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

[The Dreaming]

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.

Hrm, this is an interesting theory.

However, I think it fails to account for the role technology has had and will undoubtedly continue to have on history. For example, look at the bronze age. Why did the bronze age end and the iron age begin? Ancient people certainly knew about iron, and I am willing to bet many even figured out how to extract it from it's ore long before the iron age actually began.

Why did the bronze age end? Well, mostly because England ran out of tin. There simply wasn't enough freely available to fill the demand for it. When the need arose for a substitute, people start smelting iron and steel.

Why do we still depend on oil rather than any of the (innumerable at this point) alternatives? Because it is *still* the most economical. That is going to change in the near future. Will the economy collapse? I doubt it. Oil is already too expensive in Brazil (they pay more than us) so they use ethyl fuels. Why don't we do it in America? It would be more expensive than oil. As demand for resources expands, recent history has shown that new and alternative resources are discovered.

Is there a "cap" on the advance of technology? Maybe. History doesn't show any evidence of one. I am pretty sure the human knowledge base is still expanding exponentially. (The rate of increase is increasing still ) If we suffer a dark age I am pretty sure it will be the result of international war, which I fear less and less as time goes on. The world market is becoming too interdependent for war between first world nations anywhere close to practical. (Not to mention the impact technology has had on the scale of war, which has become too high to risk).

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I think the problems of the future will most likely be new problems, not old ones. Technology has reached a point where we can solve most of the classical economic problems, assuming we have the inclination too. Hell, I bet a good number of us have jobs that could be easily automated, if it were economical.

[Khazduk]

Too busy at work to elaborate, but this topic is so interesting that I have to throw a few things in here before I forget it. I agree with almost everything that's been said, just gonna add a few more possible explanations to this "multi-causal" model...

There's the Protestant work ethic, derived from Calvinism, which was pointed out by Max Weber around 1905,

and then there's this...

In places with more temperate climates and lower population density, (more space), food was usually readily available all year round, simple shelter sufficed for protection from the elements, and basically, continual innovation wasn't necessary to improve their lives.

They were happy with what they had, it worked for them with minimal effort, and met their needs adequately.

Is the dividing line east/west? Or is it hot/cold?

Montesquieu hinted at this in "The Spirit of the Laws" in 1748.

I can't find better links than wikipedia right now, but I'll get back to this soon. Just my for now.

[The Dreaming]

I also know that soil in the northern hemisphere is infinitely better suited for agriculture than in the southern hemisphere because of fairly recent glaciation, a major reason why almost all of the world's advanced agricultural societies are in the northern hemisphere. (Europe, North America, China)

[Avatar]

Of course on the other hand, we can get two harvests a year with some crops.

Interesting points folks. I definitely agree that technology played a part, although I'll add that I'm sure that originally, climate offered both the necessity and time required to drive its invention. And I doubt very much there's a cap to it.

Now, the drive is provided by less fundamental necessities I think.

As for the Protestant work ethic, while I'm absolutely sure that it played its part in the development of northern europe in particular, I think its inception was considerably after the period I've been thinking of, which is...hell...sorta stone age and before maybe? Or from there on up through Bronze and Iron.

--A

[The Dreaming]

The whole "Protestant work ethic" thing always sounded a little suspiciously ethnocentric to me. (Even though I'm only a p short of waspism myself) I think it's more accurate to call it the "Immigrant" work ethic. Someone with enough gumption to cross an ocean for a new life is more likely to work for one. (Which is why I think America's xenophobia is not only silly, it might even be dangerous to all of the things that make America so great)

you can make the argument that Europe's religious diversity was another factor in their assent to dominance, but India has had religious diversity since the dawn of history. I would make the argument that anyone with the courage to break social norms with regards to religion and go against what the state sanctions is a person who *is* exceptional.

[JBiles]

I remember hypothesizing in a world civ class that in this case, China's political unity prevented it from expanding the way Europe, with it's intense rivalries and constant feuding, could. What reason would a unified and totalitarian (to be fair, extremely enlightened) state the size and power of china have to go conquering? By way of comparison, look at

The Chinese have never needed any excuse to beat up and conquer their neighbors other than 'We are chinese and superior to you, who exists to grovel at our feet'.

The history of China basically is a story of the inhabitants of the Yellow River Valley gradually spreading south and then west, conquering their neighbors, assimilating them into Chinese culture, then going after the new set of neighbors. The only times the Chinese did not engage in conquest was when they fell into internal turmoil and killed each other instead or got conquered by their neighbors.

50% of the population of China under the Ming were non-Chinese, brought in by conquest. The Yongle Emperor the Yongle Emperor (1402–1424) conquered Vietnam and though his successors lost control, it became a tributary state of China. In the fifteenth century, the Ming fought war after war with the Mongols, sometimes seeking to conquer and sometimes the Mongols making a bid for a second conquest of China. Indeed, they captured the Emperor Zhengtong (r. 1435–1449) and held him captive in an effort to exact ransom. The Ming dynasty repeatedly attacked Tibet, trying to reduce it to tributary status. In the 1500s, the Ming fought the Japanese repeatedly to see who would dominate Korea.

