by Ian Morris Info
Ian Morris is Willard Professor of Classics and History at Stanford University. He has published ten scholarly books, including, most recently, The Dynamics of Ancient Empires, and has directed excavations in Greece and Italy. He lives in the Santa Cruz Mountains in California.
America is still the richest and most powerful country on earth thanks to geography says historian Ian Morris, but if history is any guide then China will be next—and things could get violent.
The West is finding it harder to get its own way in the world.
The people of Europe and North America still produce two-thirds of the world’s GDP, spend more than two-thirds of its R&D dollars, and own almost all of its nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. Yet this past year when President Obama—leader of the richest, most inventive, and best-armed country in history—visited Seoul he could not convince the leaders of the 19 next-biggest economies to follow his plans for global finance.
There is no shortage of theories about the shift in power from West to East, blaming everyone from incompetent politicians to currency manipulators. But the real explanation goes much deeper.
Winston Churchill famously said, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” He was right: To make sense of the forces that shape our world, we have to look deep into the past.
When we do this, the upheavals of our own day are revealed as merely the latest phase in a historical process that has been unfolding for thousands of years. The process is driven not by bungling bureaucrats or by sinister moneymen, but by the deepest force of all: geography.
To understand why our world is changing, we have to look back all the way to the end of the last ice age and trace history forward to our own age.
When the world warmed up 15,000 years ago, geography dictated that there were only a few regions on the planet where complex societies could develop. This was because only a few regions had the kinds of climate and landscape that allowed for the evolution of wild plants and animals that could be domesticated; and farming could only arise in these places.
The densest concentrations of these plants and animals lay toward the Western end of Eurasia, around the headwaters of the Euphrates, Tigris, and Jordan Rivers in what we now call southwest Asia. It was therefore here, around 9000 BC, that farming began, spreading outward across Europe. Western Eurasia became the richest part of the world.
A view of the the city skyline in Shanghai, China. (Philippe Lopez, AFP / Getty Images)
Farming also started up independently in other areas, from China to Mexico; but because plants and animals that could be domesticated were somewhat less common in these zones than in the West, the process took thousands of years longer to get going.
The main lesson to draw from all this history is that tinkering with exchange rates and legislating against outsourcing will not stop the shift of wealth and power from West to East.
Why the West Rules—for Now. By Ian Morris. 768 pages. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. $35. These other zones of complex agricultural societies also expanded, but western Eurasia long retained its early lead, producing the world’s first cities, states, and empires.
In the 1st millennium BC—the age of Socrates, the Buddha, and Confucius—western Eurasia was still the richest and most developed part of the world. But by this point, a great paradox had become clear: Geography determines how societies develop, but how societies develop simultaneously determines what geography means.
In the earliest days of agriculture, having the right temperatures, rainfall, and topography was all-important. But as villages grew into cities, these geographical facts became less important than living on a great river like the Nile, which made irrigation possible. 12 December 25, 2010 | 7:03pm Twitter Email Share var OutbrainPermaLink=document.location.href.replace(document.location.search, '').replace(/\/\d+\/$/,'/').replace(document.location.host, 'thedailybeast.com'); if(OutbrainPermaLink.search(/blogs-and-stories/)>=0){ OutbrainPermaLink += "full/"; } var OB_Template = "The Daily Beast"; var OB_demoMode = false; var OBITm = "1255455386150"; var OB_langJS ='http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' ) OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = ''; document.write(str); } Books, Nonfiction (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies Sort Up Sort Down sort by date: 12 Jeremiah256
If we're relying on today's statesmen to prevent wars, then we are seriously screwed. Great article, though. If the book is on Audiable, I'll put in in my queue.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 7:35 pm, Dec 25, 2010 Genni2002Jeremiah - agree with the statesmen part, but then we don't like statesmen and people who want to cooperate and make decisions. We just like grouchy jerks or indecisive nice guys. The people we elect certainly don't want to be accountable for anything, unless of course if it is helping their lobbyist WS or huge conglomerate business buddies. Then suddenly they seem to be able to work together.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 3:07 am, Dec 26, 2010 nipoleonThis article has many meaningful insights but fails to notice the catalyst for the fall of a society. Namely, simple foolishness. Whenever a society enjoys success it becomes tempting to become self satisfied, then insular and introverted. It starts to believe in it's own rightness as if granted by divine providence. An Aristocracy develops and greed becomes an end in itself. We can see an excellent example of this in the recent economic crisis. Sure, it was partially alleviated by an infusion of public money into the financial institutions which were mostly to blame for the crisis. But, have they learned anything ? What have they done with the money which was constructive for society as a whole ? They have only used it to continue their own selfish interests. Like a bad gambler, they only want to keep the game going with no concern for the future. There has been no effort to increase the American workers earning power and this is the obvious mistake the American financial leaders are making. As American workers earning power decreases, so do the tax rolls. Who's going to enforce American corporate interests around the world if America can't afford to pay for the weaponry ? When the next economic collapse happens will the tax payer money be there to bail them out ? The Chinese have been willing to bank roll American consumer debt, but will they bank roll American military power ? Will the Chinese keep giving us the money forever ? I don't think so. And there you have it. The rise of the Chinese and the fall of America, all for the want of a few good jobs. Simple foolishness.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 10:47 pm, Dec 25, 2010 cryptoadVery good points, but You left the part how we the people like being the most powerful country on Earth but we just don't want to pay for it. We want to be the world's police force,,,, nation building for truth justice and the American way , but we just don't want to pay for it. We want the best infrastructure, the best technology, the best education system, best this and best that,,,,, but we just don't want to pay for it. We spend almost twice what we take in. We are like a Crack Ho when it comes to China's easy money. Cake anybody?????
