tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post417742056991641098..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Greg Clark's A Farewell to AlmsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9382565037508545462007-09-12T23:55:00.000-07:002007-09-12T23:55:00.000-07:00There are a lot of holes in Clark's theory.He says...There are a lot of holes in Clark's theory.<BR/><BR/>He says that the wealthy in England had more children than the poor, while the wealthy in Japan had relatively small families. This would imply that the genes of the wealthy are common in England and uncommon in Japan, making the English more genetically fit for an industrialized economy.<BR/><BR/>The Japanese still do pretty well at industrial production. What would you rather drive on a cold and rainy night in the middle of nowhere; a Japanese car that never breaks down, or an English car that spends more time at the mechanic's than on the road?<BR/><BR/>And if the English are so much better "evolved" for capitalism than the rest of Europe, why aren't they richer than the Swiss, the Dutch, the Flemish, Luxembourgers, etc.?<BR/><BR/>When I first read about the book, I thought it was a spoof. Unfortunately, I was wrong. I Googled the book and found that it received a favorable mention on the website of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. I thought the website was a spoof, but I was wrong again. If things keep going the way they're going, Time will look like Mad Magazine.<BR/><BR/>~ RistoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5190782716609212652007-08-12T20:29:00.000-07:002007-08-12T20:29:00.000-07:00He was "surprised" that rich people left more prog...He was "surprised" that rich people left more progeny?! I can't take anybody seriously who would be surprised to find this in a society rapidly accelerating in achievement. <BR/><BR/>It seems he went into this study with very strong bias about population growth (that it's horrible) and came away forcing to look to evolution.<BR/><BR/>And the best he could come up with were "different behaviors" were passed on, but intelligence has nothing to do with it?<BR/><BR/>Along with the values and religion, I believe the average I.Q. reached a threshold, ala "I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations" where England could come up with and sustain the Industrial Revolution. The other countries, with similar i.q.s but perhaps not values, saw its fruit, and adopted it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-2750904504455780162007-08-12T02:20:00.000-07:002007-08-12T02:20:00.000-07:00It sounds like Clark's got some good data on Engla...It sounds like Clark's got some good data on England, but how does he know the same eugenic pattern wasn't true everywhere else? <BR/><BR/>Still, I can imagine that the selection pattern was slightly different in England, perhaps because it was an island and thus a little more secure (including security of property, which is conducive to the commercial virtues) than on the Continent, especially after 1066. But, still, Clark may have ended up answering a different question (e.g., why Europe?) than the one he thought he did (why England?).Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-32053708185337113542007-08-08T06:17:00.000-07:002007-08-08T06:17:00.000-07:00Karen said: "The conclusions I am forced to are de...Karen said: "The conclusions I am forced to are depressing [...] Universal semi-compulsory education is obviously the institution that could kickstart this process."<BR/><BR/>Karen, is that your idea of a new idea?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19728991157547939272007-08-07T17:29:00.000-07:002007-08-07T17:29:00.000-07:00Not plow, seed drill. Jethro Tull's seed drill. ...Not plow, seed drill. Jethro Tull's <I>seed drill</I>. Why do you think the band picked that name?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-20343057080015606362007-08-07T16:16:00.000-07:002007-08-07T16:16:00.000-07:00It's possible that the english adopted protestanti...It's possible that the english adopted protestantism because of their individualism that was evident in medieval times and that protestant values in concert with scientific advances propelled the industrial revolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4770116949267801842007-08-07T15:00:00.000-07:002007-08-07T15:00:00.000-07:00Anon re Alan MacFarlane:"He shows at length how me...Anon re Alan MacFarlane:<BR/>"He shows at length how medieval England fails to fit standard definitions of "peasant" society and in fact displayed the distinctive marks of individualism as early as the 13th century. "<BR/><BR/>I think this is an important point, I agree that there definitely seem to be indications of an unusually individualist ethos among the English at least as far back as the middle ages. The 'sturdy English yeoman' is an important figure in English history long before the rise of the towns. English culture was never very much like the peasant cultures of Italy, France, and most of the agrarian world. <BR/><BR/>This may be connected to the early creation of the Common Law of England, whereas the rest of Europe went from essentially local/tribal law to 'received' Roman law. In England a man could in theory and often in fact stand before his betters and rely on the Law to defend him. I think that has a profound psychological impact.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately there are worrying signs that the Rule of Law is breaking down in modern Britain under the influence of cultural Marxism and the European Union.Vol-in-Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10547275023499511000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-79996659292524325362007-08-07T14:12:00.000-07:002007-08-07T14:12:00.000-07:00i've seen this article discussed on a few pages, b...i've seen this article discussed on a few pages, but it seems to me like a main point is being missed.