Most underrated historical trend not because it rose so high recently, but because it rose from such a high base.
Claims of Ancient Roman jewelry excavated as far away as Japan and Tanzania.
A 🧵 on ancient globalization:
It is easy to notice a recurring pattern of surprisingly distant trade in historical accounts.
Pliny the Elder and Seneca are both recorded complaining about how much money was being spent on Indian spices and Chinese silk. Roman glassware has been found in China.
Roman trade with India was definitely more developed than with China, which seems to have been only indirect.
Alexander the Great invaded India in 327 BC and left behind a Greek kingdom in Afghanistan and central Asia, after all, so India was known to the Mediterranean world.
The "Periplus of the Erythraean Sea" is a 1st century AD Greco-Roman manuscript that describes known trade routes in the Indian Ocean, from the author’s own experience.
It shows the Horn of Africa and India were trade partners, and awareness of China too. But also…
It describes a route that goes south along the coast of East Africa in “Azania,” terminating in the southernmost trading post of Rhapta, likely in modern-day Tanzania.
Tantalizingly, the author seems to know that, if you keep going, you eventually reach the Atlantic Ocean!
The Romans apparently also made expeditions to West Africa across the Sahara, reaching Lake Chad from Libya and seeing elephants.
There is also believed to be evidence of at least indirect trade with ancient Greece and Rome in what is today Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso.
Though central states in Rome and China had limited capacity to direct travel and trade across such distances, we shouldn’t underestimate the capacity of local merchants.
You have to imagine merchants who made careers out of trading between Egypt and India, or India and China.
Such chained local trade networks would not have made it easy to move people or soldiers, but did make it possible for certain goods to move across continents.
Scholars also believe ancient Sumer traded with the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan thousands of years earlier.
The simple boat is believed to be a technology that is up to a million years old, literally older than Homo sapiens.
Thor Heyerdahl proved first-hand in 1947 that a handmade raft can sail you 8000 kilometers across the Pacific Ocean, just like the Polynesians did.
Their ancestors, the Austronesians, of course, somehow managed to settle everywhere from Madagascar to Hawaii over a few thousand years.
There is even genetic and botanical evidence of contact between Polynesians and the Americas!
The Viking explorer Leif Erikson is now known to have discovered and even settled Canada 500 years before Christopher Columbus.
Apparently trade between the Vikings and North America continued even after the Vinland colony was abandoned. Link: https://t.co/JW2tZLObSSsmithsonianmag.com/history/the-vi…
In 1956, a Norse coin was reportedly found as far south as Maine by some amateur archaeologists.
Skepticism notwithstanding, maybe the simplest explanation is that Vikings really were paying Native Americans in Norse coins, who perhaps traded them further south.
Globalization on the order of altering geopolitical priorities of states is new, dating to the discovery of the New World and later.
But globalization on the order of trade, awareness of distant civilizations, and frankly even migration of whole peoples seems very old!
Globalization seems to track not distance that can be traveled with a ship, nor size, but the speed that such distance can be traveled.
Speed was the key advantage of the caravel. The Ancient Greeks built a ship so big it could carry 2000 people, but it was “almost immobile.”
Speed, rather than size or distance, is perhaps what allows a king or company to take an interest in distant lands, since it cuts down timeframes for decision-making and profit.
Otherwise you are relying more on local trade networks for info and way-stops than on ships per se.
Viking longships were also fast like caravels, but had limited cargo capacity. Ships have only gotten faster and bigger since Columbus.
Today’s cargo ships can carry tens of thousands of tons of cargo and easily travel many times faster than medieval or ancient ships.
Even with modern technology, 90% of goods are transported by sea. Sea transport is still cheaper than land transport, and an order of magnitude cheaper than air transport.
In 2025 your political options are either the group that wants to crush the human race into a fine powder for kind of unclear shifting moral reasons, or the opposition that wants to crush the human race into a fine powder because we don't follow market incentives closely enough.
The establishment view is that humanity is so evil and corrupt it needs to be crushed for reasons so obvious they do not even need to be explained, while the opposition view is that we must reluctantly crush humanity because hypothetical machines would be better workers.
My concern is that the only bipartisan position is crushing humanity into a fine powder and the other stuff seems kind of fake or speculative, which means the only material outcome we will get is crushing humanity into a fine powder.
The crisis of the last 500 years is basically a crisis of humanism. Wherever we can we keep denigrating, delegitimizing, constraining, and even destroying open and personalized human action, thought, and decision-making, in favor of opaque, manipulated, broken processes.
There is a straight line between the petty committees that stifle creativity and growth in ordinary professional and private life, and the expansive cosmological visions held by social and cultural elites that deny or delegitimize not just human agency but the human race itself.
Perhaps the story of the last 500 years is the humanists making the materially productive but politically fatal mistake of focusing their efforts on understanding the natural world rather than governing the human world. Gains in productivity sunk into political conflict.
When my grandkids ask me why we didn't do anything to prevent the ignominious collapse of modern civilization, I guess I will have to say that everyone knew exactly what was wrong, we had just already created a society where doing anything but raging online was impossible.
We have created a cage so perfect that the brightest minds of our era think it is easier to create artificial superhuman minds with silicon and software than reform governments and institutions, which when you take a step back is obviously a totally insane position to hold.
There is not going to be a "collapse" because the status quo is already the collapse. Working a fake job then sweating in the computer chair in a childless home *is* the collapse.
There are enough Indians for India to export 700 million people total to North America and Europe over the coming decades, become around 50% of the population on both continents, and still remain the world's most populous country with over 1 billion people.
This isn't even counting Pakistan and Bangladesh. Or the Philippines, Indonesia... the calculus for Western elites is very simple. The harder pension schemes, real estate markets, and GDP break down, the more immigrants we will import.
There is also Latin America, of course. If African or Muslim immigrants have proved too politically controversial, the same cannot be said for Indians or Filipinos, at least for now. The problem is solved as far as they are concerned.
Objectively I am mega-bearish on America, Europe, and China equally. I currently do not see any of them reversing the demographic and thus permanent decline of techno-industrial civilization, which will likely play out by 2100. All other discussion is just details until then.
So far every single disagreement with this post relies on multiple speculative science-fiction outcomes to pan out. While I'm not ruling it out entirely, if you can't see that this should not be taken as the default outcome, I don't know what to tell you.
It's a deep sign of how accustomed we have become to decline that nobody can talk about automation in any terms except as a replacement for dwindling human labor. But automation should be a force-multiplier for human labor, not a replacement!
I hope everyone under the age of 40 realizes that they are never going to see a single cent of the pensions they pay 10-20% of their income for in taxes.
Yes, you are very clever, applying cold hard facts and logic to turns of phrase. How about for $100k? At what number do you get uncomfortable and how far away is it from the lifetime number we expect a person to collect? Cards on the table buddy!
This @TheEconomist editor mocks me but is afraid to himself buy 20+ years of my social security income (just imagine all the life extension tech too!) worth maybe some $500k+ for a cheap $100k—apparently he doesn't really think it'll be worth shit either!