Such a good question to ponder, I have also grappled with this question. Have you watched the documentary (or read the book it's based on) Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond? He explored the same questions over a decade (or two?) ago, and came to the conclusion that the three objects in his book title lie behind much of it. Now our that our current perspective also includes the legacy of colonialism, perhaps combined those explain much of the historic reasons that this is the case.
Hi Meagan! Yes, I read Guns, Germs,and Steel when it came out—it seems to be one of the big modern classics in this field, alongside Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu & Robinson.
Just stumbled upon a passage in the Deirdre McCloskey book about GG&S:
In 1997 the geographer Jared Diamond wrote a brilliant book, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, which was meant to answer the question of a New Guinea highlander of his acquaintance: “Why do you have so much cargo?” He was asking about the Japanese and Europeans fighting over New Guinea during the Second World War, who had abundant goods brought in by cargo planes. The first half of Diamond’s book is an illuminating exposition of the importance of the east-west orientation of the Eurasian land mass, by contrast with the north-south orientation of Africa and the New World. If chickens were domesticated in China, as they were, it was easy for people farther west, such as eventually the Spaniards at the other end of the land mass, to adopt them. The weather was pretty much the same in China and Spain. By contrast, corn domesticated in Central America never made it south to Peru, and potatoes domesticated in the Peru of the Incas never made it to the Toltec and Mayan civilizations of Central America. Therefore it was the civilizations of the Eurasian land mass that had the widest array of domestications of wheat and horses and the rest, and the best chance of having a Great Enrichment leading to the cargo-laden airplanes of Japanese and American and Australian invaders of New Guinea. But then Diamond goes off the rails. Big-time. The second half of his book deals with the promise of his silly title, explaining what we already know—that guns and steel in armor and swords, and germs such as measles and smallpox, made the conquest of the New World easy. He loses track of what he was trying to explain and starts supposing against the evidence that conquest is what pushes societies over into real enrichment. It doesn’t, as his very case shows: Portugal and Spain, the first overseas imperialists, with colonies from Mexico to Macao, were on the eve of the Great Enrichment the poorest countries in western Europe, and they did not fully embrace the modern economy until the end of the twentieth century.
Ah that's so interesting, I had forgotten about the north-south versus east-west aspect, it was so long ago that I really only remembered the general premise (and I think I saw a documentary version, but I don't remember finishing it). I wonder if there is an updated or revised version of the book to take into account other aspects now, as 1997 was a long time ago! I need to look. Thanks for sharing.
Appreciate this perspective Blake. As someone who's been an on and off nomad for years now, this topic is one that I wrestle with a lot. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this since the opportunity to nomad through remote work has entered more of the mainstream consciousness following COVID. It's reassuring and helpful to be reminded of a more optimistic view.
Great, thought-provoking post (and thanks for the book recommendation)! I've been working on this story about a trip to Guatemala and it's been bringing up a lot of similar feelings. IMHO, these sorts of feelings are a reason that wealthy travelers usually stick to their enclaves or cruise ships when they travel in less wealthy countries, but want to get to know the locals when they go to other wealthy places. And on the flip side, it's one of the reasons that getting to know the locals in less wealthy places is so important for those of us with access to disposable income. You're pointing towards one of the really important paradigm shifts that travel can trigger, I think.
I loved Jared Diamond’s books and after Guns Germs and Steel I felt I understood why some countries were further developed… recently headlines showed a study that debunked his theories. I haven’t dung into the study but yea… these answers take scholarship. Will note your book, thanks!
Jared Diamond has been devisive in the subject of history; I think a great counterpoint (and one that shows how much prehistoric folks did actually travel) is The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. Discusses economics, politics, agriculture, currency, credit, travel, etc. It’s a good long read. 11/10
If I may venture one answer to your question, Blake, I think it in part has to do with the fact that some countries are materially richer than others (why that is is a whole other question, which I won't attempt to get into here). But if we take that as our starting point, then we can observe that in a richer countries, things cost more. This is because, with more money flowing around, the price of things gets bid up. And because things cost more, wages need to be higher, so that people have a chance of affording those more expensive things. Meanwhile, in materially poorer countries, with less money flowing around, things cost less. So someone from a rich country can make a bunch of money (though saving it can be a challenge when they have to pay for those more expensive things) and travel to a place where things cost less, and stretch their money much further.
That's one explanation I can think of. I'm sure there are others, like how the exchange rate between different currencies favours rich countries (because speculators want to buy currencies from rich countries, but not poor ones, which increases their relative value).
I'll stay away from the morality of all this; I just wanted to try to offer a practical explanation for what's going on.