<BR/><BR/>if england benefited from the rich having more children than the poor and the downward mobility that resulted, what does it mean that today the poor are having significantly more children than the rich? <BR/><BR/>maybe "idiocracy" (the mike judge film) really is an indication of the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75762782623307800492007-08-07T14:02:00.000-07:002007-08-07T14:02:00.000-07:00All of those middle class values are associated wi...All of those middle class values are associated with protestantism. Protestantism encourages literacy to engage in personal bible study. Long working hours(diligence) and a willingness to save(prudence) are values found in the book of proverbs in the bible. Non-violence is obviously encouraged by Jesus. So it seems to me that these "middle-class values" are the synthesis of old testament and new testament values coupled with the literacy it takes to do that. Another hallmark of the transition to industrialized societies is the development of civil society institutions that are based on voluntary participation... institutions such as these could have been inspired to come about as a result of new testament teachings exhorting people to voluntarily contribute their wealth, time, and effort to the common good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11439979428841776022007-08-07T13:00:00.000-07:002007-08-07T13:00:00.000-07:00I think everybody is right here. There was a conj...I think everybody is right here. There was a conjunction of causes for why it all started in England yet went on to be copied by certain groups elsewhere, though not all (at least so far). I do believe that Weber's thesis is one of the keys: the forward looking, self-sacrificing ethic of Christianity (as peculiarly interpreted by dissenting groups in England, Holland, and later Scotland) led to science, capitalism, and democracy. In some ways Holland got a head start, but England's island situation proved crucial in the long run, being both a cheap source of national defense, and a spur to sea power and foreign trade. Once the possibilities of industrialization were manifest, the demonstration effect came into play in those areas that were compatible, if only for reasons of being politically (ie, militarily) competitive. Germany and Japan, for example, and most recently China. IMHO.Luke Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11290760894780619646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30547323844627418822007-08-07T12:33:00.000-07:002007-08-07T12:33:00.000-07:00These (and non-violence) are middle-class values, ...<I>These (and non-violence) are middle-class values, not aristocratic values. Most 'rich' in 1200 AD were not peaceful hardworking urban burghers, they were warrior knights and barons.</I><BR/><BR/>It probably predates the emergence of a middle class, though. Steve ought to take a gander at "The Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property and Social Transition" by Alan Macfarlane, published about 30 years ago. Macfarlane's thesis is that there has been a basic misinterpretation of English history as favored by the Whigs, and that there has indeed been something "special" about England. He shows at length how medieval England fails to fit standard definitions of "peasant" society and in fact displayed the distinctive marks of individualism as early as the 13th century. <BR/><BR/>Steve would find it gives some support to his contentions, namely that the nuclear family system, far from being a "recent" development (as often claimed), is in fact ancient, durable and flexible, its simple molecular structure very likely allowing societal change to proceed rapidly in areas such as industrialization and urbanization. The theory sheds light on why market liberalism has failed to take root in the third world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-16807827584031695452007-08-07T11:47:00.001-07:002007-08-07T11:47:00.001-07:00The conclusions I am forced to are depressing for ...The conclusions I am forced to are depressing for a homeschooler. Universal semi-compulsory education is obviously the institution that could kickstart this process.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08987673828766436312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77259746206771222682007-08-07T11:47:00.000-07:002007-08-07T11:47:00.000-07:00I feel like Kevin MacDonald is that crazy guy kept...I feel like Kevin MacDonald is that crazy guy kept locked in a closet than no one can talk about. There are similarities between Clark's ideas and what KMD has written in regards to the develop of Western institutions. The only problem is KMD has published two or three too many books for people to associate with him. <BR/>Also Cochran/Harpending's paper on the Ashkenazi presents an elucidation of hypotheses to test out KMD's ideas presented in TPSDA. Don't tell Pinker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3869217309354039352007-08-07T11:10:00.000-07:002007-08-07T11:10:00.000-07:00I think some posters are missing a critical point ...I think some posters are missing a critical point of the article: the industrial revolution didn't just pop out of nowhere and land in England by the chance invention of steam engines and cotton gins.<BR/><BR/>England was primed, clearly more than other potential nations, by a social, legal, economic structure that allowed ideas, investment, risk, trade, etc to individually and cooperatively flourish. <BR/><BR/>There are many complex moving parts that had to come together just right for the industrical revolution to occur. These are not found in xenophobic, tribal based societies regardless of high IQ - neither NE Asians and Jews were anywhere close to industrializing at the time.<BR/><BR/>Regarding technology, China was a world leader in many areas but lacked the social organization and incentives to turn them into anything resembling the industrial revolution.<BR/><BR/>If you've ever done business outside of Anglo dominant cultures you'd know firsthand why so many countries in the world are destined to be followers at best and could never pioneer anything resembling an industrial revolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-32168553305978013462007-08-07T10:03:00.000-07:002007-08-07T10:03:00.000-07:00Firstly, to present as a new theory, a rehashed Pr...Firstly, to present as a new theory, a rehashed Protestant work ethic equals capitalism is highly disingenuous. Secondly, the lack of any reference to works such as Alexander Hamilton's report on the subject of manufactures to the congress is astoundingly ignorant. The Industrial Revolution happened because of the application of science and inventions toward increasing the productive power of humanity. It happened because it was POLICY of folks like Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin. Please get some perspective.Thingumbobesquirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020353989252293669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60557261126985154832007-08-07T09:58:00.000-07:002007-08-07T09:58:00.000-07:00And what role did Jethro Tull's plow play?How abou...And what role did Jethro Tull's plow play?