land, political power, et al. That made for constant inventions of power covering the whole gambit above. There was, if I recall rightly, no multiple Arab states that had the same catalyst. Asian powers stayed amounst themselves and then turned inward.

So, if the Eurpoeans had never evolved into multiple nation states, who basicically hated each other and fought and strived for the biggest toys to impress their enemies and empower themselves, I don't think the West would have had the dominance they enjoyed since the post Plague era.

*ok, i can't resist*

...i think essentially you've nailed it Kil Tyme.

Let me throw out Modern World-Systems Theory in a nutshell *basically it encompasses what you said*, feel free to debate it as you wish.

The Modern World-System is basically the Capitalist economy. Since 1500, the general structure went from feudalism to capitalism. Merchants joined forces with kingdoms and the combination of wealth and power allowed them to control the most profitable activities. The desire for wealth and power grows and the system grows, we typically call it colonialism. The first major power or hegemony was the dutch during the 16th and 17th century, then we had the english in the 18th and 19th, the united states from the early 20th til now. Each time there is a power shift, there is a 30 year war, then about 100 years of "peace". There is also a major peace treaty, the war we formally call the 30 year war ended with the Peace of Westphalia, which gave us the first real sovereign nation-states, prior to that people had overlapping political and religious loyalties. The treaty of Vienna was next, that gave us English Hegemony and finally the Treaty of Versailles and US Hegemony. Each Hegemony has been the political, economic and military might in the world-system. That is of course until now...its generally believed that the US is the military hegemony, china the economic and the EU the political.

Certain key historical events have happened to either strengthen or weaken the world-system...John Locke came up with Natural Rights law, the french revolution deep sixed the divine right of kings, the UN abolished colonialism and basically declared all people egalitarian.

The underlying premise behind the theory though is the division of labor, the most powerful countries control the most lucrative activities (the core), the middlemen are the semi-periphery and the third world is the periphery. Those in the periphery provide the raw materials at a low cost and the core turns them into a huge profit. This in modern terms is what we call outsourcing...unfortunately the capitalist world economy has worked too well, its truly a world-system now and those places that can be exploited are getting richer. According to Wallerstein, Arrighi and other world-systems theorists, when the periphery and semi-periphery rise up, there is no where else to get cheap labor from and the collapse of the capitalist world economy is imminent.

...its a theory, like many other theories and historically it pieces things together pretty well as far as historical context goes, but the question of whether its a forecast model for the future is very much open to debate.

[Montresor]

Guns, Germs and Steel is a good book. Another good one related to the topic is here. Kelly manages to be quite persuasive in reigning in many of the fantasies and misconceptions we have about certain empire's or nation's 'uncontested power'.

One word of caution, many have written about Asia in this time as having 'closed its doors' to the outside world. This is largely an exaggerated fancy. To take just one state in the period, Japan, (largely because I'm too tired to say more) despite the common consensus of the Tokugawa period being the closing of the country to outside influence, trade with China and Korea actually greatly increased in comparison with the past. Of course, trade with Europe drastically declined - and this is the main reason European historians argue that Japan became a cloistered state . . . the reality is far from it, however.

[Gil galad]

The thing which I have trouble fitting in is why in the west the conditions arose for power competition. The only reason which I can think of is that the climate and geography in Europe and later, America is more suited with supporting and high population density with lower technology. There are lots of places in the african continent where this could have happened though, but it didn't. There must be some social conditions historically which prevented competitive development from starting in Africa, or capped its grwoth. And by historically I mean 2000 years ago +.

[High Lord Tolkien]

There was also English business practices.
England's innovative use of joint-stock companies changed everything.
Companies no longer dissolved when the owner died and it spread out liability for the company's debts.
It gave economic power to the middle class.

The overwhelming importance of property rights in England, not found in the rest of Europe and I'm assuming not found anywhere else in the late Middle Ages, also put the West ahead of others.

[emotional leper]

I think there's another way to look at it: Not "Why did the West take over the World," but, "Why did China not take over the World?"

[Montresor]

I think there's another way to look at it: Not "Why did the West take over the World," but, "Why did China not take over the World?"

In the '80s, there was a well known series called "Triumph of the West". A historian put out a counter series called "Triumph of the East". It was very good, and it argued quite well as to the supremacy of Eastern over Western civilisation. He asked the question you did. His answer was fairly simple: China was working, as a state. It didn't need overseas expansion in the way that Europe craved. Europe, on the other hand was in decline, and desperately needed new markets and materials. Europe also had an unsteady social and religious balance which caused it to expand.

