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.
Europe is great because you can never find clear information about laws because we peasants are not intended to know them, and even if you do they are written in unclear, useless legalese, because the real law is just "whatever we don't like is illegal," which is "everything."
U.S. laws and regulations at least attempt to set clear, simple, and fair guidelines and punishments, but European laws are all deliberately written to be like "the fine can be between zero to one trillion euros" and "breathing in an unsanctioned manner can be an infraction."
I don't think the U.S. comes anywhere close to being as clear, simple, and fair as Americans would like, and that's not a minor problem to forgive, but it's edifying to see how Europeans just dispense with the illusion entirely and write themselves total discretion into the law.
Acquiring wealth may seem like a rational pursuit in the face of a system apparently too hopelessly broken to fix. But this is a catastrophic error because even if wealth is not confiscated or devalued, the things it could buy now or before will just disappear, at any price.
Eventually even the richest man in South Africa or Brazil or whichever parallel you may use will want nothing but for his grandchildren to be able to get a job designing space rockets, and this will be impossible, because there will be no space program and no money to build it.
The idea we can "out-grow" dysfunction like Elon Musk or other pro-AI people think is flat-out backwards, unless you think the AI will obsolete humanity in totality. The dysfunction literally lives off of growth! Growing the economy subsidizes it more and allows new injustices!
They aren't our rulers. Our rulers are career bureaucrats, journalists, nonprofit executives, activist jurists, university administrators, and progressive billionaire philanthropists. They are numerous, stay out of the spotlight, and don't bother commentating because it's weak.
To actually compete in any meaningful way with this vast organization of political coordination requires graduating from the diminishing returns of inflaming the emotions of the masses to organizing professional cadres financed by long-term-oriented philanthropy.
The real stumbling block seems to be the lack of any substantive vision or belief system that would motivate donors to coordinate with future cadres. There is literally no fleshed-out positive vision of governance and the destiny of our civilization to legitimize the activity.
A great form of non-progressive philanthropy would be to fund extra-academic schools of history taught by proven outsiders, of which there are many online with followings large and small, since universities are planning to just take history itself and throw it in the trash.
If the collectively giga-wealthy opponents of infinite woke cannot figure out how to fund a few independent schools of history to literally save the accurate collective memory of a world-spanning civilization that gives them identity and purpose...
...well, then "deserving to lose" would be a complimentary understatement. Do we still think the universities are reformable? Much quicker progress could be made by giving an endowment to the sharpest history-posters from here and other sites. I could write a list in minutes.
Outside of occasionally winning scheduled elections, it turns out that unleashing freedom of speech and allowing the masses to vent their frustrations with bad governance at maximal intensity has no discernible effect on governance quality, and may even worsen it due to spite.
There is not enough analysis or even awareness of the feedback loops that inform the month-to-month decision-making by the Western governing classes in bureaucracies. They clearly seem to close ranks and deliberately intensify unpopular policies in response to populist pressure.
This is the exact reverse of the "vox populi, vox dei" theory that maybe populist rhetoric and pressure will at least nudge governance in the right direction. There are also bizarre outcomes like the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 totally deflating pandemic restrictions.
Frenzied, desperate Boomers passing laws to ban young people from free speech, home ownership, or stable employment, while also berating them uhh this is just like WWII, so we are reintroducing military conscription too.
We are just looking at the process of total institutional breakdown. Dysfunctional institutions keep escalating demands on your time and money; rationally disincentivizing competence or participation; fewer resources available; more escalating demands; rinse and repeat.
All the taxes and demands being placed on young people should instead be placed on the old. It is the old who should see falls in living standards at the expense of the young, not the other way around. The default situation is accurately perceived as illegitimate and vampiric.