The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves

10:45 am Culture, Ecology, Economics and Finance, Life

You can do yourself an enormous favour. Read Matt Ridley’s “The Rational Optimist”. Here is meat and potatoes for your mind, with a fine wine to wash it down. Ridley is the British science writer, author of such illuminating works as Genome and The Origins of Virtue, among others. This time he has gone well beyond his previous range, to great success.

 

This books achieves two things:

1. It looks athe entire history of our species from wandering bands on the plains of Africa until now as the progressive expansion of trade, as the cause of specialization of production, the elaboration of virtue, the improvement of the species, and the growth of wealth, and

2. a complete debunking of the constant pessimism that pervades society at the moment, and which has pervaded society since conversation was first recorded, according to Ridley: cancer, pesticides, AIDS, global warming, global cooling, genomic engineering, global famine, nuclear war: the list goes on and on of fashionable twaddle about inevitable catastrophes unless we de-industrialize, go back tothe land, and integrate ourselves with nature: the kind of stuff Prince Charles goes on about; the kind of society we existed in after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, called the Dark Ages.

I canot resist his  quote from John Stuart Mill, which prefaces his chapter “Turning Points: Pessimism after 1900″:

I have observed that not the man who hopes when others despair, but the man who despairs when others hope, is admired by a large class of persons as a sage.

David Suzuki? Al Gore? Paul Ehrlich? Thomas Malthus?

Though I enjoyed his attack on the doomsayers at the end of the book, it is grounded in an interesting take on human social evolution, the core of his argument.

Ridley argues that changing habits, generation by generation, were made possible by exchange,

“the swapping of things and services between individuals. This gave the Species an external, collective intelligence far greater than anything it could hold in its admittedly capacious brain….In this way exchange enouraged specialization, which further increased the number of different habits the species could have, while shrinking the number of things each individual knew how to make.Consumption could grow more diversified, while production could grow more specialized.”

He sees farming, and the burning of fossil fuels especialy, as the further release of energy for the benefit of mankind. His excoriation of starving the poor to grow ”green” fuels rivals anything Jonathan Swift could have written about fashionable nonsense.

Ridley’s book is based on very extensive reading of everything important: Adam Smith, Hayek, information theorists, anthropologists, evolutionary biologists, historians, and economists. His vast erudition is painlessly laid out in a compelling narrative.

Buy this book. Read it. Then buy ten copies and give it to anyone, including leftists especially, who might possibly read it. It will comfirm and strengthen you in all your beliefs that things are in fact improving (Islam notwithstanding) and that the doomists are a tired and broken record, perpetually wrong, whose only contribution is bleating and obstruction.

This is a great work and deserves the broadest possible readership.

 

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Dalwhinnie

2 Responses
  1. Frank S. Robinson :

    Date: September 4, 2010 @ 8:36 PM

    Reading this book on an airplane — a half-day transcontinental trip that for our forebears was arduous, miserable, dangerous, and took months — made me marvel anew at the vast web of contributions by untold thousands of people across the globe and across centuries that made this possible. The same is true of even our simplest modern conveniences, to which most of us give scarcely a thought.
    
I have been following the reviews and blog commentaries on Ridley’s book. Most have been quite positive. The nastiest was by George Monbiot in Britain’s left-wing Guardian newspaper. One can of course quibble with details of Ridley’s analysis. But to dismiss his basic story, to actually condemn it as villainy, takes a really diseased cynicism, and blinding oneself to what is, well, blindingly obvious. It’s painful to observe. And it’s harmful, standing in the way of a better world (especially for the downtrodden, about whose plight such pundits constantly whine).

    
 Monbiot et al are intolerant guardians of a narrow orthodoxy. They portray Ridley’s book as fanatically pro-capitalist and anti-government. It is not, and only a fanatic would see it so. Their critiques reveal more about the critics than about the book.


    Bravo to Ridley for his breath of fresh air and clear thinking. That his message is widely labeled “radical” is ironic — the reaction really should be, “Duh! Tell us something we don’t know.” Yet Ridley is indeed telling us something that, sadly, most people don’t know.


    My own book, The Case for Rational Optimism (Transaction, Rutgers University, 2009), does make many points and arguments similar to Ridley’s, but is far broader in scope, covering not only such topics as the economy, war and peace, technology, democracy, etc., but also the evolutionary background and the philosophical and psychological issues involved with optimism versus pessimism. See http://www.fsrcoin.com/k.htm

  2. mitchel44 :

    Date: September 5, 2010 @ 12:02 PM

    Bought a copy for our local libraries “book drive” here in rural Nova Scotia.

    Seems a wee bit ironic to see it on the same shelf as “Hot, Flat and Crowded”, “From Naked Ape to Super Species”, and “The Shock Doctrine”.

    Pessimists and doom-mongers have the public ear, always have had.

Leave a Comment

Your comment

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.