Thank you so much, Michael, much appreciated! You're right that there were significant precursors to the Great Enrichment in places like northern Italy and Flanders, predating the Enlightenment, as well as in other societies around the world at various points in history. But I do believe that the Enlightenment, particularly Francis Bacon's program, was crucial in developing a "culture of growth" (Joel Mokyr). The truly massive improvements only began in the 19th century. Within the context of the Enlightenment, however, I think that the materialist and down-to-earth approach of Francis Bacon was far more important than the highly intellectualist/rationalist approach of René Descartes. Perhaps I'm underestimating the material causes of progress, as you say, but I'm more confident that the *slowdown* in progress over the past half-century has been more related to cultural factors (which is the main topic of my book). This includes skepticism about progress, limits-to-growth thinking, overregulation and risk aversion, NIMBY-ism, neo-Malthusianism, postmodernism, and so on. Does that make sense?
I know that I am in the minority on the origins of modern progress, and I agree with you that much of our problem today are post-modern anti-progress ideas.
Thank you so much, Michael, much appreciated! You're right that there were significant precursors to the Great Enrichment in places like northern Italy and Flanders, predating the Enlightenment, as well as in other societies around the world at various points in history. But I do believe that the Enlightenment, particularly Francis Bacon's program, was crucial in developing a "culture of growth" (Joel Mokyr). The truly massive improvements only began in the 19th century. Within the context of the Enlightenment, however, I think that the materialist and down-to-earth approach of Francis Bacon was far more important than the highly intellectualist/rationalist approach of René Descartes. Perhaps I'm underestimating the material causes of progress, as you say, but I'm more confident that the *slowdown* in progress over the past half-century has been more related to cultural factors (which is the main topic of my book). This includes skepticism about progress, limits-to-growth thinking, overregulation and risk aversion, NIMBY-ism, neo-Malthusianism, postmodernism, and so on. Does that make sense?
Yes, that makes sense.
I know that I am in the minority on the origins of modern progress, and I agree with you that much of our problem today are post-modern anti-progress ideas.
This is my take on the role of the Enlightenment:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/did-the-enlightenment-cause-modern-cf3
It is very different from the views of Pinker and Mokyr, but I still have an enormous amount of respect for both.