Tell me, why is it that the world got "rich"? For hundreds of years, well thousands more realistically, people just lived. Humans lived hand to mouth with little accumulation (of the financially recorded style) and global "net worth"remained fairly modest for the bulk of the population. What changed this and why did it occur initially in Western Europe? One can only postulate. But as it is One's birthday and One has time (can you here the clinking in the kitchen as the dishwasher is being emptied and the whirr of the washing machine, neither operated by me?) to think about the issue. However, it is just a series of thoughts based on some fairly recent readings and watchings.
Britain in 1851 had a recorded population of 20,959,477 people (apparently this is an accurate figure according to Mr Bill Bryson and is is from the ten-yearly British census of the time) making up a mere 1.6% of the world's population. This same 1.6% managed to produce half of the world's coal and iron, control two thirds of the shipping and one third of all trade and have more money on deposit in London that all of the other financial centres world-wide (according to Bill Bryson's, At Home). How on earth could only 1.6% of the world's population control and hold so much of the world's liquid finance? Moreover as Britain, or let us say, Western Europe was not first to "invent" many of the technologies that led to these riches. According to an article I have recently read in a very old issue of The Economist (December 31st, 1999), I have found a plausible answer - well it works for me anyway.
We should all know that some parts of Asia and the Middle East were streaks ahead of Western Europe in science and technology at the year 1000 AD. The Chinese had the printed word, they had horse collars far superior to those used in medieval Europe that tended to choke the poor animals. The Arabs had extensive science (Mr Jacob Bronowski in his "The Ascent of Man" has a great essay on this topic) and along with India they gave us the decimal system (Leonardo of Pisa, or commonly known as Fibonacci, was the Western importer), which was absolutely fundamental in the development of Western science. Why then, did these two cultures not lead the world in Industrialisation?
It appears that some of the social conditions were not so conducive to the "exploitation" of new technologies. A society needs an appetite for change and a desire to live with that resulting change (that is, if you want to get rich without plundering another country or town). A culture also has to want to look outside itself and accept ideas from another culture: it is quite possible that China looked out to Europe and merely saw a bunch of barbarians! China for instance favoured stability and in the 15th century stopped all long-sea trade ventures; obviously, this had the result of choking communication and trade. As for the Arabs, well, they did exceedingly well also but in my opinion, their spiritual beliefs were above that of scientific exploration i.e. no depicting of animals or humans in art, so they accordingly did not progress an entire branch of scientific exploration. Western Europe on the other-hand had developed a set of religious systems that had undergone change breaking away from the strict control of Rome and individual interpretation of the scriptures was becoming more common, an interest in worldly goods, a desire to challenge current thought and a willingness to exploit nature for benefit - I don't mean naked greed as naked greed will not permit sharing, rather a curiosity and at times a lack of belief/trust in what is being spoken.
It was Western Europe who questioned the Greeks and revisited the theories of those Ancients. Just take a look at Mr Copper Knickers (Copernicus really but I always think of him in this more jovial light) who in 1543 printed his theory on a sun-centred universe challenging Ptolemy's Earth centric view (2 AD). This was risky, as my goodness, how on earth could Earth not be the centre and the Vatican did not agree! Then following Mr Copper Knickers we have Galileo who picked up where he left off, now he was amazing. He developed further the sun-centric view and stood by his beliefs in spite of desperate challenges and trials from Rome - that is courage.
Yes, so we have the scientific knowledge but that alone does not lead to financial wealth or capitalism. It must be exploited. Scientists think, test and show results, results which must be able to be replicated. Johannes Kepler was the bloke who actually showed through mathematics that the planets orbit the sun in an elliptical manner as Galileo stated, noting of course that this mathematics could only be done via the use of the Hindu-Arab numeric system! Here also is an interesting side development from Galileo that is so characteristic of this science. Galileo found some Dutch bloke had produced a spy glass, so he took the idea and within a day had produced a telescope - yes to look at the stars and boy he got clarity of the heavens. However, what happens when you drop that scope down from the stars and look at the horizon above the harbour? You can see ships coming, you have better information, the fundamental element in scientific extension and so an exploitation of a new technology - a person can see before anyone else what ship is coming into the harbour; now that is worth considerable money!
However, the stresses and challenges confronting the Westerners was huge. Whilst the Arabs and the Asians were secure in their religious practices and beliefs, the Westerners were challenged. For me, the movie "Creation" (2009) was an eye opener and shows a classic case of this Western challenge. Charles Darwin effectively killed God (in his eyes). God did not create humans, we were not the children of God if one reads the Bible in the classic literal manner. The poor bloke was internally tortured, not only had he lost his little daughter Annie, he had also killed his Father. Yet he had the courage to proceed with his publication because to him and his cultural practices, science is truth. Let us not forget that to all people, science is not necessarily the truth.
I have now got myself to a key point. Science is truth to many, but not a truth to all, but science and not religion generates the technology which leads to "a" financial wealth and it was Western society that extended their science. Should we always exploit our scientific knowledge? What would have happened had the governments of the times in 1945 seriously taken those scientists working on atomic energy seriously. One central guy (Leo Szilard) gave the Americans a viable alternative to exploding the Atom bomb over Japan - why not demonstrate the bomb and its power; do you really have to use it? Clearly, the government decided to use it on people rather than taking the logical next step of a demonstration.
So back to the start. It was exploitation and challenge that allowed 1.6 % of the world's population to control half of the world's liquid wealth. I think that Britain's capitalism developed because Europe was so ready to question. Many political and religious environments were changing. We saw Henry the VIII change the religious practices (albeit for his own purposes), Elizabeth I support that change and with her immense dedication, leadership and intelligence continue this support. It was she that supported the merchant adventurers (mind you she go a good "cut" of this as she needed the money thanks to Henry's near bankruptcy of England). So many things were changing fortuitously feeding the hunger for new knowledge.
The world got "financially" rich in my opinion as ancient theories were questioned, there was the willingness for that change to be voiced and communicated, these ideas were tested and finally, "exploited" to generate a useable benefit in the eyes of the user. Through this extensive curiousity, technology evolved and found new uses. By 1851 Britain and Europe and formed a sophisticated financial base (if also a somewhat filthy and poor society).
Concluding this ramble, was being the first to capitalism any good in the long-run?
