PovertyEducation.org
Chapter One: A Brief History of the World
The map to your left shows the current state of the world economy.
The color dark green represents economies which are booming with wealth, countries such as Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and most of Europe. The Word Health Organization consistently ranks these countries as having the best quality of life in the world; their citizens live long, full lives (with average life span ranging from late seventies to early eighties), get paid very high incomes (with median income around $40'000 per year per citizen) are fed very well (ingesting over 2800 calories per day, more than any of the other groups) and are almost certainly literate (virtually 100% of rich world citizens can read and write). Around 90 percent of their populations live in cities or towns (as opposed to the countryside), and only about 3% of their population makes a living in agriculture (farming). Virtually all citizens of the "rich world" have access to basic necessities such as food and safe drinking water, and most also have access to technological innovations such as electricity and internet connection.
On the opposite end of the spectrum lies the countries in red; those living in what the United Nations has termed "extreme poverty". As you can see from the map, the overwhelming majority of these countries lie on the continent of Africa, specifically in a region known as Sub-Saharan Africa which lies below the northern end of the continent (below countries such as Egypt and Libya). The countries of sub-Saharan Africa, including Ghana, Congo, Malawi, Sudan, Sierra Leone, and about forty others, consistently rank as having the worst quality of life in the world. Their citizens have remarkably short lifespans, with the average man or woman living to the age of about 46. They drink water which is unsanitary, live among insects which can infect them with fatal diseases, have incomes of about $450 per year ($1.25 per day), and are constantly at the mercy of droughts which can cause them to die of starvation. Literacy in these countries is about 60%, a result of many families being unable to afford to send their children to school. About 85% of their population works on farms (compared to just 3% in the rich world) and 173 of every 1000 infants (roughly one sixth) will not live long enough to see their fifth birthday. Worst of all, these countries routinely experience periodic civil war, such as the ones currently going on in Congo, Chad, Somalia, the Central African Republic and Darfur (a province in Sudan). These periodic civil wars often cause casualties in the millions.
But then there is a third group of countries; those colored yellow or light orange, including Brazil, China and India. Just fifty years ago these countries would have been colored red; at the time, a very large proportion of their population was living in extreme poverty. But miraculously, these countries have become rapidly wealthier over the last thirty years, allowing hundreds of millions of people to be freed from the "poverty trap". Across China alone, there are over 400 million fewer people living in extreme poverty in 2001 than 20 years previously. We'll discuss this more in Chapter Four.
Two hundred years ago, the world was not nearly as rich as it is today. Up until the start of the nineteenth century, the world was almost entirely populated with people living in extreme poverty; the wealthy population did not yet exist. In fact, during the 1700s it is estimated that the income of the average citizen of England was even lower than that of present day Africans. But over the past 200 years, the countries in Europe became rapidly wealthier, increasing their wealth about twenty fold. Meanwhile, many regions of the world (including Africa) remained largely unchanged, still living in the extreme poverty that has plagued them for centuries.
So where did all of Europe's new wealth come from? And why was Europe, and not Africa or the Oceanic Islands, the place where wealth first became abundant? Was it because the people of Africa and Oceania were stupider or lazier than the Europeans and Asians, or was there another more important factor at play?
In this chapter I'll examine how countries such as England were able to eradicate extreme poverty within their borders through rapid technological advancement, and explore the role geography plays in determining which civilizations become wealthier than others.
The color dark green represents economies which are booming with wealth, countries such as Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and most of Europe. The Word Health Organization consistently ranks these countries as having the best quality of life in the world; their citizens live long, full lives (with average life span ranging from late seventies to early eighties), get paid very high incomes (with median income around $40'000 per year per citizen) are fed very well (ingesting over 2800 calories per day, more than any of the other groups) and are almost certainly literate (virtually 100% of rich world citizens can read and write). Around 90 percent of their populations live in cities or towns (as opposed to the countryside), and only about 3% of their population makes a living in agriculture (farming). Virtually all citizens of the "rich world" have access to basic necessities such as food and safe drinking water, and most also have access to technological innovations such as electricity and internet connection.
On the opposite end of the spectrum lies the countries in red; those living in what the United Nations has termed "extreme poverty". As you can see from the map, the overwhelming majority of these countries lie on the continent of Africa, specifically in a region known as Sub-Saharan Africa which lies below the northern end of the continent (below countries such as Egypt and Libya). The countries of sub-Saharan Africa, including Ghana, Congo, Malawi, Sudan, Sierra Leone, and about forty others, consistently rank as having the worst quality of life in the world. Their citizens have remarkably short lifespans, with the average man or woman living to the age of about 46. They drink water which is unsanitary, live among insects which can infect them with fatal diseases, have incomes of about $450 per year ($1.25 per day), and are constantly at the mercy of droughts which can cause them to die of starvation. Literacy in these countries is about 60%, a result of many families being unable to afford to send their children to school. About 85% of their population works on farms (compared to just 3% in the rich world) and 173 of every 1000 infants (roughly one sixth) will not live long enough to see their fifth birthday. Worst of all, these countries routinely experience periodic civil war, such as the ones currently going on in Congo, Chad, Somalia, the Central African Republic and Darfur (a province in Sudan). These periodic civil wars often cause casualties in the millions.
