No disrespect, Glenn, but you failed to probe deeper into some of his assumptions. For example, Galor keeps mentioning technology but speaks as if he is unaware that all technological innovations were only made possible with new sources of energy. For example, stone tools amplified the power of bare human hands, domestication of animals made possible using oxen to pull plows, taming horses increased human mobility a thousand-fold. Harnessing water power made many new processes possible. The industrial revolution could not have happened before steam engines, and so much of our lives today are unthinkable without electricity, etc.
Another example: like all living things, humans compete for resources. You, Glenn, succeeded because you not only outsmarted a whole lot of competitors, but you also outworked and outhustled them.
Many of these examples appear to mix cause & effect: Stones tools had not been crafted due to the discovery of a new source of energy. Yet, they reinforced the power of humans.
Domestication of animals had not been based on the discovery of a new source of energy. Yet they reinforced human mobility. The steam engine was not developed due to an earlier discovery of a new source of energy. Instead, it was a new source of energy that was conducive for industrialization.
Whether we define the use of fire, the domestication of animals, or the steam engine, as a technology or a source of energy has no implications for our understanding of the role of the “wheels of change” – technological progress, population growth, and human adaptation – in orchestrating the transition from stagnation to growth. Technological progress made people more productive and generated faster population growth and human adaptation, and population growth & adaptation, in turn, fostered greater technological progress. Some of these technological advancements have indeed been reinforced by energy production but the emphasis on energy is secondary for the understanding of the take-off from stagnation to growth. It is the change in the technological environment that generated the demand for human capital and brought about the fertility decline that freed the growth process from the counter balancing effects of population.
No disrespect, Glenn, but you failed to probe deeper into some of his assumptions. For example, Galor keeps mentioning technology but speaks as if he is unaware that all technological innovations were only made possible with new sources of energy. For example, stone tools amplified the power of bare human hands, domestication of animals made possible using oxen to pull plows, taming horses increased human mobility a thousand-fold. Harnessing water power made many new processes possible. The industrial revolution could not have happened before steam engines, and so much of our lives today are unthinkable without electricity, etc.
Another example: like all living things, humans compete for resources. You, Glenn, succeeded because you not only outsmarted a whole lot of competitors, but you also outworked and outhustled them.
Many of these examples appear to mix cause & effect: Stones tools had not been crafted due to the discovery of a new source of energy. Yet, they reinforced the power of humans.
Domestication of animals had not been based on the discovery of a new source of energy. Yet they reinforced human mobility. The steam engine was not developed due to an earlier discovery of a new source of energy. Instead, it was a new source of energy that was conducive for industrialization.
Whether we define the use of fire, the domestication of animals, or the steam engine, as a technology or a source of energy has no implications for our understanding of the role of the “wheels of change” – technological progress, population growth, and human adaptation – in orchestrating the transition from stagnation to growth. Technological progress made people more productive and generated faster population growth and human adaptation, and population growth & adaptation, in turn, fostered greater technological progress. Some of these technological advancements have indeed been reinforced by energy production but the emphasis on energy is secondary for the understanding of the take-off from stagnation to growth. It is the change in the technological environment that generated the demand for human capital and brought about the fertility decline that freed the growth process from the counter balancing effects of population.