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:50 pm, Dec 25, 2010 ravenrdrThis article is insightful and a must read for every serious citizen; your reply adds immeasurably. I read an article where people still believe in American Exceptionalism--Manifest Destiny-- if you like. For years, these views were quietly ignored by those who knew better. Unfortunately, they have come into the open and are (in addition to the factors you point out) wreaking havoc on America. It's just a matter of time. I love you America; we had a long run. Peace to you all during this holiday season.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 5:19 am, Dec 26, 2010 sailawayYour second paragraph describes America today perfectly. The ramifications of this self-satisfaction will not be pretty. For once, I'm grateful that I'm old and won't have to live through what's coming, if American's don't snap out of their cultural trance.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 6:40 am, Dec 26, 2010 jdiakiwRichest and most powerful country in the world? Give me a break! To what end? A Canadian perspective. . . merica We Love You. . . . But! America we love you.? We have always loved you. (well, at least since the war of 1812!) We are your biggest supporters, loyal and faithful on a host of issues from defense, humanitarian missions, and the economy.?Both countries believe in democracy, free markets and the rule of law and we have more in common, than you do with most other countries in the world. We have a symbiotic relationship economically.à —e are by far each others biggest trading partner, 20 % of all USA trade is with Canada, (almost 500 billion annually and more than all 27 European countries combined). We vacation there in numbers greater than all other nations combined.à —e aspire to send our children to your many outstanding universities.?We have been there for you whenever you needed us (well not for Bush's Iraq war,?ut with full force in Korea, Bosnia and?fghanistan). We welcomed and sheltered in our homes, thousands of your citizens stranded in the 9/11 crisis.à —e rescued your diplomats in a secret mission during Iranian Revolution. We back almost every one of your United Nations initiatives. You gas up your cars on our oil (Canada is your largest oil supplier).à —e heat your homes (90% of our vast gas production goes to the USA,?nd we provide you with 30bkwh more electricity than we import. No two countries have a stranger relationship. As Pierre Trudeau once said "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." Margaret Atwood described our border as the longest one way mirror. We are still almost connected by an umbilical cord. You talk to each other on our blackberries and travel on our planes and trains and snowmobiles (Bombardier). Most of you were raised on our Pablum. We soak up and love your vast entertainment offerings: movies and TV in far greater usage than we do of our own media production, though we have contributed our share to your movie-making expertise with Canadians like Jack Warner, Louis B. Mayer, Norman Jewison, James Cameron, Denys Arcand and David Cronenberg.à —e make you laugh with our endless supply of comedians? we are a very funny people) from Michel J. fox,à Â?im Carey, Martin short,?ike Myers,à Â?eslie Neilson, Samantha Bee,?o name just a few of our endless supply of comics.à —e disproportionately provide you with our finest talents from architecture,-- Frank Gehry, A.J Diamond,?to Literature, -- Alice Munro,?ichael Ondaatje and?argaret Atwood ; to?usic --à Â?iana Krall, Oscar Peterson,à Â?ustin Bieber, Neil young,?lanis Morriset,à Â?len Gould,à “hania twain,à Â?oni Mitchell,à Â?ryan Adams,à Â?eline Dionne, and KD Lang to name just a few.?Our intellects frame your critical discussions from Marshall McLu han, Northrop Frye to John Kenneth Galbraith. You watch TV news through the eyes of many of our?wn camera broadcasters like Morley Safer, CBS,?he late Peter Jennings, ABC,?Robert McNeil of the McNeil Lehrer Report, PBS , andà Â?ohn Roberts and Ali Velshi of CNN.à Â?es, although?e are bombarded and love your news and entertainment industry we are still tied to it with our own small connections. The unrelenting influx of American media to our country has caused many of our commentators to lament our Americanization. Michael Bliss, historian summed up his lament when he said "what strikes me is that we are becoming more similar to the American in our culture and in our values". And polls tended to support him.?n EKOS Reid poll showed that 58% of Canadian felt we were becoming more American and only 9% felt we were becoming more distinct (National Post, 2002, Jan 18 p. b1).?nd Jeffrey Simpson in the Star Spangled Canadians wrote: "Canadians whether they like or acknowledge it, are becoming more like Americans. . . . (Globe and Mail, 2000) But nothing could be further from the truth. We have evolved in a very different way! We are a very different people. We love you America, but we do not understand you. How can a continent inhabited by the same gene pool produce such different societies? We share the same origins of native north Americans, French, English and Spanish original colonists, followed by wave upon wave of Poles Italians Finns and every other European immigrants as well as from all corners of Asia, sharing the same general climate (the vast majority of Canadians live south of Minnesota Montana and Washington) we share the same American media outlets and magazines. We are like brothers sharing the same bedroom, the same parents, but people ask "how can those boys be so different. " Most Canadians can't understand that the richest country in the world has the highest levels of income inequality among high income countries.?Over the past 20-30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations (T. Smeeding Wikipedia)?Even Alan Greenspan, June 2005 lamented this situation:?u201CAs I've often said... this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society-a capitalist democratic society-can really accept without addressing." America has the highest child poverty rates in the modern world, with 21.9% of the American children living in poverty, after taxes and benefits, compared with fewer than 4% in Finland and other European countries.