Comments on: Mokyr – The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy

By: taba

taba — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:11:57 +0000

The Savior of Science The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization etc, etc.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:20:56 +0000

Mokyr and Macfarlane: Eight hours of dialogue can be found here. So, James's wish is greanted, abundantly.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:54:05 +0000

” England never really got the hang of mass-producing anything.” Quite so. England never had the kind of market that made mass-production profitable in the early days. The Americans had an enormous market that was widely dispersed and composed of people with middling incomes, who could afford decent goods that were cheap enough to bear the cost of transit. The British had a much more handcraft and batch-production economy, at the high, middle and low end. British shotguns in the 19th century were magnificent luxury items, made in tiny lots. American shotguns were cheap tools for everyday use, no more fancy than a shovel. Americans had a reason to make mass-produced shoes in Brockton, Massachusetts. England had a vast proportion of its economy lodged in London where armies of handcraft shoemakers served all parts of the market, and they had local shoemakers asembling shoes to order from patterns sent out from London. There was no real need for the British to do true, modern mass production ala Henry Ford, either. The division of labor is limited to the extent of the market. There was no market for massive numbers of cheap cars. Americans had a vast middle class, or wealthy working class. Britain was much more stratified. Even with protectionism, such as the USA had in the 19th C, the continental market was so vast that mass production to the maximum technological extent was economical.

By: John

John — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:18:56 +0000

Shannon – a case in point of the early adopter trap is the failure of England to capitlaize on Perkin’s dyes.

By: Shannon Love

Shannon Love — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:24:34 +0000

I think that the beginning of the science was actually a Anglo-Dutch enterprise. During the time when science evolved, England and Holland were joined at the hip politically, economically and culturally. (Even when they fought.)

What the two societies possessed in common was a high degree of ordered-disorder. Organization arose largely from the bottom up in an evolutionary organic manner. Their societies and cultures possessed no critical nodes, the disruption of which could create chaos. As a result, both societies functioned well even during times of invasion or civil war. They automatically maintained a high level of functional order while at the same so distributing decision making across so many different individuals and institutions that no central authority controlled everything. In the rest of Europe, the opposite pattern arose.

The idea of what would become to be called science took hold and flourished even against strong opposition from many elites in the Anglo-Dutch realm because those elites simply could not muster the power necessary to kill them off.

Once the Anglo-Dutch proved the worth of science, however, continental Europe was able to in effect mass-produce large cadres of scientific and technical minds. England could never escape cozy, small scale organic system that served the so well for so long. So, even though it unquestionable began the industrial revolution, England never really got the hang of mass-producing anything. Throughout the 1800’s, English called mass-production “The American System”. Napoleons conquest absorbed Holland into the Continental model.

I think the Anglo-Dutch fell into the “early adopter trap.” The early adopter trap occurs when the adoption of new idea creates such enormous advantages short-term that it creates a great deal of inertia against changing to another idea. The classic example being the very early widespread adoption of ideographic writing by the Chinese in ancient times. The system became so widespread and so much information was stored in it that it became virtually impossible for the Chinese to switch to a more advanced phonetic system latter.

The Anglo-Dutch created virtually all the first generation institutions that run the modern world. That creation made them rich and powerful for a time but that very success slowed their adoption of even newer institutions.

By: Lex

Lex — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:18:54 +0000

John, what I need to do is resd this here book by Mokyr. My knowledge of this area is spotty. My comment was based solely on what I took James’s review to be saying. No dispute that science in the early stages existed all over Europe. Questions which arise then are: (1) how critical was science per se to economic advance, at least in the early stages, and (2) if the French, Dutch, Germans (in various German states) all had pretty good scientists, why did the Industrial Revolution start in England, not elsewhere?

By: John

John — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:39:19 +0000

Lex, I trace my scientific pedigree back to Laviosier, so I don’t exactly agree that the roots of the Cortesian (Cartesian? ;-) ) Army to which I belong lie only in England. That’s a mistake that mirrors the one I saw at the height of the Cold War, where Western scientists assumed that Soviet Science would never equal the West because of its direction from above. It is true that over the long term, when resources are plentiful, spontaneous action is superior. But in times of dearth (as was the case for most of the World’s history) and over the short term, directed research sponsored by powerful men or interests, can equal, or even outperform spontaneous research methods over the short term.

Sponteneity requires time to achieve results. Directed research can really get faster results for a defined objective that needs to be reached in a definite period of time. One good example I have touched on before (and plan to hit again) is the Chemical Rubber project of WWII. The Manhattan Project is another.

The roots of modern science lie all over Europe, and not a few of them lie in extremely autocratic systems, such as Peter the Great’s. However, I do agree with you that the English system produces better results when given enough resources and left to its own devices over time. We are going to see that hypothesis come closer to being proven as the EU research establishments ossify futher under increasing regulation and decresing ties with entrepreneurial industry.

By: Lex

Lex — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:05:39 +0000

James, is there much in there about the evolution and expansion of the initial “Cortesian army” of a few thousand, into the vast apparatus of scientific and engineering experiment and education and publication that now exists? I suppose that must be the case. So, yet another vast swathe of the modern world arising from a voluntary aggregation of persons in England, who no doubt had clubs and societies organized with trustees, giving rise like acorns to mighty oaks. Wherever we turn, we see this sort of thing. As Prof. Veliz said, we live in a world made in England.

By: James

James — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 04:28:41 +0000

Thanks, Mr. Schwartz. My apologies for the typo.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:39:20 +0000

“The idea, widely held by most literate people of the time, that national phenomena were orderly, rational, predictable, must surely”

I think “national” should be “natural”.

By: david foster

david foster — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:56:19 +0000

Sounds like a worthwhile book. I think it’s important to note that much industrial development predated the period called “the industrial revolution”–indeed, considerable development occurred in the medieval period, too often viewed as technologically static. Water-powered blast furnaces, for example, were in use by 1400. Dams erected by joint-stock companies, and serving multiple milling operations, were operating in Toulouse about the same period.

Even the invention often considered to have kicked off the industrial revolution, the power loom, was originally called the “water frame”, reflecting the inventor’s intent that it be run by waterpower.