But then there is a third group of countries; those colored yellow or light orange, including Brazil, China and India. Just fifty years ago these countries would have been colored red; at the time, a very large proportion of their population was living in extreme poverty. But miraculously, these countries have become rapidly wealthier over the last thirty years, allowing hundreds of millions of people to be freed from the "poverty trap". Across China alone, there are over 400 million fewer people living in extreme poverty in 2001 than 20 years previously. We'll discuss this more in Chapter Four.
Two hundred years ago, the world was not nearly as rich as it is today. Up until the start of the nineteenth century, the world was almost entirely populated with people living in extreme poverty; the wealthy population did not yet exist. In fact, during the 1700s it is estimated that the income of the average citizen of England was even lower than that of present day Africans. But over the past 200 years, the countries in Europe became rapidly wealthier, increasing their wealth about twenty fold. Meanwhile, many regions of the world (including Africa) remained largely unchanged, still living in the extreme poverty that has plagued them for centuries.
So where did all of Europe's new wealth come from? And why was Europe, and not Africa or the Oceanic Islands, the place where wealth first became abundant? Was it because the people of Africa and Oceania were stupider or lazier than the Europeans and Asians, or was there another more important factor at play?
In this chapter I'll examine how countries such as England were able to eradicate extreme poverty within their borders through rapid technological advancement, and explore the role geography plays in determining which civilizations become wealthier than others.
How Geography Can Give Some Civilizations an Advantage
I'm sure many of us remember lessons from our elementary and high school history classes, which taught, among many other things, the history of European colonialism throughout the world. It was the Europeans which originally conquered Canada from the native American population, using their superior technology (such as guns) and well-organized military to dominate the North American plains. Similar outcomes occurred all over the world; the European conquistadors from Spain and Portugal were able to overthrow the Inca and Mayan populations ruling over South America; English settlers decimated the Aboriginal peoples of Australia and other Oceanic Islands such as Malaysia and New Guinea; in Africa, Europeans enslaved entire populations and shipped Africans overseas to work on American farms; in Asia, English conquerors forced open Chinese trade barriers in a series of conflicts known as the Opium Wars, stole enormous amounts of oil from the resource-rich Middle East, and colonized the entire civilization of India in just a few decades time.
But have you ever wondered why it was the Europeans, and not the Africans or South Americans, which dominated the world with superior technology? Why didn't the aboriginals of Canada conquer England instead of the other way around? Why did Europe enslave Africa, instead of Africa enslaving Europe? Somehow, the citizens of Europe were able to invent vastly more useful technology (such as guns and other weapons) than anyone else in the world, allowing the European explorers to overtake other civilizations.
From the end of the last Ice Age around 15'000 years ago, humans living in Europe and Asia technologically advanced much faster than those living in other regions of the world, including the native aboriginals of North and South America, the tribes of Africa, and the citizens of the Oceanic Islands (Australia, Malaysia and New Guinea). In his masterpiece study Guns, Germs and Steel, UCLA professor of geography Jared Diamond points out that by the year 1700 AD, virtually all of humanity's greatest accomplishments, including mathematics, the compass, the printing press, gun powder, and magnets, had come from the continents of Europe or Asia (Eurasia) while the other regions of the world produced a disproportionately low amount of technological innovations; this technological superiority eventually allowed the Europeans to conquer and enslave much of Africa and South America.
So why was Eurasia, and not Africa or the Americas, the one producing all this groundbreaking technology?
There must have been something which was causing Eurasia to be advancing at an unusually fast rate. So what was it?
Before we can answer that question, we must first understand what causes a country to advance technologically: what makes certain populations more likely invent groundbreaking innovations such as compasses and gun powder? Most economists believe that if a country's citizens have a plentiful supply of food, they are more likely to develop innovative technology. Why is this? Well, when a country's farmers area able to produce a large amount of food, a greater proportion of the population can work in other "specialized" occupations, such as craftsman; they can become blacksmiths or goldsmiths, instead of just farmers. Eventually, greater "division of labour" (greater diversity in the workforce) will increase each individual citizen's skills and make the country as a whole more likely to invent a new piece of technology. This is loosely known as the "Division of Labor Theory".