<BR/><BR/>How about pacifistic protestants?<BR/><BR/>If Clark is correct that will be very bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82710510441199348822007-08-07T06:34:00.000-07:002007-08-07T06:34:00.000-07:00Blah blah blah. Look, the Industrial Revolution h...Blah blah blah. Look, the Industrial Revolution happened because people discovered how to exploit fossil fuels, first coal then oil, to produce machine slaves (vs human slaves). Having all these machine slaves working for people is what dramatically increased the standard of living. With the decline of fossil fuels will come the decline of Industrial Society, no matter how great are its Middle Class values.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and its just silly to call hunter-gatherers "impoverished".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56791919811561574092007-08-07T05:22:00.000-07:002007-08-07T05:22:00.000-07:00I moved from Nashville to Jacksonville Florida ove...I moved from Nashville to Jacksonville Florida over ten years ago, and was struck by the difference in temperament: Nashville was characterized by hot-tempered, low-IQ people of very bad faith; there was always the possibility of violence breaking out. Jacksonville, in contrast, initially struck me as full of frighteningly naive goofballs, openly discussing nerdy subjects and displaying open, friendly, "whitebread" innocence to a breathtaking degree. Took a while to get used to the idea that the people around me weren't apt to stab or rob me and could actually be talked to. (However, Jax has since deteriorated into the multikult.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57539010628185041372007-08-07T04:49:00.000-07:002007-08-07T04:49:00.000-07:00From reading Adam Smith, I've always thought that ...From reading Adam Smith, I've always thought that capitalism emerged when the big land owners in any community stopped employing an army of maids, butlers, gardeners, and whores and started spending their money on "trinkets of frivolous utility." That's how they shifted their spending from quasi-charitable household service occupations to durable consumer goods that could be resold at a yard sale, and therefore transformed futile labor into productive work. The reason for the change was a different moral attitude towards charity and family, like this guy seems to suggest. <BR/><BR/>The new moral understanding can be put in a syllogism: <BR/><BR/>Major) Contributing to the common good is a moral obligation<BR/>Minor) Unlimited accumulation contributes to the common good<BR/>Concl) Unlimited accumulation is a moral obligationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72361209327351480352007-08-07T01:32:00.000-07:002007-08-07T01:32:00.000-07:00There is evidence from medieval English skeletons ...There is evidence from medieval English skeletons that the population has changed considerably in a few centuries - and from genetics we know this is a change in a settled population, not due to immigration. 800 years ago English brains were considerably smaller, and male skulls show more pronounced brow ridges. It's likely that the English were more predisposed to violence and less intelligent.<BR/><BR/>It's not clear exactly what factors led to this evolutionary change (downward mobility being common in most societies); but nuclear families rather than clan-based society seems to have already emerged in England in the early middle ages; perhaps impelled by the Norman conquest and a particular form of hierarchical feudalism (French feudalism quite different in some ways).<BR/><BR/>Looking abroad, it seems that highly neotenous agrarian populations (China, Japan, Korea notably) seem highly capable of industrialisation, once they have European examples to copy. Both the Caucasian populations of the mid-East, and the peoples of Africa, do not. I suspect that both society (clan-based cultures) and individual genetic factors (aggression, intelligence etc) play their part in determining whether a society can sucessfully industrialise.Vol-in-Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10547275023499511000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30990049649765932202007-08-07T00:49:00.000-07:002007-08-07T00:49:00.000-07:00"Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work.."The..."Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work.."<BR/><BR/>These (and non-violence) are middle-class values, not aristocratic values. Most 'rich' in 1200 AD were not peaceful hardworking urban burghers, they were warrior knights and barons. <BR/><BR/>The rich having more children than the poor has been true for most of history (exceptions include the modern welfare states), and most of all in polygamous societies. Downward mobility has been a fact of life in all societies and I doubt it has anything to do with the industrial revolution.<BR/><BR/>Conversely, the spread of middle-class values may well be a factor.<BR/><BR/>BTW having lived in Scotland, Ireland, northern, central and southern England, something I've noticed is that those middle-class values are far more prevalent in southern England than in the north or the celtic fringe (with the midlands in-between). Being Scots-Irish myself I have the typical hot temper and awareness of the possibility of violence, which seem to be largely absent in the southern English. <BR/><BR/> I think this cultural difference is definitely a factor - you see it in the USA too, with the English-Yankee north industrialising well before the largely Scots-Irish South. <BR/><BR/>Among Europeans, the Germans and Scandinavians share the phlegmatic middle-class demeanour of the southern English, and it's notable that Germany industrialised perhaps even more successfully than Britain.Vol-in-Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10547275023499511000noreply@blogger.com