Why The West Rules - For Now: The Patterns of History and what they reveal about the Future
- Downloads：2490
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-21 06:54:29
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Ian Morris
- ISBN：1846682088
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
In the middle of the eighteenth century， British entrepreneurs unleashed the astounding energies of steam and coal and the world changed forever。 Factories， railways and gunboats then propelled the West's rise to power， and computers and nuclear weapons in the twentieth century secured its global supremacy。 Today， however， many worry that the emergence of China and India spell the end of the West as a superpower。
How long will the power of the West last？ In order to find out we need to know: why has the West been so dominant for the past two hundred years？
With flair and authority， historian and achaeologist Ian Morris draws uniquely on 15，000 years of history to offer fresh insights on what the future will bring。 Deeply researched and brilliantly argued， Why The West Rules - For Now is a gripping and truly original history of the world。
How long will the power of the West last？ In order to find out we need to know: why has the West been so dominant for the past two hundred years？
With flair and authority， historian and achaeologist Ian Morris draws uniquely on 15，000 years of history to offer fresh insights on what the future will bring。 Deeply researched and brilliantly argued， Why The West Rules - For Now is a gripping and truly original history of the world。
Reviews
Daneel Lynn
，
作者自訂標準，給文明發展打分數，藉以斷定某時代文明程度的高低，進而比較東西方的差異，並試圖尋求解釋。這對中學乃至大學生而言是很有吸引力的論點，但現在的我就很難買單了。一來作者取用的史料是以既有考古內容和信史乃至與隨手捻來的非正規例證直接取用，所以分數就容易偏向廣土眾民大型帝國。然而書裡也不只一處提到蠻族或小國戰爭技術乃至民生科學較強，坦白說我還比較相信姨學的歧視鏈、文明窪地和費拉說法。再者，要是我先跳去看結論，大概就可以省下書錢。原來作者的野心是要效法 Asimov 心理史學來推斷人類未來史。姑且不論心理史學是否真的能用，拿科幻類比真實研究本來就不且實際。引用 singularity 對比 nightfall 只能說作者連科幻都未必真的看懂。
Harini Nayak
，
To put it out there first， I agree with some things he says， but。。。Rice was found in Mehgarh in 7000BC。 Pottery in 4700BC。 Modern research shows agriculture kicked off at multiple places at roughly the same period （Yes， a thousand or two year gap meant nothing back in those days， simply because nothing interesting followed）。 So， agriculture shows up at Nile， IVC， Mesopotamia and Yellow river。 All independently。 It then also showed up in modern day Mexico。 The "west" didn't have a head start， the To put it out there first， I agree with some things he says， but。。。Rice was found in Mehgarh in 7000BC。 Pottery in 4700BC。 Modern research shows agriculture kicked off at multiple places at roughly the same period （Yes， a thousand or two year gap meant nothing back in those days， simply because nothing interesting followed）。 So， agriculture shows up at Nile， IVC， Mesopotamia and Yellow river。 All independently。 It then also showed up in modern day Mexico。 The "west" didn't have a head start， the people at fertile cresent did。 And it didn't matter much because "the lead" doesn't exist if the time gap is literally nothing in the large scheme of things。 So why did the other "cores" not have the chance to "rule"？ I mean， yes Sino-world has parallels in developement with the "west" but so do other "cores"。 Why did they "fail"？ （and did they fail？）That is to say， I understand why the American core failed， because geography did them bad。 But why not the others？Also， the author is right in saying agriculture spread from the fertile cresent （In West Asia） to Europe。。。。but somehow that makes Europe part of this "western core"？ That brings me to my largest unease about this book-the way it defines West/East。 The West/East divide is a politically loaded term， at least that's how it seems to me-An asian that has to meet rude westerners （some） that think "western" civilization is "superior"。 Now here's an author claiming "west" is made of all societies "descended" from the "Hilly Flanks"， and "east" has societies "descended" from "eastern cores"。 Apparently we can trace these west/east divides back to 15，000 years。 Here's where I call bullshit。 So people who were "touched" by "Hilly Flanks" are "western"， but those countries that got colonised in the 19th century are not？ How？ People in Europe were suddenly "descended from the western core" because Hilly Flanks agriculture reached them， but countries like Vietnam and India that got to the "western" industrialisation。。。。are not western？ He considers Islam "western"， and the Mughal empire was Islamic。 Why is India not "western"？ Here's what: Vietnam and India are not anymore "western" than most countries Morris considers "western"。 For most of history， I doubt you could clearly divide societies into "west" or "east"。 It seems weird that "America"， "Canada" and "Australia" are "western"， but other formerly colonised countries are not。 Is western supposed to mean "white"/ european descent， but in that case， why include Iran and the Middle East？ Societies traded ideas and shared innovations and some of them did better because they had better potentials- at each snapshot of history。 Prominent empires/cultures all have parallels with each other。 Hell even their philosophy is similar。 You want to talk about Greek democracies？ India had its Janapadas。 Stoicism？ India had it。 Skepticism？ We had it too。 It's like intellectual and political instituitions are similar in both Greece and India。 Of course， Morris agrees， Axial age thinkers in the East， West （and India）， are very similar but they are different from other periods。 