à Â?n Canada we lament our shameful 12 % child poverty rate, (especially when the government passed legislation promising to eliminate child poverty by 2000!)?United States is at the bottom of the list along with Mexico. One million of your children are homeless, more than at any time since the great depression. (Teaching Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2004) The gap in poverty rates in the US, between men & women is wider than anywhere else in the Western world.à ”he poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women. It is well known that "In countries where mothers do well, children do well," In the recent healthcare debate, Canadians shook our heads in dismay at the misrepresentation of our universal healthcare system. All the media threatened Americans with the dangers of Canadian style healthcare. Fox news and others, scoured the country for a Canadian willing to berate our system while the vast majority of polls in Canada have consistently reported that the two things Canadians are most proud of, are our health system and our policy of multiculturalism. When we held a national search for our greatest Canadian,à ”ommy Douglas the father or our universal health care hands down as our greatest Canadian (grandfather of Keifer Sutherland of 24 Fame), outscoring?ur?ational founder, Sir John A Macdonald.?mericans spent 1 ?imes more on health care per capita than Canada and still 30 million Americans received none of it. We don't understand how the richest country in the world is still the only modern economy without universal health care and we are saddened that even today the majority of Americans are not in favour of Obamacare and it is being threatened in courts across the country and berated by the Tea party advocates. It is not surprising then, that we have a higher longevity rate (Canada is 81 years, to your 78 years) and a lower infant mortality rate. We can see why the richest country in the world has the second worst infant mortality rate among industrialized countries. American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month, as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway,?The United States, is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations along with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.?ur life expectancy is higher and our infant mortality rate is significantly lower than yours. Thanks to our healthcare system! We also do not understand how such an advanced and cultured nation has more people in prison, per capita, than any other country in the world, more than China, more than Iran, more than many oppressive dictatorships. You have more than 1 in 100 adults?ow confined in an American jails or prison.à ”he United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population. Canada has no death penalty. While Canadians too, are proud gun owners, you have by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations.à Â?un related deaths of 14 per 100,000 in the USA?ompared with 5 per 100,000 in CANADA . You?ave three times as many murders per capita and 5 times as many gun murders. We do not understand why?hen you have the most outstanding University system in the world with graduate schools that are the?nvy of all nations,?nd a nation bursting with creativity,?nventors, innovators and entrepreneurs, where more is spent on education per capita than any other country, but yet your students perform so poorly in international comparisons. In the recent PISA results conducted by OECD of 65 nations,à Â?anada ranked third as a country overall, behind Korea and Finland (three Asian cites led the pack) while the United States?anked 23 or 24th in most subjects. We in Canada, significantly,?ad the narrowest gap in achievement between student from low income homes and high income homes of any of the 65 countries studied,?nd we continue to have the highest rates of university attendance of college age students of any country in the world. We also attract into our teaching force candidates from the top third of university grads while the USA and UK for example,?ttract teachers from the lowest third of graduates. We differ markedly in our sexual attitudes as well. American soldiers have fought along openly gay Canadian soldiers since the start of the afghan war. Canada was one of the first nations to permit openly gay soldiers fight for their country. Twice as many couples are co-habiting in Canada than?n America and gay marriage was legalized in 1995.? Canada has also legalized gay marriage since 1995. Just a few other examples in attitudes and values; your car is far more important to your?tyle and image than for Canadians; you work longer hours and take fewer holidays. Adams research continues to reveal theses stark differences which continue to widen in our political attitudes, differences in church attendance, in consumption,?ifferences in our attitudes to authority, spirituality, even the look and feel of our cities. We also?ace many problems and there are many skeletons in our closet: Our shameful treatment of Native Canadians and our history of intolerance (One Jew is Too Many, 1944!)