Scan barcode
mlottermoser's review against another edition
3.0
A fascinating look into how the exchange of ideas and good leads to growth and prosperity. Lots of interesting examples from cave men to modern times. At times the author drops names and dates that the ordinary person would not understand. Still the book sparked the idea that the future is not as bleak as the news would have us believe. As long as there are free markets and people who specialize trade there is room for improvement and growth.
tbauman's review against another edition
3.0
I liked many of the points this book made supporting its central thesis. The world is getting better in a lot of ways, and pessimism is often blown out of proportion in the media.
The central thesis itself is flawed, though. His basic argument is that everything is getting better, and it probably won't get worse. Matt Ridley does effectively argue that things are getting better, but along the way he also mentions a bunch of times things failed to get better, and he doesn't make any attempt to explain why this won't happen again. He briefly mentions the black death and how great it was for economic development in the long run, for example. This might be true, but we definitely would consider another black death a very bad event if it happened next year, and I suspect that Matt Ridley would too. His explanation for why nuclear armageddon hasn't happened is, basically, who knows. His argument against government funding of science makes basically no attempt to deal with the many examples of technologies that private companies probably wouldn't have had the incentive to develop--most notably, the Internet. I didn't find his dismissal of global warming convincing, especially since at the end he suggests a fairly conventional solution: tax carbon and reduce taxes on wages. Other unconvincing arguments quickly devolved into "there were markets at this time, therefore markets were the primary cause of human development."
This isn't to say that I hated the book. The majority of the pages I read I agreed with. I particularly liked the chapter on early human trade, which opened my eyes to a new aspect of human development. Although the idea isn't his, it's fascinating to think that the industrial revolution may never have happened had cotton not been made cheap by American slavery. (This is actually a huge argument against Ridley--the world would be a much worse place today if the industrial revolution had never happened. If the situation in England had been slightly different--worse property rights, no Enlightenment, no cheap cotton, no coal--the world would probably be that much worse place.) I also liked the chapters on energy and health.
The reason for human success is not simple. Markets are of course a very important part of human success, but simply saying "markets are the only cause of human development" has so many obvious flaws that you can only argue it by ignoring contrary evidence. I much prefer books that weaken their thesis in favor of making a more defensible argument to books like this one.
The central thesis itself is flawed, though. His basic argument is that everything is getting better, and it probably won't get worse. Matt Ridley does effectively argue that things are getting better, but along the way he also mentions a bunch of times things failed to get better, and he doesn't make any attempt to explain why this won't happen again. He briefly mentions the black death and how great it was for economic development in the long run, for example. This might be true, but we definitely would consider another black death a very bad event if it happened next year, and I suspect that Matt Ridley would too. His explanation for why nuclear armageddon hasn't happened is, basically, who knows. His argument against government funding of science makes basically no attempt to deal with the many examples of technologies that private companies probably wouldn't have had the incentive to develop--most notably, the Internet. I didn't find his dismissal of global warming convincing, especially since at the end he suggests a fairly conventional solution: tax carbon and reduce taxes on wages. Other unconvincing arguments quickly devolved into "there were markets at this time, therefore markets were the primary cause of human development."
This isn't to say that I hated the book. The majority of the pages I read I agreed with. I particularly liked the chapter on early human trade, which opened my eyes to a new aspect of human development. Although the idea isn't his, it's fascinating to think that the industrial revolution may never have happened had cotton not been made cheap by American slavery. (This is actually a huge argument against Ridley--the world would be a much worse place today if the industrial revolution had never happened. If the situation in England had been slightly different--worse property rights, no Enlightenment, no cheap cotton, no coal--the world would probably be that much worse place.) I also liked the chapters on energy and health.
The reason for human success is not simple. Markets are of course a very important part of human success, but simply saying "markets are the only cause of human development" has so many obvious flaws that you can only argue it by ignoring contrary evidence. I much prefer books that weaken their thesis in favor of making a more defensible argument to books like this one.
andrueb's review against another edition
2.0
I read this because I had been feeling rationally pessimistic for quite some time. A book that should have been a pamphlet, TRO nonetheless gave me some truly helpful ideas that have made a difference in my life even months later. The skilled skimmer will have this sucker finished in a couple of sittings, and won't even worry that the author brushes over most of the existential causes of human misery.