Granted， Morris doesn't think "Greek expectionism" is a thing （or that "West" can be traced back to Greece）， but you have to agree that "East/West" is also wrong， because "prominent" cultures all seem to be the similar， even if they have certain differences。 I don't really see how there is any real West/East distinction beyond some superficial cultural differences。 That brings me to my next grievance。 Morris explicitly states that while it is possible for the West or East to dominate， it isn't possible for other regions。 Again， I agree that native americans or native australians couldn't have done it because they were isolated and didn't have access to the intellectual progress of the mainland Eurasia （which is really just geography doing them bad）， but what about Southern Africa （I mention Southern because the author claims Egypt for the "west"） or the Indian subcontinent？ After all， Kung fu， buddhism， etc are clear "Indo" influence on the Sino-sphere。 The famous chess， the "arabic" （actually hindu） numbers， etc are still "Indo" influence。 Southern Indian kingdoms also influenced South-East Asia， clearly。 The Southern Malabar Coast， Poompuhar， etc were all trading more with Egypt， Arabians， etc when other "west" people （i。e， the west europeans） were not even on the world stage。 It seems to me extremely weird that these other cultures are brushed aside without even an explanation。 I mean， if you are going to say something like "those people couldn't do it"， at least give an explanation for why you think so。 （I know only Indian history， but I'm sure the South Africans must also have achievements that contributed to the world， so yes）。 Finally: The idea of social development。 Morris uses "urbanisation" as one of his traits to measure social development。 But he goes about it by measuring the number of people in each capital， rather than actually counting multiple cities and their relative development。 I mean， sure capitals usually can give you a hint， but when your "west"/"east" power centers keep shifting， shouldn't you be measuring all cities in your west/east regions rather than just the power centers？ Also， at the end of the day， I think Morris just ended up measuring power。 I think history is just accidents after accidents， and control and power are not sustainable。 The political "west"， as opposed to Morris'， will decline and East/other regions will rise。 It's not because of what happened nearly 10，000 years ago in Hilly Flanks， it's just because an accident happened and europe turned up at the top， because "accident"。 And of course， that accident helped in exploitation of the global south。 Morris' tone also kept pissing me off for some reason。 I'm not entirely sure what it is。 I think it started the moment he said it's only the west/east that could do it。 I'm not a professional historian， so take this with a grain of salt 。。。more
Al Hynes
，
This book isn’t sure if it is about history， anthropology， sociology， economics， politics， international relations or even mythology。 For this reason it goes between 1 and 5 stars too many times to make a really accurate score。Suffice it all to say， it took me nearly a year to read but it was worth it。 The last two chapters take everything written before them to really answer the books title question and it’s worth getting there。 It can definitely be half the length it is， but then again， if it This book isn’t sure if it is about history， anthropology， sociology， economics， politics， international relations or even mythology。 For this reason it goes between 1 and 5 stars too many times to make a really accurate score。Suffice it all to say， it took me nearly a year to read but it was worth it。 The last two chapters take everything written before them to really answer the books title question and it’s worth getting there。 It can definitely be half the length it is， but then again， if it was， I wouldn’t have spent so long contemplating why the west rules。。。for now。 Only for avid readers of any or all themes outlined above。 。。。more
Louis
，
Why the West Rules-for Now: The Patterns of History & What They Reveal About the Future by Ian Morris investigates the question asked in the title， why does the West “rule” the world （economically， militarily， etc…） instead of for example， the East？ I’m not an expert in this area， but I love those with the proper background that attempt to answer this question。 Dr Morris goes into a huge amount of detail in reviewing the history of humanity over tens of thousands of years… In its 645 pages I nev Why the West Rules-for Now: The Patterns of History & What They Reveal About the Future by Ian Morris investigates the question asked in the title， why does the West “rule” the world （economically， militarily， etc…） instead of for example， the East？ I’m not an expert in this area， but I love those with the proper background that attempt to answer this question。 Dr Morris goes into a huge amount of detail in reviewing the history of humanity over tens of thousands of years… In its 645 pages I never felt bogged down but just sad that I was trying to retain a few cups of water from the proverbial firehose of knowledge he throws at us。 He counters the simplistic arguments of those that use only the last few hundred years of history to argue race or cultural elements for why the West is on top at this point in history。 He brings in so many other elements that one can’t fail to be amazed at the number of forces at work。 I will add， as I see some low scores， that of course this is one man’s opinion。 