To give you an idea of how this works, let's compare two societies: England, which has historically produced an unusually large amount of food, and Chad (in central Africa), which has historically produced only meager amounts of food. In England, a farmer is able to grow enough food to feed his own family and have still have some food left over. So he uses his food surplus to pay for manual labor he needs done; perhaps he needs someone to build a new barn so he gives a man some food in exchange for his labor, or maybe he needs a pale to collect milk so he hires a blacksmith to craft it from iron, or perhaps he wants to buy his wife some jewelery so he gives a goldsmith some food for a new gold necklace. The food surplus throughout the country has caused the job sector to become more diverse; instead of only farmers, there are now also blacksmiths, goldsmiths, and construction workers within the society. A large number of non-farming specialists increases the likelihood that someone in the country will invent a new piece of useful technology, thus accelerating economic growth and technological progress.
But in Chad, where food is very difficult to grow, there is no room for diversity of labor in the market. A farmer has no surplus of food to pay for luxuries such as gold necklaces -he can barely feed his family with the meager amount of food he creates. As a result, only a very tiny percentage of the population is employed in a specialized occupation (such as blacksmith, goldsmiths or construction workers). Since the workplace isn't as diverse, Chad is less likely to develop advanced technology.
But why did England grow more food than Chad in the first place? Something must have given England an advantage. That something, argues Diamond, is favorable geography. Geography has long been known to shape a country's economic performance by making it very easy or very difficult for a region's citizens to grow crops. For example, compare the geographies of England and Chad; is there anything which gave the English an advantage over Chad's citizens when trying to grow food?
Certainly.
England happens to have soil which is rich in nutrients, a large network of river systems from being surrounded by the sea (which can be used for crop irrigation), and very little native disease (such as Malaria) which could make their farmers ill. All of this nice geography meant that England's ancient civilizations would have an easy time growing crops. By comparison, Chad has very little nutritious soil to grow food on (Chad is made up primarily of deserts). Since it is landlocked, it has very little rainfall to assist in growing crops, few rivers to use for irrigation, and has few forests to build shelters out of. In addition, it also happens to be in a region of the world where tropical diseases such as Malaria are prevalent, meaning that a large percentage of their citizens will die at a young age from tropical disease.
Therefore the differences in geography meant that England's citizens would produce more food, causing a greater proportion of England's population would work as specialized craftsmen. Over hundreds of years England would invent more useful inventions than Chad, and England will eventually use this technology (i.e. guns and sea vessels) to overtake Chad militarily. Thus it is not simply cultural differences which caused the countries of Europe to advance faster than those of Africa; it was favorable geography.
But have you ever wondered why it was the Europeans, and not the Africans or South Americans, which dominated the world with superior technology? Why didn't the aboriginals of Canada conquer England instead of the other way around? Why did Europe enslave Africa, instead of Africa enslaving Europe? Somehow, the citizens of Europe were able to invent vastly more useful technology (such as guns and other weapons) than anyone else in the world, allowing the European explorers to overtake other civilizations.
From the end of the last Ice Age around 15'000 years ago, humans living in Europe and Asia technologically advanced much faster than those living in other regions of the world, including the native aboriginals of North and South America, the tribes of Africa, and the citizens of the Oceanic Islands (Australia, Malaysia and New Guinea). In his masterpiece study Guns, Germs and Steel, UCLA professor of geography Jared Diamond points out that by the year 1700 AD, virtually all of humanity's greatest accomplishments, including mathematics, the compass, the printing press, gun powder, and magnets, had come from the continents of Europe or Asia (Eurasia) while the other regions of the world produced a disproportionately low amount of technological innovations; this technological superiority eventually allowed the Europeans to conquer and enslave much of Africa and South America.
So why was Eurasia, and not Africa or the Americas, the one producing all this groundbreaking technology?
There must have been something which was causing Eurasia to be advancing at an unusually fast rate. So what was it?
Before we can answer that question, we must first understand what causes a country to advance technologically: what makes certain populations more likely invent groundbreaking innovations such as compasses and gun powder? Most economists believe that if a country's citizens have a plentiful supply of food, they are more likely to develop innovative technology. Why is this? Well, when a country's farmers area able to produce a large amount of food, a greater proportion of the population can work in other "specialized" occupations, such as craftsman; they can become blacksmiths or goldsmiths, instead of just farmers. Eventually, greater "division of labour" (greater diversity in the workforce) will increase each individual citizen's skills and make the country as a whole more likely to invent a new piece of technology. This is loosely known as the "Division of Labor Theory".
To give you an idea of how this works, let's compare two societies: England, which has historically produced an unusually large amount of food, and Chad (in central Africa), which has historically produced only meager amounts of food. In England, a farmer is able to grow enough food to feed his own family and have still have some food left over. So he uses his food surplus to pay for manual labor he needs done; perhaps he needs someone to build a new barn so he gives a man some food in exchange for his labor, or maybe he needs a pale to collect milk so he hires a blacksmith to craft it from iron, or perhaps he wants to buy his wife some jewelery so he gives a goldsmith some food for a new gold necklace. The food surplus throughout the country has caused the job sector to become more diverse; instead of only farmers, there are now also blacksmiths, goldsmiths, and construction workers within the society. A large number of non-farming specialists increases the likelihood that someone in the country will invent a new piece of useful technology, thus accelerating economic growth and technological progress.