One should also remember the impetus of the Ottoman Empire, whose effective blockade of European ambitions in its sphere necessitated its enemies finding other directions and alternatives.

[emotional leper]

I think there's another way to look at it: Not "Why did the West take over the World," but, "Why did China not take over the World?"

In the '80s, there was a well known series called "Triumph of the West". A historian put out a counter series called "Triumph of the East". It was very good, and it argued quite well as to the supremacy of Eastern over Western civilisation. He asked the question you did. His answer was fairly simple: China was working, as a state. It didn't need overseas expansion in the way that Europe craved. Europe, on the other hand was in decline, and desperately needed new markets and materials. Europe also had an unsteady social and religious balance which caused it to expand.

One should also remember the impetus of the Ottoman Empire, whose effective blockade of European ambitions in its sphere necessitated its enemies finding other directions and alternatives.

Those are good ways to look at it. Another theory I've heard is that China stagnated because the Imperial Service exam was based on fairly rote memorisation of Chinese history, with little regard to engineering or chemistry, and so the Chinese Imperial Machine stagnated and stopped making progress like they had in machines and chemistry previously, so that by the time the nations of the West came along to open up the ports, the Chinese were hopelessly outgunned.

[Montresor]

Those are good ways to look at it. Another theory I've heard is that China stagnated because the Imperial Service exam was based on fairly rote memorisation of Chinese history, with little regard to engineering or chemistry, and so the Chinese Imperial Machine stagnated and stopped making progress like they had in machines and chemistry previously, so that by the time the nations of the West came along to open up the ports, the Chinese were hopelessly outgunned.

I can see the meits of that argument. For states with such a firm grasp of their affairs as China and the Tokugawa Shogunate, too much innovation could be counter-productive to stability. Add to this, the doctrines of some of the mainstream Neo-Confucian philosophers which enjoyed state patronage, and you have a recipe for conservatism.

[Tjol]

Well, I've read a couple books that make a few suggestions.

One called Zerosum I think, says that the west cross pollinated ideas during the renaissance, while other cultures shut themselves in and deliberately fought off such cross pollination to their long term disadvantage.

Another I'm just starting suggests that other cultures did not explore and imagine the possible applications of gun powder in the way that the west did, and as a result, fireworks were all that one culture used gunpowder for, while the other redefined entirely the way warfare was practiced.

Freedom of ideas in general, as well as exponential learning have brought the west to where it is quicker than others as well I think. However, as the west forgets the foundations it built upon, it's possible that they might fall back in with the rest of the pack in a century or two. You need to know Athens and Sparta and Macedonia and Rome and France and England and Spain and Germany and the USA and the USSR and see the lessons from each, otherwise the whole house of cards falls down I think.

[Cail]

Why? Three simple words.....

"America! F*ck yeah!"

That's why.

[Montresor]

You forgot to add the "get" after "America", add an "ed" on the end of your second word, and change the first "!" to a ",". That would be the more accurate version.

[storm]

I think there's another way to look at it: Not "Why did the West take over the World," but, "Why did China not take over the World?"

That is a very interesting debate in itself. There was a theory for a time that sea exploration was why the west was so successful, using the eurocentric ideology that the chinese lacked the intellect to produce a navy. This theory is well, retarded. During the late 14th and early 15th centuries the eunuch Zheng He commanded one of the largest navy's the world has ever seen. The key difference b/w the Dynasties that ruled China and the European city-states turned sovereign nation states was the strength of the central government versus the strength of the merchant capitalist. As someone noted above, the europeans were in decline, the middle ages crippled them, the church was running the show, etc., the change from feudalism to capitalism through colonialization was the way out of debt to the church. In China, the central govt. was strong, they wanted to reign in the capitalists, there was also the threat of mongol invasion to the north. Lack of foresight on the part of the Ming Dynasty and blind luck by the europeans (not to mention the unscrupulous slave trade started by the portuguese) led to the west rising.

[Zarathustra]

Well, I've read a couple books that make a few suggestions.

One called Zerosum I think, says that the west cross pollinated ideas during the renaissance, while other cultures shut themselves in and deliberately fought off such cross pollination to their long term disadvantage.

Another I'm just starting suggests that other cultures did not explore and imagine the possible applications of gun powder in the way that the west did, and as a result, fireworks were all that one culture used gunpowder for, while the other redefined entirely the way warfare was practiced.