But the author is educated in this area and he supports his case with well-reasoned arguments。 It would be interesting to read some critical analysis of this book by folks with a similar background。I did feel the end of the book， the view of the future， was a bit weaker and rightly so。 In the next few decades， the momentum is there for China to surge ahead。 I believe that will happen。 But Dr Morris points out that due to the accelerated nature of technology that all bets are off。 By the year 2100 the question won’t be West vs East but rather， how do we define humanity， is there a West and East anymore？ I highly recommend this work if the topic is of interest to you。 It’s a nice companion book to Guns， Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond that asks similar questions。 It’s a book that will make you think and expand your perspective of the entirety of the human race。 Exposing you to how the elements of great/idiotic folks， climate， religion， culture， migration， disease， geography， … come together to affect our journey， like stones in a river churning the waters of humanity’s journey。 。。。more
Carolina
，
It was a struggle。I was loving the first chapters on pre-history and on findings from archeology。 Really loved the exploration of these times， with a scientific approach and details on what we know and know we came to know it。However， after that。。。 It was a struggle to read the chapters on history。 I felt it was convuloted， a lot of names， not very well organized and too many details on some parts。The sentences of this book are big， which I think add to the non-easy time I head reading it。I came It was a struggle。I was loving the first chapters on pre-history and on findings from archeology。 Really loved the exploration of these times， with a scientific approach and details on what we know and know we came to know it。However， after that。。。 It was a struggle to read the chapters on history。 I felt it was convuloted， a lot of names， not very well organized and too many details on some parts。The sentences of this book are big， which I think add to the non-easy time I head reading it。I came to this book from a reddit recommend for a book that was an introduction to a bit of all history。 I do not feel this is a good introduction。The last two chapters is where his arguments from the title are made， and were fun to read。 And the first 11 chapters are suppose to be that introduction to history， to give background to his arguments。 But for reasons I said above， and a few others， I did not feel it did a good job。So， 3 stars because:- However writing and easyness of reading changed。 In the beginning it was amazing， and the end good， in the middle awful。- his arguments？ Sure ok， but that's only 2 chapters and the last 100 pages， if that。- the first 11 chapters， of history？ Mix of amazing with convuloted。As such， for an overview of history is not that great but it was good parts。 As an essay of his argument， it didn't need all the pages， 100 would have been enough。 。。。more
Danton Thomas
，
Not a quick read but a very good one。 A history of humankind from the very beginning。 It must start with archeology and anthropology， but other sciences are gradually brought in as appropriate along the course of human civilization。 The new information was often dense when I read of ancient civilizations like the Assyrians and their competition with the Persians and Egyptians， but I find such things fascinating。 It was compatible with Guns， Germs， and Steel， without pushing such a polar agenda。
Eric
，
I got turned onto this book from a lot of reviews indicating that it was a more scholarly sound analysis of overall trends in human history than guns germs and steel。 And I am not an expert enough historian to argue with any of the reasonings， but they were well explained and thought provoking。 It definitely provided a clear explanation of the relative development of east and west and how we got where we are today。 The problem was that this could’ve been told in about a third of the space the bo I got turned onto this book from a lot of reviews indicating that it was a more scholarly sound analysis of overall trends in human history than guns germs and steel。 And I am not an expert enough historian to argue with any of the reasonings， but they were well explained and thought provoking。 It definitely provided a clear explanation of the relative development of east and west and how we got where we are today。 The problem was that this could’ve been told in about a third of the space the book takes up。 A massive portion of the book is spent recounting who killed who and why where when and how they did it。 The vast majority of those details were superfluous and just distracted from the overall point of the book which was to point to overall trends。 Ironically， the author repeatedly disparages the “great man” theory which posits that history is just the story of a string of remarkable individuals。 But in the process， he gets completely bogged down with a string of remarkable individuals。 I found it impossible to keep track of all the different rulers as he jumped between them。 It was like game of thrones with one group constantly wiping out another。 It certainly demonstrated an impressive grasp of history but I was trying to understand overall trends， not give bonus points for having read about yet another thousand year old dynasty。The book concludes with a long discussion about the next century， focusing on the potential for cataclysmic disasters as well as the singularity and how this will effect world power dynamics。 This struck me as odd coming from an archaeologist。 It’s certainly interesting speculation but it just seemed outside his area of expertise。 Overall， the book ends up being a very interesting explanation of the entirety of human history wrapped up with the gory details of most major conquests in human history and some wild conjecture about the future。 I wish I could’ve gotten an abridged version。 。。。more
