Has anyone else here read "A farwell to alms"?

[Heraclitus]

by the economist George Clark?

A Farewell to Alms

Clark is most well known for his theory of economic history related to the change in behaviors that enabled the Industrial Revolution, discussed in his book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World.

A Farewell to Alms (the book's title is a non-rhotic pun on Ernest Hemingway's novel, A Farewell to Arms) discusses the divide between rich and poor nations that came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution in terms of the evolution of particular behaviors originating in Britain. Prior to 1790, Clark asserts, man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations. In Britain, however, as disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy, who were less violent, more literate, and more productive. This process of "downward social mobility" eventually enabled Britain to attain a rate of productivity that allowed it to break out of the Malthusian trap.

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/...l_to_alms.html

Reading it several months ago was very interesting. I'm however not sure the genetic differences of downward social mobility where that important on the short time scales he talks about. The general eugenic trend argument as well as the drift of values from the upper towards the lower classes however is proably correct overall.

[C0ckney]

i've read it. i found it very unconvincing. he takes a sample of around 600 english wills, over a short period (18 years?), where men leaving more than £100 produced 5.8 children on average and those leaving less than £100 produced 4.2 on average. a differential of 1.6 children over an 18 year period. from this he suggests that a "more patient, less violent, harder-working, more literate, and more thoughtful people" evolved.

there's loads of stuff to disagree with here. for one the time period is too short for human evolution as we understand it. for another, the rich have always outproduced the poor, in every society, from the dawn of humanity itself. it is blindingly obvious that in a stable environment, men will be able to translate wealth into reproduction. there is nothing whatsoever exceptional the higher rate of reproduction for richer men in england that he uses as evidence. following on from this, he fails to explain why (or more accurately his explanations do not convince) the industrial revolution happened in england, and not, for example, india or china.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hemingway.

[Heraclitus]

there's loads of stuff to disagree with here. for one the time period is too short for human evolution as we understand it. for another, the rich have always outproduced the poor, in every society, from the dawn of humanity itself. it is blindingly obvious that in a stable environment, men will be able to translate wealth into reproduction.

But its not blindingly obvious that men do translate wealth into reproduction. There are many examples of societies where wealth is negativley correlated with number of children who survive to reproductive age.

[Az]

Ahh, yes, sons of the wealthy - always the first people that come to mind when I think of well-educated, hard-working people.

But its not blindingly obvious that men do translaet wealth into reproduction. There are many examples of societies where wealth is negativley correlated with number of children who survive to reproductive age.

this is correct. We are all living in one.

[VetLegion]

The book's on my bookshelf... but I have not read it. I bought it because
his theory about the wealthy having more surviving offspring than the poor
countered my belief that up until the 20th century cities were population sinkholes
which had to be replenished by a constant stream of immigrants from the
countryside. Before about 1880s people had no idea how exactly the diseases
are transmitted, so I'd assume that all classes were equally badly hit.

I buy a lot of books, sadly, I never read most of them.

[C0ckney]

But its not blindingly obvious that men do translaet wealth into reproduction. There are many examples of societies where wealth is negativley correlated with number of children who survive to reproductive age.

apart from society today you mean?

[Heraclitus]

apart from society today you mean?

Yes. Plenty of them actually. The first example that comes to mind is the gradual extinction of Patrician families over time in the Roman Republic/Empire. The other example is overall Roman fertility during the time of Silphium use.

[Heraclitus]

The book's on my bookshelf... but I have not read it. I bought it because
his theory about the wealthy having more surviving offspring than the poor
countered my belief that up until the 20th century cities were population sinkholes
which had to be replenished by a constant stream of immigrants from the
countryside. Before about 1880s people had no idea how exactly the diseases
are transmitted, so I'd assume that all classes were equally badly hit.

I buy a lot of books, sadly, I never read most of them.

Cochrane talks about this in the 10 000 year explosion. Genetic sinkholes yes but the wealthy could buy themselves some advantage against infectious diseases, better childhood nutrition at the very least. Also several societies had the wealthy live on estates outside cities.

[C0ckney]

Yes. Plenty of them actually. The first example that comes to mind is the gradual extinction of Patrician families over time in the Roman Republic/Empire. The other example is overall Roman fertility during the time of Silphium use.

do you have a link for the first example, i'd be interested in reading about it.

also, a few exceptions don't disprove what i said (that men can translate wealth into reproduction in a stable environment). clark's argument is that the rich outproducing the poor in england created the conditions necessary for the industrial revolution. my point is that the very same thing was happening almost everywhere else, in europe and in asia and had been for a very long time. therefore it's simply not credible to claim that the industrial revolution in england was of the result of something which was happening almost everywhere else.

[RGBVideo]

well if heraclitus liked it, it can't be that bad of a book

i "ordered" it a few seconds ago. the "package size" is 24 megaby... err, hectograms. it should be "delivered" within this week.

looking forward to this book, thank you for your recommendation