Freedom of ideas in general, as well as exponential learning have brought the west to where it is quicker than others as well I think. However, as the west forgets the foundations it built upon, it's possible that they might fall back in with the rest of the pack in a century or two. You need to know Athens and Sparta and Macedonia and Rome and France and England and Spain and Germany and the USA and the USSR and see the lessons from each, otherwise the whole house of cards falls down I think.

Are you talking about Nonzero, by Robert Wright? This is one of my favorite books (Bill Clinton was a big fan, too, so it's not conservative propaganda).

He makes the case that China was poised to do what the West did, but for quirks of their culture, didn't. He looks at three key technologies which transformed the world and elevated the West to dominance: the printing press, gunpowder, and oceanic ships. China invented all these first. But their alphabet was too large to take advantage of movable type. Gunpowder was looked upon as a toy for fireworks. And there was one particular Chinese leader who (because of his philosophy or religion, I forget) decided that China wasn't going to be a seafaring empire.

A more interesting question is why the Old World developed faster than the New World. We have here two separate petri dishes of cultural evolution, so there was no (or extremely little) possibility of mutual influence (including everything from sharing ideas to war). The "American Indians" did indeed invent many of the social structures which Old World societies invented, too. Yet, they still moved slower.

Wright concludes that the most important factor was population density. For the "Invisible Hand" to work (in Adam Smith's terms), there must be a means of exchanging information between members of society. The rate of invention of new ideas is directly tied to how quickly and easily people within a population can communicate (which is why things like the printing press and the Internet are so important). In dense populations, ideas spread and evolve faster than in sparse populations. So all other things being equal--cultural differences, geography differences, means of production difference--population density is the largest factor in facilitating the cultural evolution of a society (especially in an era without telecommunications).

[storm]

Well, I've read a couple books that make a few suggestions.

One called Zerosum I think, says that the west cross pollinated ideas during the renaissance, while other cultures shut themselves in and deliberately fought off such cross pollination to their long term disadvantage.

Another I'm just starting suggests that other cultures did not explore and imagine the possible applications of gun powder in the way that the west did, and as a result, fireworks were all that one culture used gunpowder for, while the other redefined entirely the way warfare was practiced.

Freedom of ideas in general, as well as exponential learning have brought the west to where it is quicker than others as well I think. However, as the west forgets the foundations it built upon, it's possible that they might fall back in with the rest of the pack in a century or two. You need to know Athens and Sparta and Macedonia and Rome and France and England and Spain and Germany and the USA and the USSR and see the lessons from each, otherwise the whole house of cards falls down I think.

Are you talking about Nonzero, by Robert Wright? This is one of my favorite books (Bill Clinton was a big fan, too, so it's not conservative propaganda).

He makes the case that China was poised to do what the West did, but for quirks of their culture, didn't. He looks at three key technologies which transformed the world and elevated the West to dominance: the printing press, gunpowder, and oceanic ships. China invented all these first. But their alphabet was too large to take advantage of movable type. Gunpowder was looked upon as a toy for fireworks. And there was one particular Chinese leader who (because of his philosophy or religion, I forget) decided that China wasn't going to be a seafaring empire.

A more interesting question is why the Old World developed faster than the New World. We have here two separate petri dishes of cultural evolution, so there was no (or extremely little) possibility of mutual influence (including everything from sharing ideas to war). The "American Indians" did indeed invent many of the social structures which Old World societies invented, too. Yet, they still moved slower.

Wright concludes that the most important factor was population density. For the "Invisible Hand" to work (in Adam Smith's terms), there must be a means of exchanging information between members of society. The rate of invention of new ideas is directly tied to how quickly and easily people within a population can communicate (which is why things like the printing press and the Internet are so important). In dense populations, ideas spread and evolve faster than in sparse populations. So all other things being equal--cultural differences, geography differences, means of production difference--population density is the largest factor in facilitating the cultural evolution of a society (especially in an era without telecommunications).

Your last paragraph is interesting...it makes me wonder how necessity is the mother of invention. We know the Chinese came up with printing presses and gun powder before the europeans, but before the uniting of the clans during the first emperor's reign, the populations were relatively spread out. Whereas the europeans were packed in like sardines, the black death epidemiology is a great example of that. We also have the Mayan culture, who developed the concept of zero and built some awesome pyramids, population density was high, but not as high as say the port cities of alexandria, venice, byzantium. Had the mayans spread out a bit more and not wrecked their ability to cultivate crops, they may have outlasted the other "empires" in south america and made even more technological advancements.

[MsMary]

Check out this book.

I knew what it was going to be before the link loaded.