vhatos
，
Цікавий твір。 Автор порівнює розвиток умовно Заходу （Європа+США） та Сходу （насамперед， Китай）， поснює причини домінування західної цивілізації。 Але й наголошує на подібностях розвитку західного та східного суспільств， вказує на періоди лідерства східного світу。 Загалом， більшість історичних фактів， поданих автором， відомі читачу， але їх інтерпретація та порівняння суспільних подій є цікавими。 Людством рухали жадібність， лінь та страх。。。 Автор припускає， що Схід випередить Захід у свому розвитку， Цікавий твір。 Автор порівнює розвиток умовно Заходу （Європа+США） та Сходу （насамперед， Китай）， поснює причини домінування західної цивілізації。 Але й наголошує на подібностях розвитку західного та східного суспільств， вказує на періоди лідерства східного світу。 Загалом， більшість історичних фактів， поданих автором， відомі читачу， але їх інтерпретація та порівняння суспільних подій є цікавими。 Людством рухали жадібність， лінь та страх。。。 Автор припускає， що Схід випередить Захід у свому розвитку， але хід подій може бути й іншим。 。。。more
Sokcheng
，
Props for the efforts but con for the really information overload way of presenting his arguments。
Marilyn
，
Yeesh
Rita Lei Chen 雷晨
，
This kind of topic selection is necessarily a very subjective work。 I agree with the analysis of the causes of the differences between the East and the West and the evolution of the comparison of strengths， but the author obviously underestimates the effectiveness of culture （or system）， otherwise how to explain it for hundreds of years The huge development differences within the former West and the modern Eastern countries have not been considered when discussing future trends。 In general， it i This kind of topic selection is necessarily a very subjective work。 I agree with the analysis of the causes of the differences between the East and the West and the evolution of the comparison of strengths， but the author obviously underestimates the effectiveness of culture （or system）， otherwise how to explain it for hundreds of years The huge development differences within the former West and the modern Eastern countries have not been considered when discussing future trends。 In general， it is worth reading and providing enlightening materials。 As for the conclusion， different people have different opinions and need to go further。 To expand your perspectives， you need to read more monographs on reforms such as religion and political and business systems。 。。。more
Robert Jeens
，
Ian Morris is an ancient historian and archaeologist who picks up where Jared Diamond left off in Guns， Germs and Steel。 That book looked at the world in general to explain how some societies came to dominate others， but Morris tries a deeper analysis of only “The West” and “The East” to look at how they have compared with each other in social development over the past thousands of years。 He rejects both long-term explanations and short-term explanations for the reasons for the West’s present pr Ian Morris is an ancient historian and archaeologist who picks up where Jared Diamond left off in Guns， Germs and Steel。 That book looked at the world in general to explain how some societies came to dominate others， but Morris tries a deeper analysis of only “The West” and “The East” to look at how they have compared with each other in social development over the past thousands of years。 He rejects both long-term explanations and short-term explanations for the reasons for the West’s present precarious dominance in favor of looking at the overall “shape of history。” This is a quantitative look at history over the past 14，000 years。Morris’ analysis encompasses biology， sociology and geography。 Biology and sociology explain the similarities between societies， and geography the differences。 In his view， in large groups and over long periods of time， people are similar。 We are greedy， lazy and frightened， and looking for better and easier ways to do things。 Further， given similar circumstances， all societies go through similar stages of development but not at the same pace。 Under different situations， the same geography can be a boon or a curse。 For example， in 100 C。E。 living beside a coal deposit meant nothing， but in 1900 it was very important。 Also， climate change has been a very important driver of historical development， privileging and punishing different areas at different times。 In Morris’ analysis， kings， generals， inventors and thinkers have agency， especially in confronting and overcoming the challenges of their age – or failing to。 They can help or hinder the shape of history， but they cannot stand in its way completely。 What if Ghengis Khan had never been born？ Would there have been a Mongol Empire？ Can we say that the millions of deaths and the communication that opened up between East and West as a result would have happened anyway？ He entertains these ideas in a thoughtful manner， but it is difficult to reach definitive conclusions。 As Marx said， we make our decisions but not in situations of our own choosing。There are several concepts that are crucial to his quantitative analysis。 