The Qing or Manchu dynasty was based on conquest, made up of people from Manchuria who conquered China around 1644 and ruled until 1911. Their rule was strongly militaristic, and the greatest glory of their emperors was their conquests. They conquered Tibet, forced the Mongols into submission, beat up the Russians and forced them to pull back from China's northern frontier, beat up Vietnam and forced it into submission, and in general turned every country adjacent to China into a tributary, except the Russians, who just got pushed back. The Qianlong Emperor in the 1750s committed methodical genocide against the Dzungar Mongols, wiping out 80% of a nation which had numbered between 500-800,000. Etc, etc, etc.

The history of China from 1368 to 1800 is a history of perpetual conquest with only short outbreaks of internal disorder in which Chinese people killed each other rather than their neighbors. Indeed, the whole history of China from the Qin in the 200s BC to 1800 AD is basically alternating bursts of Chinese conquering their neighbors followed by bouts of internal discord followed by unity and more conquest.

Mind you, that's basically the history of every country in the era of agriculture.

[JBiles]

I also know that soil in the northern hemisphere is infinitely better suited for agriculture than in the southern hemisphere because of fairly recent glaciation, a major reason why almost all of the world's advanced agricultural societies are in the northern hemisphere. (Europe, North America, China)

Can you elaborate on this a little? I'm afraid I am totally clueless as to the glaciation / agricultural suitability connection.

[JBiles]

The whole "Protestant work ethic" thing always sounded a little suspiciously ethnocentric to me. (Even though I'm only a p short of waspism myself) I think it's more accurate to call it the "Immigrant" work ethic. Someone with enough gumption to cross an ocean for a new life is more likely to work for one. (Which is why I think America's xenophobia is not only silly, it might even be dangerous to all of the things that make America so great)

Properly speaking, it's really a 'Calvinist' Work Ethic. The Dutch, the French, the English, and the Scots were most influenced by Calvinism and became the heart of early Industrial Revolution and capitalism in Europe.
However, as you said, this is kind of ethnocentric. Most of the 'Calvinist' virtues were also virtues in many East Asian societies--hard work, prudence, deferring pleasure, etc.

you can make the argument that Europe's religious diversity was another factor in their assent to dominance, but India has had religious diversity since the dawn of history. I would make the argument that anyone with the courage to break social norms with regards to religion and go against what the state sanctions is a person who *is* exceptional.

European religious diversity was simultaneously less and greater than Indian. To explain:

In India, the Caste System had devoured all other forms of social organization alive by 1500. Most Indian religions endorsed the Caste system and came out of the Brahmin class, who used the system to keep themselves at the top of society. Non-Hindu religions were marginalized in isolated groups unable to challenge Hindu dominance or the Caste System. Even the Moslems who ruled India in the 16th-18th centuries couldn't defeat the Caste System or overcome Hinduism. While Hinduism is very diverse in some ways, ultimately certain common ideas predominated and these ideas were not friendly to the emergence of modern ideas.

But also importantly, religion continued to be established and any ruling group tried to suppress all other religions, even though the efforts of the Moslem Mughals to do so failed due to being vastly outnumbered by their Hindu and non-Hindu subjects.

In Europe, on the other hand, the establishment of religion began to collapse in the sixteenth century. The Reformation shattered the power of Catholicism, already weakened by the 11th century Orthodox / Catholic split. Now many diverse protestant groups arose. All out warfare ensued.

This bloody warfare ended with failure. No single religious group could win control of Europe. Further, it caused many elites to turn against religion, producing the secularized Enlightenment. And England, France, and the colonies which became the US would in time, throw out the establishment of religion entirely.

India, on the other hand, remained mired in religious struggles and the idea of the establishment of religion.

[Avatar]

Welcome to the Watch JBiles. Some interesting first posts. Look around and join in.

--A

[Vraith]

I also know that soil in the northern hemisphere is infinitely better suited for agriculture than in the southern hemisphere because of fairly recent glaciation, a major reason why almost all of the world's advanced agricultural societies are in the northern hemisphere. (Europe, North America, China)

Can you elaborate on this a little? I'm afraid I am totally clueless as to the glaciation / agricultural suitability connection.

Been a long time since earth science, but glaciation has a significant impact on the creation of good top soil (it breaks rock, spreads/mixes minerals) there might be more. I didn't read the post you quoted, but another (maybe more important) factor is weather patterns+geography.
Northern hemisphere has far more easily farmable land with enough rain and warm seasons for crops.

A couple other things that may be in other posts (only thoroughly read a few)
In Europe, there was a double-population problem. Sometimes too many people, so part of the need for exploration/resources (other factors as well) Sometimes too few people (plagues, wars), which was part of the reason for technological implementation.
BUT: the actual discoveries/advancements of technology weren't driven by necessity. Societies driven by constant necessity invent very little. Leisure is what really leads to invention.
Of course these things work in relationship with things I did see mentioned.
China might easily have been the 'leader' if it had been subject to the same pressures. [perhaps that is part of the reason it is surging now, since it is under many of the same pressures that Europe was when it began its advancements]