?eveal regrettable incidents in our history.à —e too, incarcerated Japanese in World War II, for example, as well as Ukrainians in WWI.?We are not proud of our environmental record. Our 12 % child poverty rate is a prevailing embarrassment to all Canadians. But we have evolved as a very liberal nation. In the recent American election, polls in Canada showed that 83% of Canadians, if given the vote, would have voted for Obama and even among conservative voters 58 % would have voted for him, prompting Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" to say the closest example of Canadian conservative voters in American politics would be the gays for Ralph Nader party! Several authors remind us of our most famous founding phrases.à ”he American Revolution in the Declaration of Independence proclaimed a defining goal and attribute of the American way as, "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", while Canada followed with?he words?hat form the heart of our confederation in the Constitution Act of 1867, "peace order and good government".à —hat markedly different national cultures and identities evolve out such a few words.à Â?ould it be so simple? Jerry Diakiwà Â? am on the Faculty of Education, York University in Toronto. I am a retired School Superintendent with the York Region Board of Education. I have written widely on the school's role in promoting, debating and discussing Canadian culture and identity. Dr Jerry Diakiw York University Faculty of Education 905 887 8261 ________________________________________
Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 1:05 pm, Dec 26, 2010 deltabluesIf you want to puff up Canada do it somewhere else - this string is not about so-called Canadian culture and identity. Your posting reminds me of similar ones by Kiwis re Australia - the classic kid brother syndrome.
Flag It | Permalink 5:28 pm, Dec 26, 2010 danew13Dr. Diakiw, Very in depth, but you must learn to make paragraphs.
Flag It | Permalink 8:34 am, Dec 27, 2010 RingADingDingIt was a very good article. It's a shame not more people will comment on it or view it.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 11:17 pm, Dec 25, 2010 PrometheusYeah right, and it's a shame you skipped 5th grade grammar class!
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 9:50 am, Dec 26, 2010 abhagwatOne of the dumbest article ever on the Beast. As one of the comments pointed out, if geography was destiny why didn't Africa dominate? Or the Chinese discover the spice islands and India and colonize them? Or India do the same in reverse? There are always people with easy answer and fools who believe them.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 6:15 pm, Dec 26, 2010 ouandie"The challenge for the 21st century is to prevent the rise of the East from being as violent as the earlier rise of the West." I found your conclusion very interesting because it does betray your duplicity and intellectual dishonesty. I am not going to put into question this theory completely because it is part of the story. If you conclude that the idea is "to prevent the rise of the East to be less violent than the rise of the West" then you must mention at least how violence has helped the rise of the WEST. Let's acknowledge that the blood of other people, their enslavement, their resources acquired at will or force have been one of the greatest catalyst for the industrial expansion for the WEST. The globalization was supposed to be a tool for the WEST to open more secluded markets but it has had the unintended consequences of empowering developing countries to ask more for what they produce. I could expand but ... Geography is only a small part of the story. An encompassing story is a good story, a small part is not.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 1:47 am, Dec 26, 2010 Genni2002Enjoyed the history lesson:). Too bad people don't pay attention to world history in high school and a course in sociology is not even part of the core curriculum - one of my favourite courses as a freshman in college. A combo economic world history/ sociology would be a super course.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 3:04 am, Dec 26, 2010 RJB-BostonIf it was all just about geography then Africa would be much more prominent and richer, and how would you explain Japan and Australia? Its never about one simple variable - its a confluence of events, some predictable and many random, that determine most outcomes.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 4:46 am, Dec 26, 2010 aggressiveprogressiveAgreed. This idea is FAR too simplistic. GEOGRAPHY as opposed to spending habits? GEOGRAPHY as opposed to modern psychology? GEOGRAPHY as opposed to technology? GEOGRAPHY as opossed to population totals and demographics? Yah, I'm not buying it.