(An RE-POST of my previous question to see if Monday gives me better luck!) I just finished reading "Why the West Rules... For Now" and found it both interesting and troubling. I decided to pick the book thanks to the recommendation I found here on it. It was a worthwhile read, but I couldn´t shake the feeling that something was severely missing. The strongest segments of the book are (unsurprisingly) those dedicated to his fields of expertise. The chapter about the Roman and Han Empires is particularly good in bridging both "sides" into a single credible narrative. Where the book starts to falter, though, is in the latter sections. The more we approach the pivotal Industrial Revolution "moment", the less culture, social constructions, and science seem to matter, for it was only a matter of time and geography.
By this last point, I don´t mean to criticize the fair approach Morris takes regarding China (and the East) and its merits against the old conception of Western superiority. The problem lies, at least in my opinion, with the reduced, almost non-existent, role everything social seems to play the more we approach the present.
The final chapters, too, seem to play against the book´s favor. While the final analysis seems consistent with the model Morris built along the book, the conclusions seem to be a tad black and white, with two possible scenarios that seem equally troubling. According to Morris, the paths are embracing Singularity or expect catastrophe at the hands of natural, political and social disaster. Worse still, both scenarios are, by the timeline proposed in the book, no more than 30-40 years away. It is certain that the dynamics of world politics are constantly changing, but to argue that by 2050-2070 countries like Germany or France are going to start speaking Chinese en-masse or forgetting about Plato in favor or Confucius seems to avoid the reality that the same didn´t happen in China, India or Southeast Asia during the "Western" rule. Some level of influence can definitely exist like it has happened across history, but Morris proposed timeline appears both rushed and disproportionate based on the amount of energy a society captures or the size of its cities. This last point is only meant as an example, one among other issues and successes along the book.
Regarding the question, I would like to hear the opinions of others in the forum, mostly as a way to exchange points of view. The question doesn't go along the path of the "Morris = Diamond" matter I have seen asked before.
I liked it. And I think you are misunderstanding his point at the last chapter, I don't remember him ever saying that in 2070 Germans will in unison cast Goethe into the fire in favor of Chinese novels. He does say that the lopsided cultural balance between West and East will start altering, which I think is objectively true, but his claim about the East "overtaking" the West is mostly based on GDP projections--it is a pretty narrow claim related purely to his chart, really (I understand in his follow up book he went a bit wild with it, but I haven't read it).
That being said, both of those are a bit outside of the twenty year rule (unless the twenty year rule is an absolute vale, so we can talk about 2037 and on? Need mod weigh in!). I found his account of the Industrial Revolution to be actually pretty conventional, basically a shortened version of Pommeranz.