The first is social development， which he defines as the ability of societies to get things done， their ability to project power。 He compares this to something like the United Nations Human Development Index， which is used to rate social development in the present。 In Morris’ analysis， social development has four factors: the ability to extract energy from the environment， urbanization， communication and the ability to wage war。 It doesn’t measure human happiness， or the quality of art， or many of the individual aspects of different cultures that make them uniquely beautiful – but that is not what he is trying to do here。 Another concept is the paradox of development。 Using a certain social and technological toolset， a society will reach a certain developmental ceiling。 Because of contradictions in the society， the forces that it generated can destroy it and cause it to fall back from that ceiling。 There need to be social and/or technological breakthroughs to drive development to the next level。 Generally， social development occurs when people find solutions to problems and destruction and decay occur when they don’t。 The last is the advantages of backwardness。 As technology expands into new areas， it needs to be adapted to those areas， and this can lead to advances in development。 Those new areas can then overtake the original core areas。“The West” in Morris’ analysis is that area that expanded out from the original Fertile Crescent societies 9，000 years ago。 That makes it a very large geographical area， but he is concerned mostly with the most developed part of it at any time。 In 2000 BCE， it was in Egypt， in CE 1， it was Rome， in 1900， it was Europe， and now it is North America。 “The East” began in China’s Yangxi River valley and went on to expand from Japan to Indonesia， though it is concentrated in China now。Here is his very short story。 The West started out ahead because agriculture began there first。 The West kept a fairly large lead until around 1200 BCE when the first Dark Ages hit， though the East didn’t quite catch up。 The Roman Empire at its peak was more advanced than the First Chinese Empire at its peak at roughly the same time。 With the fall of the Western Roman Empire， the East overtook the West for more than a thousand years， and the West didn’t really have a great advantage until the Industrial Revolution。 Here is an interesting sidebar。 Western Europe did not have the same level of social development that it had reached in the first century C。E。 until the 18th Century。 Postcolonial studies anyone？ If you want to know the details and the whys， you need to read the book。tThe last part of the book projects his quantitative analysis forward to 2103， when he says that East will catch up with West。 However， the world is likely to be so completely transformed by then that the very ideas of East and West may lose their meanings。 He projects two scenarios as running side by side between now and then， Nightfall and the Singularity。 Nightfall is a fall back to chaos， possibly from nuclear war or environmental degradation， and the Singularity is a state of such advanced technological development that what it means to be human will be completely altered。 Putting aside his projections， we can look at several of his assumptions and methods to evaluate the success of the book。 Is the concept of social development worthy？ If so， do the things he measured accurately reflect social development？ If so， has he measured them correctly？ Has he a true view on the impact of human agency over the long term？ Is his view of human nature correct？ These are all fruitful areas for further discussion and research。 。。。more
Henry
，
9/10
Varapanyo Bhikkhu
，
Morris in Why the West Rules — For Now， has said that an intellectual movement in 17th to 18th century China known as Kaozheng ‘paralleled western Europe’s scientific revolution in every way — except one: it did not develop a mechanical model of nature’， a rather large difference given that nature can’t be understood scientifically without such models。*Ian Morris， in his highly advertised book， Why the West Rules — For Now， brushed aside all prior identifications of the West with Europe， claimin Morris in Why the West Rules — For Now， has said that an intellectual movement in 17th to 18th century China known as Kaozheng ‘paralleled western Europe’s scientific revolution in every way — except one: it did not develop a mechanical model of nature’， a rather large difference given that nature can’t be understood scientifically without such models。*Ian Morris， in his highly advertised book， Why the West Rules — For Now， brushed aside all prior identifications of the West with Europe， claiming that the Islamic world was central to the West’s identity， celebrating the rise of Asians。 He even told Westerners not to worry about their eventual demise since， after all， ‘wherever you go， whatever you do， people are all much the same;’ ‘humanity’s biological unity rules out race-based theories。’Ricardo Duchesne***Brenton Sanderson:In the final analysis， Professor Morris’s book is an exercise in the kind of White ethno-masochism that is guaranteed a warm reception from the Jewish-dominated intellectual establishment。 The book was showered with praise by the usual types。 David Landes， the Jewish author of The Wealth and Poverty of Nations declared: “This is an astonishing work by Ian Morris: hundreds of pages of the latest information dealing with every aspect of change。 Then， the questions of the future: What will a new distribution bring about？ Will Europe undergo a major change？ Will the millions of immigrants [to the West] impose a new set of rules on the rest？ There was a time when Europe could absorb any and all newcomers。 Now the newcomers may dictate the terms。” Predictably， Jared Diamond extolled the book as “an exciting novel that happens to be true; an entertaining but thorough historical account of everything important that happened to any important people in the last ten millennia; and an educated guess about what will happen in the future。 Read， learn， and enjoy！” The Business Standard even called it “The greatest nonfiction book written in recent times。”Ultimately， the purpose of books like this， which on an intellectually flimsy neo-Boasian pretext， proclaim Europeans to be no better than anyone else， is to erode the racial and cultural self-esteem of White people in order to hinder White ethnocentrism — and thereby allow the White dispossession that is part and parcel of the multicultural project to proceed apace and unchallenged。 The flip-side of this tacit objective is， of course， to bolster the self-conception （and the sense of self-righteous historical grievance and entitlement） of non-Whites。 You will search long and hard for books by Jews， Asians， or Africans that seek to deconstruct their group’s supposed achievements and claims to uniqueness。 On the contrary， non-White ethno-triumphalism is a well-established sub-genre of the culture of critique that flows out of ethnic studies departments of Western universities。 Conversely， books like Why the West Rules…For Now are the inevitable result of the successful establishment of a perverted system of incentives in the world of academia that rewards White scholars like Morris who harm the interests of their own people。https://www。theoccidentalobserver。net。。。 。。。more
Kaleb
，
This book was pretty dense at times and also felt overly long at points but overall I still highly enjoyed it。 It took the long view of why the western world is currently dominant， how that came to be， and why it might change in the future。 It was a little chilling to read about the different "horsemen" of the apocalypse as it feels like we are heading more and more towards what the author described。 I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in what I think of as "big" history and This book was pretty dense at times and also felt overly long at points but overall I still highly enjoyed it。 It took the long view of why the western world is currently dominant， how that came to be， and why it might change in the future。 It was a little chilling to read about the different "horsemen" of the apocalypse as it feels like we are heading more and more towards what the author described。 I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in what I think of as "big" history and the long arcs that have occurred throughout time。 。。。more
Okdokey1324
，
One of the most insightful books i have ever read。
Chelsea
，
A good look at the social development of civilization。 It has some similarities to Sapiens or The Silk Roads， but I felt this author laid out a very clear thesis at the beginning as to why the west rules for now and then used this for framing the history he gives us （unlike the other books which were more straight-forward histories without something to prove）。 I also loved how he referenced various books， films， and art to provide modern context to the histories he was telling。Because this book A good look at the social development of civilization。 It has some similarities to Sapiens or The Silk Roads， but I felt this author laid out a very clear thesis at the beginning as to why the west rules for now and then used this for framing the history he gives us （unlike the other books which were more straight-forward histories without something to prove）。 I also loved how he referenced various books， films， and art to provide modern context to the histories he was telling。Because this book was published in 2010， both pre-Trump and pre-COVID， I found the last chapter （which I think was originally supposed to be optimistic） highly depressing。 Morris tells us what the world needs to do to stop the "horsemen of the apocalypse" that will reverse social development in the next century。 Instead I found that we have not done any of the things he says we need to do in the last decade （e。g。 tackle climate change）， and so it seems we are on our way to "Nightfall。"I also have to complain that Morris says "the Wright brothers， two bicycle mechanics from North Carolina" when the Wright brothers were from Dayton， Ohio （I would have been okay with "two bicycle mechanics living in NC"）。 He loses half a star for that alone。 。。。more
Ana
，
Despite the 3*， this book is actually a really good read， and it has the potential to steer up a very fruitful debate on History as a whole， especially concerning questions of how we came to be in the context in which we are now。If you're looking for a sort of impartial perspective on power changes throughout History， this won't likely be the book for it， as I would definitely classify it within a very anglocentric perspective。 And I say this not necessarily in terms of what he describes as “cor Despite the 3*， this book is actually a really good read， and it has the potential to steer up a very fruitful debate on History as a whole， especially concerning questions of how we came to be in the context in which we are now。If you're looking for a sort of impartial perspective on power changes throughout History， this won't likely be the book for it， as I would definitely classify it within a very anglocentric perspective。 