But in Chad, where food is very difficult to grow, there is no room for diversity of labor in the market. A farmer has no surplus of food to pay for luxuries such as gold necklaces -he can barely feed his family with the meager amount of food he creates. As a result, only a very tiny percentage of the population is employed in a specialized occupation (such as blacksmith, goldsmiths or construction workers). Since the workplace isn't as diverse, Chad is less likely to develop advanced technology.
But why did England grow more food than Chad in the first place? Something must have given England an advantage. That something, argues Diamond, is favorable geography. Geography has long been known to shape a country's economic performance by making it very easy or very difficult for a region's citizens to grow crops. For example, compare the geographies of England and Chad; is there anything which gave the English an advantage over Chad's citizens when trying to grow food?
Certainly.
England happens to have soil which is rich in nutrients, a large network of river systems from being surrounded by the sea (which can be used for crop irrigation), and very little native disease (such as Malaria) which could make their farmers ill. All of this nice geography meant that England's ancient civilizations would have an easy time growing crops. By comparison, Chad has very little nutritious soil to grow food on (Chad is made up primarily of deserts). Since it is landlocked, it has very little rainfall to assist in growing crops, few rivers to use for irrigation, and has few forests to build shelters out of. In addition, it also happens to be in a region of the world where tropical diseases such as Malaria are prevalent, meaning that a large percentage of their citizens will die at a young age from tropical disease.
Therefore the differences in geography meant that England's citizens would produce more food, causing a greater proportion of England's population would work as specialized craftsmen. Over hundreds of years England would invent more useful inventions than Chad, and England will eventually use this technology (i.e. guns and sea vessels) to overtake Chad militarily. Thus it is not simply cultural differences which caused the countries of Europe to advance faster than those of Africa; it was favorable geography.
Reasons Behind Eurasia's Dominance
So back to the original question: Why did the ancient citizens of Europe and Asia develop useful technology so much faster than the rest of the world? Well, since technological process is mainly driven by food surpluses, the better question to ask is: What caused Europeans and Asians to grow more food than their African, Oceanic and American counterparts? Were there geographical advantages which caused the Eurasians to grow more food?
Diamond emphasizes four key environmental differences between Eurasia and the rest of the world which the gave the Eurasians a major advantage in growing food. First, the plant species native to Eurasia were excellent for agriculture; the Eurasians had access to wheat and barley grain, both of which are very healthy and easy to plant. In contrast, the natives of North and South America had only maize, which is much less nutritious and very difficult to plant. Africans also had much more trouble growing crops because most of the African continent lacked water; rain fell very infrequently, and only a relatively small amount of African landmass was near a large body of water such as the ocean coastline or a large river.
Second, Eurasians had the advantage of having access to a wide variety of docile animals perfect for domestication including bulls, horses and donkeys to plow the fields. They also had cows, chickens, and sheep to raise as livestock. Eurasia as a whole was home to 13 species of large domesticable animals (over 100lb), while North and South America had just one; llamas residing in the Western side of South America. Although a number of large species resided in Africa -such as rhinoceros, elephants, and zebra- all of these species were either impossible to tame or incredibly difficult to breed in captivity. Since the Eurasians had greater access to docile animals which could be farmed for meat or used to plow crops, they tended to be better fed than the rest of the world.
Diamond emphasizes four key environmental differences between Eurasia and the rest of the world which the gave the Eurasians a major advantage in growing food. First, the plant species native to Eurasia were excellent for agriculture; the Eurasians had access to wheat and barley grain, both of which are very healthy and easy to plant. In contrast, the natives of North and South America had only maize, which is much less nutritious and very difficult to plant. Africans also had much more trouble growing crops because most of the African continent lacked water; rain fell very infrequently, and only a relatively small amount of African landmass was near a large body of water such as the ocean coastline or a large river.
Second, Eurasians had the advantage of having access to a wide variety of docile animals perfect for domestication including bulls, horses and donkeys to plow the fields. They also had cows, chickens, and sheep to raise as livestock. Eurasia as a whole was home to 13 species of large domesticable animals (over 100lb), while North and South America had just one; llamas residing in the Western side of South America. Although a number of large species resided in Africa -such as rhinoceros, elephants, and zebra- all of these species were either impossible to tame or incredibly difficult to breed in captivity. Since the Eurasians had greater access to docile animals which could be farmed for meat or used to plow crops, they tended to be better fed than the rest of the world.
