There's a lot I want to say, but since I'm responding on my phone I'm going to try to be brief. First, as I understood it, his claim is that the extractive nature of colonialism allowed the colonizers to focus more on developing human capital through education, which is then a key factor in advancing to a post-Malthusian era. If so, what is the difference between European extractive colonialism and Chinese or Roman extractive colonialism? Why did these empires not advance? The facts don't fit the theory very well, they support a more mainstream view that the industrial revolution was the primary driver of rapid increases in the standard of living. Second, on diversity vs homogeneity, a unified vision leads to strong action more easily than a fragmented set of viewpoints. I think he overstates the importance of diverse viewpoints on advancement; ideas won't change the material world unless translated into actions. The US built its wealth on A: the single minded push towards industrialization and B: the accident of geography that left us untouched by WW2. His focus on the ideas aspect of progress isn't surprising given that he's coming from academia, a sector focused on ideas, but for every ideas person, you need hundreds of people focused on implementation; it's more important to have enough implementors than to have enough ideas people.
In all, it was an interesting guest, but his ideas seem flimsy and I feel like he ignores contrary evidence.
Based on the conversation, Romans didn't have the population and time to advance.
Based on my memory or Chinese history, the Chinese were ahead. But they closed themselves off. Applying to the conversation, they created institutions that inhibited their growth and advancement.
There's a lot I want to say, but since I'm responding on my phone I'm going to try to be brief. First, as I understood it, his claim is that the extractive nature of colonialism allowed the colonizers to focus more on developing human capital through education, which is then a key factor in advancing to a post-Malthusian era. If so, what is the difference between European extractive colonialism and Chinese or Roman extractive colonialism? Why did these empires not advance? The facts don't fit the theory very well, they support a more mainstream view that the industrial revolution was the primary driver of rapid increases in the standard of living. Second, on diversity vs homogeneity, a unified vision leads to strong action more easily than a fragmented set of viewpoints. I think he overstates the importance of diverse viewpoints on advancement; ideas won't change the material world unless translated into actions. The US built its wealth on A: the single minded push towards industrialization and B: the accident of geography that left us untouched by WW2. His focus on the ideas aspect of progress isn't surprising given that he's coming from academia, a sector focused on ideas, but for every ideas person, you need hundreds of people focused on implementation; it's more important to have enough implementors than to have enough ideas people.
In all, it was an interesting guest, but his ideas seem flimsy and I feel like he ignores contrary evidence.
Based on the conversation, Romans didn't have the population and time to advance.
Based on my memory or Chinese history, the Chinese were ahead. But they closed themselves off. Applying to the conversation, they created institutions that inhibited their growth and advancement.