And I say this not necessarily in terms of what he describes as “cores” （which actually quite surprised me that he didn't just stop in the Balkans and made everything to the East of it as the East core）， but mostly how History and its events were told and written in this book。Apart from the fact that we either agree with what he wrote or not （in its entirety， or just specific parts of it）， one of my main problems with this book were its maps， especially those before the Modern Ages。 I mean， who did them？ Who assigned locations in it？ It starts with the use of modern-day countries' names when they were far far from the period in which they were formed， and ends in several paragraphs talking about the Middle Ages' Islamic Empires which are illustrated by maps that make no reference to them whatsoever。Also， the rigour that is given to some topics/regions/people is not maintained at all throughout the whole book。 This is specially visible once it gets into the Middle Ages， when the author starts to rush through History when compared to previous historical periods。 And in this， we can also add that some chapters have way too much data at some points， worse than some scientific articles。 Moreover， some topics were completely oversimplified， especially colonisation and slavery。 Sure they might not be the central focus of this book， but considering how social issues were discussed previously， it’s difficult to understand how these were left out。 Saying that laws to end slavery happened and all was well with subsequent legalisation of trade unions is a gross understatement。I don’t know what the perspective on the last chapter would have been like when the book was published， back in 2010， but it’s definitely an interesting read now in 2020 when everything is in shambles and there’s at least 3 horsemen looming， at least following his theorisation of History， and quite some of the predictions for this year haven't exactly happened yet。 。。。more
Colin Davis
，
The most interesting thing about this book was how it redefined the West to include Islam and Russia。 It then hypothesises that the Sinosphere is a natural contender to the west。 The meat of the book compares the past and future of the two cultural spheres by using a framework that measures their development via population， communication， military might， etc。 Once you know what the assumptions of the book are， the conclusions become reasonably obvious to someone with even a cursory knowledge of The most interesting thing about this book was how it redefined the West to include Islam and Russia。 It then hypothesises that the Sinosphere is a natural contender to the west。 The meat of the book compares the past and future of the two cultural spheres by using a framework that measures their development via population， communication， military might， etc。 Once you know what the assumptions of the book are， the conclusions become reasonably obvious to someone with even a cursory knowledge of history。 The more interesting conundrum is why those assumptions were made in the first place。It's because people's definitions and perceptions of Eastern and Western are rapidly changing， and this book provides an interesting weathervane that shows the directions of the winds of change。 。。。more
Alan D'Souza
，
The book meanders for a bit too long into the revolving door history of the Chinese empires and belabors on considerable unrelated but separately interesting background before putting forth a relatively nuanced take on how time-specific geographical and cultural circumstances collaborated to cause the great technological divide post the 18th century。 Ian Morris brings in an interesting perspective as an archaeologist， and the book is at its best when it discusses prehistory， the history of agric The book meanders for a bit too long into the revolving door history of the Chinese empires and belabors on considerable unrelated but separately interesting background before putting forth a relatively nuanced take on how time-specific geographical and cultural circumstances collaborated to cause the great technological divide post the 18th century。 Ian Morris brings in an interesting perspective as an archaeologist， and the book is at its best when it discusses prehistory， the history of agriculture and early human civilizational growth。 。。。more
Kristjan
，
This book is more extensive than I anticipated - author covers worldwide view and time period is more than 15 000 years。 I would say that only from part 3 focus is on "west"。 Took some time for me to get through， as speculations for future did seem a bit too far。Regardless of the title and few times feeling repetitive paragraphs， It is insightful read。 This book is more extensive than I anticipated - author covers worldwide view and time period is more than 15 000 years。 I would say that only from part 3 focus is on "west"。 Took some time for me to get through， as speculations for future did seem a bit too far。Regardless of the title and few times feeling repetitive paragraphs， It is insightful read。 。。。more
SpaceBear
，