The book makes you thankful to have cheap electric light, decent WiFi, and access to diverse foods. Viewed through this lens, today really is a remarkable to be alive. We live with intangible wealth that, despite wages which haven't increased in a generation, allow us a standard of living we often fail to appreciate. I wouldn't say that this book turned me into an optimist, but I feel more genuinely neutral before, and also less likely to whine about the economic talking points people my age are wont to whine about. Gotta say, feels good. Optimism is bliss.
The book makes you thankful to have cheap electric light, decent WiFi, and access to diverse foods. Viewed through this lens, today really is a remarkable to be alive. We live with intangible wealth that, despite wages which haven't increased in a generation, allow us a standard of living we often fail to appreciate. I wouldn't say that this book turned me into an optimist, but I feel more genuinely neutral before, and also less likely to whine about the economic talking points people my age are wont to whine about. Gotta say, feels good. Optimism is bliss.
kisaly's review against another edition
2.0
Some very interesting ideas in here, no question, and I enjoyed the first few chapters. But overall I thought it was a repetitive and over-simplified mishmash of concepts that other writers have covered better. One section read like Jared Diamond, another like Steven Pinker. Many of the facts presented to bolster arguments were obviously cherry-picked and had a clear libertarian bent. Also, having optimism for the economic and social future of humanity while glossing over the complex environmental implications of such prosperity is something that annoys me to no end. Planetary boundaries, yo. Skimmed the last few chapters.
justaguy's review against another edition
3.0
Did I learn something new? Yes. Have my mind opened up to new thoughts? Yes. Are those new information are practical? Yes. Did I enjoy the book? No, I didn’t…seems like the author explains a lot of connections. That’s all…no big surprise there! Even if he has his justification to think about those certain things. I don’t 100% agreed with him especially at ending about the pessimism.
shayneh's review against another edition
4.0
Really thought-provoking stuff, and a good counterpoint to the usual rash of doom-saying that goes on in the media and elsewhere. Worth a look!
veryperi22's review against another edition
5.0
One of the better books I've read in a while, albeit slightly outdated, (about privatization of space travel, pamdemics). I'd love to hear what Ridley has to say about COVID, and apparently he has a book coming out on the topic.
For each apocalyptic (made by apocaholics, haha) prophecy, the world righted itself and the apocalypse didn’t come. Not because the prediction wasn’t true, but because the predictions are always “with all things remaining the same”, which it never does.
Just when we’re about to be 10 feet deep in horse manure, the car comes around.
Just when the world is about to be reset by Y2K, better code, better software comes around, and, nothing. The world goes on.
He especially goes on about climate change, which is the next big apocalypse-
However, if the world becomes a poorer place, there will be less emissions, and if the world becomes a more prosperous place (which is far more likely) then there will be enough resources to solve for it.
“Don’t stop the nose bleed by tying a tourniquet around our necks”.
And finally:
The question is not 'can we go on as we are?' Because of course the answer is 'No', but how best can we encourage the necessary torrent of change that will enable the Chinese and the Indians and even the Africans to live as prosperously as Americans do today.
For each apocalyptic (made by apocaholics, haha) prophecy, the world righted itself and the apocalypse didn’t come. Not because the prediction wasn’t true, but because the predictions are always “with all things remaining the same”, which it never does.
Just when we’re about to be 10 feet deep in horse manure, the car comes around.
Just when the world is about to be reset by Y2K, better code, better software comes around, and, nothing. The world goes on.
He especially goes on about climate change, which is the next big apocalypse-
However, if the world becomes a poorer place, there will be less emissions, and if the world becomes a more prosperous place (which is far more likely) then there will be enough resources to solve for it.
“Don’t stop the nose bleed by tying a tourniquet around our necks”.
And finally:
The question is not 'can we go on as we are?' Because of course the answer is 'No', but how best can we encourage the necessary torrent of change that will enable the Chinese and the Indians and even the Africans to live as prosperously as Americans do today.