Eurasia's third big advantage is that it stretches from East to West, while Africa and the Americas stretch from North to South. Recognize that Earth’s climate varies depending on longitude (the North and South poles are very cold while the equator tends to be hot). This means that a region such as North America, which stretches from the colder North to the warm equator, tends to have a variety of climates. You can see from the map, certain regions of North and South America are much colder than others. As a result, it was far harder for Native Americans to expand their civilization, since every time they migrated they were forced to adopt new crops to accommodate a different climate. But as the map shows us, Eurasia tends to have a constant climate over long distances (look at the long yellow line stretching from Japan all the way to Europe). This meant that as the Eurasian civilization expanded and their populations migrated, the people could keep using the same crops they were used to because the climate stayed roughly the same. The advantage of growing familiar crops over vast distances once again allowed the Eurasians to grow more food.
Africa's Fatal Flaw: How Tropical Disease Wounded Technological Advancement in Africa
Eurasia's fourth, and perhaps most important geographical advantage was that its cool climate dramatically reduced the negative impact disease had on their populations.
One might think that living in a tropical environment is advantageous to survival; after all, those farmers living in the tropics would not have to deal with seasonal fluctuations in temperature, allowing them to grow crops for a longer portion of the year. But tropical regions are also home to a horrifying curse, one which has caused tropical populations (such as the residents of Africa, New Guinea and India) to suffer for centuries.
Most diseases can only survive within a certain range of temperature; if the poisonous bacteria cells or tiny viruses are exposed to temperature which is too hot or too cold, then they die.
In the vast majority of cases, disease organisms favor warmer climates, meaning that people living in tropical regions are more susceptible to disease. Since the last Ice Age, residents of tropical regions have had to deal with an unusually vast array of diseases, including Malaria, African Sleeping Sickness, Dengue Fever, West Nile Virus, and Yellow Fever. As a result, a shockingly large amount of people living in tropical regions tend to be chronically sick. Since a chronically ill society will likely be less productive than a healthy one, tropical disease is believed to be one of the major reasons why African civilizations could not technologically advance as fast as the Eurasians.
To illustrate this phenomenon, I’ll use the example of Malaria. Malaria is an infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites found in the salivary glands of mosquitoes; the human body can become infected when bitten by a mosquito carrying the parasite. Symptoms of Malaria include fever, shivering, nausea, retinal damage, and several diseases of the blood including anemia (a decrease in red blood cells). In severe cases, it could lead to severe neurological damage (especially in children), or a coma which eventually leads to death. As one of the most common diseases in the world, Malaria currently affects and astounding 300-500 million people per year, most of which live in Sub-Saharan Africa; about 1-3 million of the infected die from the disease, and many survivors must suffer permanent neurological damage. Africa is particularly susceptible to the disease (see photo below) because it happens to house the type of mosquito (Anthropologic Anopheles) which has evolved to bite only humans, and tends to carry the most deadly type of Malaria (plasmodium falciparum).
Malaria it is thought to have made the ancient civilizations of Africa chronically ill. As mentioned above, a society which is constantly sick will not technologically advance as fast as a healthy one because sickness tends to decrease productivity; fatal diseases like Malaria often kill off an enormous percentage of the working population, meaning that the population as a whole will not get as much work done. In addition, sick people are constantly missing work time due to illness, further reducing the total amount of work being done. Disease can also give a large percentage of the population life-changing disabilities; for example, Malaria can cause severe neurological damage which lasts the rest of the victim's life. Since citizens with severe neurological disabilities are likely to be less productive than healthy citizens, the economy once more suffers. As a result, diseases like Malaria have severely hindered technological advancement within African civilization. This is demonstrated by the maps below. The map on the left shows the areas of the world living in extreme poverty (during the 1990s) in red; the map on the right shows (in black) where Malaria has historically been most prevalent.
There is a striking correlation between the areas of the world which have historically been full of Malaria and those that have failed to become wealthy, suggesting that Malaria (as well as other tropical disease) is a major hindrance to economic development. Please note that although the maps below provide a visual example of correlation, much more comprehensive scientific analysis has proven a causational link between a region's historical vulnerability to Malaria and increased risk of extreme poverty. Please see this report on the Economic Burden of Malaria (by John Luke Gallup and Jeffrey Sachs) for more information (also see Chapter Three: Poverty Traps for more in depth discussion).
The combination of better plants, better animals, favorable shape and cooler climate allowed the ancient citizens of Europe and Asia to grow more food than their African, Native American and Aboriginal Australian counterparts. The plentiful supply of food allowed new, specialized jobs to be created all over Eurasia, including specialized craftsman such as blacksmiths, goldsmiths and construction workers. The rise of non-farming specialists accelerated economic growth and technological progress. These economic and technological advantages eventually enabled Europeans to conquer the peoples of the other continents using their superior technology.
England: The First Nation to Escape from Extreme Poverty
We've seen how geography can critically influence a region's ability to technologically advance; favorable geography allowed Eurasians to grow larger amounts of food, causing the Eurasians to become wealthier and more technologically advanced than their African, Native American and Aboriginal Australian counterparts.