Morris seeks to ask the question of why the West reached the Industrial Revolution first， and why not other parts of the world？ His answer is that geography determined the courses of societies， as innovations were a direct response to local geographical challenges， be they with regards to resources， disease， migration， and climate。 Overall the book is interesting， but I have to admit that I find the simplistic heuristics （"great men vs。 bungling idiots"， "maps vs。 chaps"）， to be kind of simplist Morris seeks to ask the question of why the West reached the Industrial Revolution first， and why not other parts of the world？ His answer is that geography determined the courses of societies， as innovations were a direct response to local geographical challenges， be they with regards to resources， disease， migration， and climate。 Overall the book is interesting， but I have to admit that I find the simplistic heuristics （"great men vs。 bungling idiots"， "maps vs。 chaps"）， to be kind of simplistic and annoying。 Also， the constant reference to very dated pop culture was at times a bit odd。 Overall interesting， but not on the same scale as the sweeping world history by Jared Diamond， Yuval Noah Harari， or others。 。。。more
Valery Pushnya
，
Would be good to define East and West for a starter。 Persia is defined as West and India is simply not mentioned， East is just the author’s moniker for China。 And the rest of the world is West。 Obviously then the point that West dominates because of its geography is made。 I wonder why such kind of books don’t have bullshit editors。
ggarlic
，
这书的意思是西方是美索不达米亚古埃及古波斯阿拉伯文明欧洲文明 东方是中国 从而得出结论西方在 14 个千年里 13 个超越东方。咋这么不要脸呢
Marianne Aasen
，
Interessant bok， men litt tung for meg da jeg ikke er i en leseperiode akkurat nå。 Fikk bare lest halvparten ca。 men vurderer å låne den igjen。
Víctor Gómez
，
Libro muy interesante y largo que recorre toda la historia humana fijándose en diferentes aspectos para intentar responder a esta pregunta， para llegar conclusiones muy interesantes sobre cómo debería ser un futuro esperado。
Jeremy
，
This was not what I expected。 It is largely a summary of world history， mainly since the dawn of civilization。 So much of this book is just history， much of it didn't really seem to be connected to his main thesis。 After long bouts of history， he may throw in a few points that ultimately lead to some potential events that led the west to developing in modern times faster than the east， with the ultimate decider being geography。 I wasn't interested in a summary of world history， as most was famil This was not what I expected。 It is largely a summary of world history， mainly since the dawn of civilization。 So much of this book is just history， much of it didn't really seem to be connected to his main thesis。 After long bouts of history， he may throw in a few points that ultimately lead to some potential events that led the west to developing in modern times faster than the east， with the ultimate decider being geography。 I wasn't interested in a summary of world history， as most was familiar to me and not in depth。 That said， it was well written and enjoyable enough to read （I listened to it actually）。 Probably not the best book to listen to， it would be easier to consume by reading。 There were some interesting points， but this is not a book that will stick with me。 。。。more
Hồ Quang
，
Một cuốn sách hết sức đồ sộ không chỉ giải thích tại sao phương Tây vượt trội mà nó còn là một cuốn sách tổng quan về lịch sử loài người từ thời kỳ bắt đầu xuất hiện tại Châu Phi。 Thông qua việc đối chiếu trong quá khứ từ khi con người bắt đầu xuất hiện và di chuyển đến các vùng lõi phương Đông và phương Tây tác giả đã đưa người đọc qua các lĩnh vực chính đời sống con người như nông nghiệp， chiến tranh， công cụ lao động， tôn giáo。。。người đọc luôn có những cái nhìn qua lại giữa phương Đông và phư Một cuốn sách hết sức đồ sộ không chỉ giải thích tại sao phương Tây vượt trội mà nó còn là một cuốn sách tổng quan về lịch sử loài người từ thời kỳ bắt đầu xuất hiện tại Châu Phi。 Thông qua việc đối chiếu trong quá khứ từ khi con người bắt đầu xuất hiện và di chuyển đến các vùng lõi phương Đông và phương Tây tác giả đã đưa người đọc qua các lĩnh vực chính đời sống con người như nông nghiệp， chiến tranh， công cụ lao động， tôn giáo。。。người đọc luôn có những cái nhìn qua lại giữa phương Đông và phương Tây để so sánh。 Tuy nhiên phần đầu của sách có cách giác na ná quyển Homo Sapiens mà mình đã đọc nên cảm thấy không thực sự cuốn hút。 Tuy nhiên bắt đầu từ phần 2 khi phương Đông bắt đầu phát triển và có sự thay đổi đồng đều trên hai vùng lõi đến thời hiện đại thì cuốn sách thực sự rất hấp dẫn。 Đây là một cuốn sách rất hữu ích cho những ai yêu thích lịch sử， đặc biệt những người muốn từ lịch sử để dự đoán tương lai phát triển。 Ở đây tác giả cũng đưa ra một số nhận định cá nhân tác giả về tương lai của nhân loại tuy nhiên tất cả chỉ là phỏng đoán theo ý kiến cá nhân。 。。。more
Soren Alby
，
I believe the main premise， that blind chance was the main contributor to why the West still rules （for now） is profoundly wrong。 Either that or the author does an extremely poor job ina） making his arguments （and he has over 700 pages for goodnessake to make them！！） and b） refuting all the other counter-arguments， which he absolutely needs to do， if his preposterous argument is to be entertaind - never mind accepted。However the volume has interesting bits， some quite good - hence the two stars I believe the main premise， that blind chance was the main contributor to why the West still rules （for now） is profoundly wrong。 Either that or the author does an extremely poor job ina） making his arguments （and he has over 700 pages for goodnessake to make them！！） and b） refuting all the other counter-arguments， which he absolutely needs to do， if his preposterous argument is to be entertaind - never mind accepted。However the volume has interesting bits， some quite good - hence the two stars （else I would have given it none， if I could） 。。。more
David Lambert
，