Such a good question to ponder, I have also grappled with this question. Have you watched the documentary (or read the book it's based on) Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond? He explored the same questions over a decade (or two?) ago, and came to the conclusion that the three objects in his book title lie behind much of it. Now our that our current perspective also includes the legacy of colonialism, perhaps combined those explain much of the historic reasons that this is the case.
Hi Meagan! Yes, I read Guns, Germs,and Steel when it came out—it seems to be one of the big modern classics in this field, alongside Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu & Robinson.
Just stumbled upon a passage in the Deirdre McCloskey book about GG&S:
In 1997 the geographer Jared Diamond wrote a brilliant book, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, which was meant to answer the question of a New Guinea highlander of his acquaintance: “Why do you have so much cargo?” He was asking about the Japanese and Europeans fighting over New Guinea during the Second World War, who had abundant goods brought in by cargo planes. The first half of Diamond’s book is an illuminating exposition of the importance of the east-west orientation of the Eurasian land mass, by contrast with the north-south orientation of Africa and the New World. If chickens were domesticated in China, as they were, it was easy for people farther west, such as eventually the Spaniards at the other end of the land mass, to adopt them. The weather was pretty much the same in China and Spain. By contrast, corn domesticated in Central America never made it south to Peru, and potatoes domesticated in the Peru of the Incas never made it to the Toltec and Mayan civilizations of Central America. Therefore it was the civilizations of the Eurasian land mass that had the widest array of domestications of wheat and horses and the rest, and the best chance of having a Great Enrichment leading to the cargo-laden airplanes of Japanese and American and Australian invaders of New Guinea. But then Diamond goes off the rails. Big-time. The second half of his book deals with the promise of his silly title, explaining what we already know—that guns and steel in armor and swords, and germs such as measles and smallpox, made the conquest of the New World easy. He loses track of what he was trying to explain and starts supposing against the evidence that conquest is what pushes societies over into real enrichment. It doesn’t, as his very case shows: Portugal and Spain, the first overseas imperialists, with colonies from Mexico to Macao, were on the eve of the Great Enrichment the poorest countries in western Europe, and they did not fully embrace the modern economy until the end of the twentieth century.
Ah that's so interesting, I had forgotten about the north-south versus east-west aspect, it was so long ago that I really only remembered the general premise (and I think I saw a documentary version, but I don't remember finishing it). I wonder if there is an updated or revised version of the book to take into account other aspects now, as 1997 was a long time ago! I need to look. Thanks for sharing.
Appreciate this perspective Blake. As someone who's been an on and off nomad for years now, this topic is one that I wrestle with a lot. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this since the opportunity to nomad through remote work has entered more of the mainstream consciousness following COVID. It's reassuring and helpful to be reminded of a more optimistic view.
Great, thought-provoking post (and thanks for the book recommendation)! I've been working on this story about a trip to Guatemala and it's been bringing up a lot of similar feelings. IMHO, these sorts of feelings are a reason that wealthy travelers usually stick to their enclaves or cruise ships when they travel in less wealthy countries, but want to get to know the locals when they go to other wealthy places. And on the flip side, it's one of the reasons that getting to know the locals in less wealthy places is so important for those of us with access to disposable income. You're pointing towards one of the really important paradigm shifts that travel can trigger, I think.
Always very thought provoking reading your posts.
I loved Jared Diamond’s books and after Guns Germs and Steel I felt I understood why some countries were further developed… recently headlines showed a study that debunked his theories. I haven’t dung into the study but yea… these answers take scholarship. Will note your book, thanks!
Prisoners of Geography is also noteworthy
Jared Diamond has been devisive in the subject of history; I think a great counterpoint (and one that shows how much prehistoric folks did actually travel) is The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. Discusses economics, politics, agriculture, currency, credit, travel, etc. It’s a good long read. 11/10
If I may venture one answer to your question, Blake, I think it in part has to do with the fact that some countries are materially richer than others (why that is is a whole other question, which I won't attempt to get into here). But if we take that as our starting point, then we can observe that in a richer countries, things cost more. This is because, with more money flowing around, the price of things gets bid up. And because things cost more, wages need to be higher, so that people have a chance of affording those more expensive things. Meanwhile, in materially poorer countries, with less money flowing around, things cost less. So someone from a rich country can make a bunch of money (though saving it can be a challenge when they have to pay for those more expensive things) and travel to a place where things cost less, and stretch their money much further.
That's one explanation I can think of. I'm sure there are others, like how the exchange rate between different currencies favours rich countries (because speculators want to buy currencies from rich countries, but not poor ones, which increases their relative value).
I'll stay away from the morality of all this; I just wanted to try to offer a practical explanation for what's going on.
Enjoying your newsletter!
Thanks for venturing a partial explanation, Sean! It takes guts.