Nations within Europe and Asia, such as England, France, Austria, Prussia and Japan arose as the dominant technological leaders of the world. These Eurasian nations used their superior technology (such as guns) to conquer the less wealthy citizens of other regions, such as the Native Americans in North America, the Mayans and Inca in South America, the Aboriginals of Australia, and the impoverished tribes of Africa. They decimated the native populations of the Americas and Australia, eventually repopulating the land with immigrants from Europe. These European immigrants were very successful at growing crops on the conquered land in North America and Australia. Most of this North American and Australian land was relatively disease-free and rich with nutritious soil; after bringing Eurasia's advantageous livestock and nutritious seeds to these vast lands, the regions (modern day Canada, United States and Australia) soon became some of the wealthiest in the world with large surpluses of food. Unfortunately, in South America the European immigrants from Spain and Portugal were less successful, since they were burdened by South America's intense tropical diseases, invasive insects (such as locusts) which devastated crops, and soil which was full of toxic aluminum particles. The Spanish and Portuguese immigrants of South America were eventually outpaced by the English and French immigrants in North American. In Africa, the European immigrants enslaved entire populations, forcing the Africans to grow crops of sugar or cotton for their European slave owners.
Of the dominating Eurasian societies stated above (England, France, Austria, Prussia and Japan), it was eventually England which invented what was then the holy grail of technology; the coal-powered steam engine, arguably the greatest technological achievement in the last two hundred years. After inventing the steam engine in around 1712 (and later developing improved, more powerful models around 1800), the English were able to farm more food than ever before by using coal-powered machines which could plow a much greater area of land, and developing chemical fertilizers (which aided in crop production) through the use of coal energy. Coal was soon used to power steam ships and trains, and was eventually used to power cars (with the invention of the internal combustion engine) and provide electricity to England's population. Since 1820, the world's total wealth has rose by an incredible 49 fold, and the steam engine is the invention which is most responsible for that growth. This breakthrough in technological achievement became known as the Industrial Revolution, and played a pivotal role in dramatically increasing living standards throughout England, Western Europe and the rest of the world.
Nations within Europe and Asia, such as England, France, Austria, Prussia and Japan arose as the dominant technological leaders of the world. These Eurasian nations used their superior technology (such as guns) to conquer the less wealthy citizens of other regions, such as the Native Americans in North America, the Mayans and Inca in South America, the Aboriginals of Australia, and the impoverished tribes of Africa. They decimated the native populations of the Americas and Australia, eventually repopulating the land with immigrants from Europe. These European immigrants were very successful at growing crops on the conquered land in North America and Australia. Most of this North American and Australian land was relatively disease-free and rich with nutritious soil; after bringing Eurasia's advantageous livestock and nutritious seeds to these vast lands, the regions (modern day Canada, United States and Australia) soon became some of the wealthiest in the world with large surpluses of food. Unfortunately, in South America the European immigrants from Spain and Portugal were less successful, since they were burdened by South America's intense tropical diseases, invasive insects (such as locusts) which devastated crops, and soil which was full of toxic aluminum particles. The Spanish and Portuguese immigrants of South America were eventually outpaced by the English and French immigrants in North American. In Africa, the European immigrants enslaved entire populations, forcing the Africans to grow crops of sugar or cotton for their European slave owners.
Of the dominating Eurasian societies stated above (England, France, Austria, Prussia and Japan), it was eventually England which invented what was then the holy grail of technology; the coal-powered steam engine, arguably the greatest technological achievement in the last two hundred years. After inventing the steam engine in around 1712 (and later developing improved, more powerful models around 1800), the English were able to farm more food than ever before by using coal-powered machines which could plow a much greater area of land, and developing chemical fertilizers (which aided in crop production) through the use of coal energy. Coal was soon used to power steam ships and trains, and was eventually used to power cars (with the invention of the internal combustion engine) and provide electricity to England's population. Since 1820, the world's total wealth has rose by an incredible 49 fold, and the steam engine is the invention which is most responsible for that growth. This breakthrough in technological achievement became known as the Industrial Revolution, and played a pivotal role in dramatically increasing living standards throughout England, Western Europe and the rest of the world.
Europe's Dominance over Asia
So why were the English the first to invent the steam engine? Why not China, who was also a member of the geographically advantageous Eurasian region? Strangely, Europe has advanced much faster than Asia, despite having the same agricultural tools (nutritious seeds and access to large, docile animals). In fact, despite being part of the advantageous Eurasian region, many parts of Asia still remain stuck in extreme poverty today. So what happened to Asia?