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:09 am, Dec 26, 2010 janetyI do agree generally with his analysis of early civilizations. The African climate is not conducive to farming with the primitive techniques of the past - before irrigation, fertilizers, etc. In addition the relative lack of animals that can be domesticated. At least compared to other parts of the world. I see his point in that these things are requisite to building a stable and complex society (as opposed to a nomadic hunter-gatherer society). Having a stable society would be requisite to allowing African societies as a whole (rather than a few powerful leaders) profit from the natural resources there. I think the geography hypothesis is interesting, but that it was far more relevant to earlier societies. Now that we can have the technology to grow food anywhere, can travel, communicate and share information around the world so quickly, I don't see how geography could be so important. Other countries are now held back by unstable governments and weak economies. We now know what kinds of governmental systems work and which don't. We have the technology to efficiently travel and make food just about anywhere. A country ruled by dictatorship, a society in which women are barred from being educated and entering the workforce, or a nation with religious civil war raging cannot be stable or productive compared with the rest of the world. In modern times I think these things must outweigh geography.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 3:20 pm, Dec 26, 2010 whipmawhopmaNot Africa. Most (not all) African rivers are worthless for navigation from the oceans into the interior, and most trade in early days before the railroads moved by water. This is the chief reason that the early leaders of the United States were so keen on building canals to connect the eastern states to Great Lakes and the Ohio River. Otherwise the country would fall apart into different nations, because trade would be costly to the point of not being worth it. Africa is also for the most part orientated north - south, which means that flora and fauna that do well in one latitude don't do well in another. People and their empires do well expanding on an east - west axis, not so good expanding north - south, at least not until they move so far that they hit a place like home, like the white colonizers (and their domestic animals) that moved and thrived in southern Africa but died in droves the closer they got to central Africa. Then there's the amazing variety of diseases that kill or crippled a good part of the population. Like malaria. If I remember 'Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies' by Jared Diamond correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 11:43 pm, Dec 26, 2010 RangerWhy does the article ignore the fact that Obama is an ineffective leader with no experience in world affairs and unable to lead his own country? The rest of the world see him for what he is. He is not a leader and thus the rest of the world are not encouraged to follow him. As for geography explaining why the Chinese did not expand, why would any of the societies near them exist? There would have been evidence of them landing on Australia or even Hawaii... The Polynesians made it there on simple boats, why not the Chinese in their advanced ships? The mentality of any particular society is influenced by its geography, not led by it.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 5:54 am, Dec 26, 2010 Dr_SwampGasThe decline began long before him, and is beyond the power of any one man to change it. Neither of the political parties is any good, and all of the presidents from Nixon onward were part of the decline.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 8:36 am, Dec 26, 2010 PrometheusSince Nixon America has made more wealth than all the wealth made before in the history of the whole world. That's strange for decline. You sure you aren't just referring to the decline of the myths you live by?
Flag It | Permalink 9:53 am, Dec 26, 2010 PrometheusRight, in your mind maybe. People like you, who cannot identify human greatness when it clubs you over the head are what causes societies to decline.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 9:51 am, Dec 26, 2010 Steve AdamsonI'm not totally convinced by this author's central argument is sound. True, geography is important, but there are many other factors which contributed to the West pulling ahead. One of the biggest being the disastrous decision by Chinese Emperor Zhu Gaozhi to cancel the treasure fleet explorations. Had that not happened things could easily have been far different today.
Flag It | Permalink | Reply 6:21 am, Dec 26, 2010 GPattonAmerica has been great, in large part, because it has exemplified the ideals developed first in Scotland in the 18th Century. As long as we remain steadfast to those ideals, we will continue to prosper. The Chinese are extremely arrogant. Many of them are fools. A Confuscian social order cannot compete with the principles America was founded on. China is a paper tiger. If America loses its way, and China is allowed to become more powerful than it is now, the world will be the poorer for it. More signers of the American Declaration of Independence went to one college than any of the others, Princeton University, which was originally a Presbyterian seminary. Think about it. George Patton
Flag It | Permalink | Reply | (–) Show Replies Collapse Replies 6:21 am, Dec 26, 2010 PrometheusWith a dumbo username like you have, it's no surprise you have the brass stupidity to use a broad brush on the Chinese. Presbyterians are historically a wildly militarist and violent lot, with minds wrapped around a religious myth and zero respect for other peoples. Inhuman military violence is your idea of doing well - keep on dreaming corporal Patton!
Flag It | Permalink | Read Full Article »