Asia has historically been very rich; from 0BC-1000 BC, China and India had some of the highest national standards of living in the world, with flourishing economies and relatively long lifespans. Unfortunately, a series of bad economic policy decisions from Chinese and Indian leaders eventually caused their economies to lag behind those of European nations. For example, in the year 1434 China's emperor chose to dismantle its fleet of ocean vessels and effectively close China off to international trade, thinking that the voyages were too expensive to maintain. This meant that for centuries China would lose the opportunity to sell its goods overseas and make some extra money in foreign markets. According to economic historian Angus Maddison, it was at this point in history (just prior to 1500 AD) that Europe began to overtake China as the economic leader of the world. In India, the population's workers were unable to advance up the social hierarchy due to a very stringent caste system. This meant that talented workers were unable to switch jobs to suite their skill, or unable to reap the benefits of their exceptional talent; this decreased individual incentive to work and lowered economic productivity. India's economy also declined due to the decreasing value of silver (which hundreds of years ago was its national currency) and by chronic civil conflict between the region's starving Hindu and Muslim populations.
On the other hand, European nations happened (by chance) to adopt advantageous economic policies which created wealth and fueled technological advance. For example, both England and France developed less fixed social hierarchies, allowing greater social mobility than many other regions in the world (including India with its rigid caste system). England and France also increasingly became protectors of private property rights (each individual citizen owned the products of their own farm) which increased each individual's incentive to work. Nations such as Portugal invested in exploration missions across the ocean, allowing them to discover resource-rich lands across the sea which could be colonized. Development of the shipping industry also made inter-European trade more cost-effective; the early globalization of Europe's economies helped provide greater market competition and generate additional economic growth.
Thus, Europe's good economic policy decisions (including eager attitudes towards exploration and international trade, greater social mobility and protection of private property rights) eventually caused them to become wealthier than their Eurasian counterparts in Eastern Asia, giving them a more specialized workforce, which in turn made them more likely to create ground-breaking innovations such as the steam engine. Europeans eventually conquered large parts of Asia, enslaving much of India (which eventually became a colony of Britain) and eventually forcing China to open up its trading borders during a series of conflicts known as the "Opium Wars".
Asia has historically been very rich; from 0BC-1000 BC, China and India had some of the highest national standards of living in the world, with flourishing economies and relatively long lifespans. Unfortunately, a series of bad economic policy decisions from Chinese and Indian leaders eventually caused their economies to lag behind those of European nations. For example, in the year 1434 China's emperor chose to dismantle its fleet of ocean vessels and effectively close China off to international trade, thinking that the voyages were too expensive to maintain. This meant that for centuries China would lose the opportunity to sell its goods overseas and make some extra money in foreign markets. According to economic historian Angus Maddison, it was at this point in history (just prior to 1500 AD) that Europe began to overtake China as the economic leader of the world. In India, the population's workers were unable to advance up the social hierarchy due to a very stringent caste system. This meant that talented workers were unable to switch jobs to suite their skill, or unable to reap the benefits of their exceptional talent; this decreased individual incentive to work and lowered economic productivity. India's economy also declined due to the decreasing value of silver (which hundreds of years ago was its national currency) and by chronic civil conflict between the region's starving Hindu and Muslim populations.
On the other hand, European nations happened (by chance) to adopt advantageous economic policies which created wealth and fueled technological advance. For example, both England and France developed less fixed social hierarchies, allowing greater social mobility than many other regions in the world (including India with its rigid caste system). England and France also increasingly became protectors of private property rights (each individual citizen owned the products of their own farm) which increased each individual's incentive to work. Nations such as Portugal invested in exploration missions across the ocean, allowing them to discover resource-rich lands across the sea which could be colonized. Development of the shipping industry also made inter-European trade more cost-effective; the early globalization of Europe's economies helped provide greater market competition and generate additional economic growth.
Thus, Europe's good economic policy decisions (including eager attitudes towards exploration and international trade, greater social mobility and protection of private property rights) eventually caused them to become wealthier than their Eurasian counterparts in Eastern Asia, giving them a more specialized workforce, which in turn made them more likely to create ground-breaking innovations such as the steam engine. Europeans eventually conquered large parts of Asia, enslaving much of India (which eventually became a colony of Britain) and eventually forcing China to open up its trading borders during a series of conflicts known as the "Opium Wars".
The Spread of England's Technology
The English soon exported their wonderful idea of the steam engine to the rest of the world. The French, Italian and Spanish populations of Western Europe -as well as European immigrant farmers throughout North America and Australia- used the technologies to grow more food than ever before.
Europe's technology also spread to the poorer regions of the world, such as Africa and South America. However, by the time England invented the steam engine, Europe had already used their superior military technology (such as guns) to colonize or enslave most of these regions (especially the deeply impoverished Africa). The new agricultural technology was indeed sold to these poor regions, but it was sold overwhelmingly to European slave owners to help their slaves grow larger crops (crops such as sugar or cotton). The European slave owners often pocketed the wealth generated by the increase in crop productivity instead of investing the money back into the African plains where the food was grown.
In South America, Portuguese and Spanish settlers also received the technology and achieved a large boost in crop productivity. Unfortunately, other environmental factors caused the South American economy to lag behind its North American cousin. For example, soil conditions in South America were disappointingly poor (the soil is unusually acidic and filled with poisonous aluminum particles, making it inefficient to grow many European staple crops), and the region was home to excessive tropical pests and pathogens which destroyed agriculture. In addition, the existence of natural resource deposits (such as the Brazilian goldmines) tended to cause internal conflict and economic volatility (large boom and bust periods); this syndrome is known as the "resource curse", and will be discussed in later chapters.
Thus, Europe's groundbreaking technology combined with good geography to give North America and Europe a large lead over the rest of the planet; this large lead over the other economies of the world meant that extreme poverty would eventually be eradicated within Europe, North America and Australia in a relatively short period of time, while the rest of the world continued to suffer.
Europe's technology also spread to the poorer regions of the world, such as Africa and South America. However, by the time England invented the steam engine, Europe had already used their superior military technology (such as guns) to colonize or enslave most of these regions (especially the deeply impoverished Africa). The new agricultural technology was indeed sold to these poor regions, but it was sold overwhelmingly to European slave owners to help their slaves grow larger crops (crops such as sugar or cotton). The European slave owners often pocketed the wealth generated by the increase in crop productivity instead of investing the money back into the African plains where the food was grown.
In South America, Portuguese and Spanish settlers also received the technology and achieved a large boost in crop productivity. Unfortunately, other environmental factors caused the South American economy to lag behind its North American cousin. For example, soil conditions in South America were disappointingly poor (the soil is unusually acidic and filled with poisonous aluminum particles, making it inefficient to grow many European staple crops), and the region was home to excessive tropical pests and pathogens which destroyed agriculture. In addition, the existence of natural resource deposits (such as the Brazilian goldmines) tended to cause internal conflict and economic volatility (large boom and bust periods); this syndrome is known as the "resource curse", and will be discussed in later chapters.
Thus, Europe's groundbreaking technology combined with good geography to give North America and Europe a large lead over the rest of the planet; this large lead over the other economies of the world meant that extreme poverty would eventually be eradicated within Europe, North America and Australia in a relatively short period of time, while the rest of the world continued to suffer.
Summary
In summary, extreme poverty is not the fault of the poorest citizens on earth. The people of Africa did not become poor due to their being stupid or lazy, or having an inferior culture; rather, they are mostly the victims of disadvantageous geography which caused them to grow less food and have a less diverse, less specialized labor sector. Geographical disadvantages include not having access to large, docile animals such as cows and sheep
(which could be raised for livestock), living on a continent which stretches North to South instead of East to West (causing climate diversity which makes migration and expansion more difficult), and living in an area of the world which is especially susceptible to devastating tropical diseases such as Malaria (causing their population to be chronically ill and less productive).
If, hypothetically, the life-threatening diseases such as Malaria favored the cooler climate of Europe more than the warmer climate of Africa, or if ancient Africans had access to docile farm animals while Europeans had to fend off predators such as tigers and venomous snakes, or if droughts repeatedly destroyed crops in Europe instead of in Africa, then it is quite possible that the African nation of Madagascar, not England, would have emerged in the 1800s as the world's dominant economic superpower.
(which could be raised for livestock), living on a continent which stretches North to South instead of East to West (causing climate diversity which makes migration and expansion more difficult), and living in an area of the world which is especially susceptible to devastating tropical diseases such as Malaria (causing their population to be chronically ill and less productive).
If, hypothetically, the life-threatening diseases such as Malaria favored the cooler climate of Europe more than the warmer climate of Africa, or if ancient Africans had access to docile farm animals while Europeans had to fend off predators such as tigers and venomous snakes, or if droughts repeatedly destroyed crops in Europe instead of in Africa, then it is quite possible that the African nation of Madagascar, not England, would have emerged in the 1800s as the world's dominant economic superpower.
Sources
Central Intelligence Agency (United States). The World Factbook: Country Comparisons, GDP Per Capita (PPP), 2008.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co, 1999.
Gallup, John and Jeffery Sachs. Economic Burden of Malaria. 2001. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=mal1&part=pg85
Maddison, Angus. The World Economy: A Millenial Perspective. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2001.
Maddison, Angus. The World Economy: Historical Statistics. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2003.
Sachs, Jeffrey. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Our Time. New York: Penguin Group, 2005.
Sen, Amartya. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co, 2006.
United Nations Human Development Programme. Statistics of the Human Development Report. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
World Health Organization. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co, 1999.
Gallup, John and Jeffery Sachs. Economic Burden of Malaria. 2001. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=mal1&part=pg85
Maddison, Angus. The World Economy: A Millenial Perspective. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2001.
Maddison, Angus. The World Economy: Historical Statistics. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2003.
Sachs, Jeffrey. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Our Time. New York: Penguin Group, 2005.
Sen, Amartya. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co, 2006.
United Nations Human Development Programme. Statistics of the Human Development Report. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
World Health Organization. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.