What do you think?
Rate this book
Open: The Story of Human Progress
Humanity's embrace of openness is the key to our success. The freedom to explore and exchange - whether it's goods, ideas or people - has led to stunning achievements in science, technology and culture. As a result, we live at a time of unprecedented wealth and opportunity. So why are we so intent on ruining it? From Stone Age hunter-gatherers to contemporary Chinese-American relations, Open explores how across time and cultures, we have struggled with a constant tension between our yearning for co-operation and our profound need for belonging. Providing a bold new framework for understanding human history, bestselling author and thinker Johan Norberg examines why we're often uncomfortable with openness - but also why it is essential for progress. Part sweeping history and part polemic, this urgent book makes a compelling case for why an open world with an open economy is worth fighting for more than ever.
440 pages, Hardcover
First published September 3, 2020
148 people are currently reading
2308 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
August 21, 2025
In the past the great efflorescences [rapid and often unexpected upturns when both population and income per capita grow] in history – those major episodes of openness and progress petered out ….. Innovation always faces resistance from groups that think they stand to lose from it, be they old political or religious elites, businesses with old technologies, workers with outmoded skills, nostalgic romantics or old folks who feel anxious because people don’t do things the way they used to. They have an incentive to stop changes with bans, regulations, monopolies, the burning of boats [to keep people in and prevent trade] or the building of walls [to keep others out]. And then the rest of us panic about the world we let them have their way.
Only once in human history has a promising efflorescence not been cut short by the forces opposing openness. At least so far.
This book is written by a long time defender of globalisation, free trade, liberalism whose most famous book “Progress” argues sets out ten areas (food, sanitation, life expectancy, poverty, violence, the environment, literacy, freedom, equality, conditions of childhood) where astonishing (and often rapidly accelerating) progress has been made in the last 100-200 years.
With alliteration of my own: This book seeks to link that recent progress to a period of openness in integrated global trade, immigration and ideas, not impeded by institutions, but under imminent threat.
The book basically uses three main lenses to explore the idea both of openness and the way in which past similar (albeit more localised) periods of flourishing have come to an end - evolution/hunter-gatherer behaviour (the author likes to examine our origins as both traders and tribalists), Modern and Ancient History and Behavioural economic experiments. My preference is more for his historical explanations which are excellent (if sweeping) than the behavioural economics – it is hard to give equal weight in my view to hundreds of years of history and some artificial experiments on hypothetical preferences using a small set of US graduates.
Overall I found this a fascinating book – with perhaps the first half stronger than the second. So much of it feels close to self-evident (a little like the ideas of Progress) and yet, particularly currently, the consensus view seems to be almost the polar opposite. As an example in the recent UK election – the activists at the heart of the two main parties are motivated to a large part by their rejection of the tenets of the book (despite or even because their own parties having recently run successful governments which believed in them).
SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS
The first sections look at how Openness in its various aspects has succeeded
Open Exchange: this chapter looks at free trade and global trade routes over time including: Mesopotamia and the development of cities, the Phoenicians and the Romans and argues against the meaningless of trade balances.
Open Doors: This chapter looks at successful and diverse ancient empires – e.g. Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, Roman Empire - and argues their success was due to how they both absorbed the best of the countries they conquered and allowed those countries to retain their traditions and become citizens. It then looks at more successful recent examples which were also actively founded on immigration and integration: Mongols, Ottoman empire, Dutch republic, America melting pot. An excellent (if not entirely new section) looks at hostile attitudes to new immigrants over time in America and how each in time became assimilated only for a new form of immigrant to be claimed as a threat in exactly the same language (Germans/Scandinavians, Irish/Poles, Chinese, Jews, Hispanic, Islamic). One interesting area is where he argues that the left concept of cultural appropriation is meaningless (he uses an example of a white Swedish minister criticised for her dreadlocks – and points out how, via Ethiopia these came from the Nazirities in Numbers 6).
Open Minds. This chapter looks at cultures which were open to free thought such as Ancient Greece (the first with openness to other ideas, preparedness to not only accept but encourage criticism of the prevailing orthodoxy); early Islamic culture, Enlightenment Europe and the Republic of Letters – and how each flourished. He argues briefly but tellingly against the current closing of minds and increasingly left-enforced heterodoxy of views in Western Universities.
Open Societies. This section looks at how institutional attitudes acted over time to encourage (or almost always discourage and stamp out) openness. He looks at the success of the Song dynasty in China and then the disastrous inward turning of Ming dynasty. His main case study is the UK tracing how Civil War, Glorious Revolution, openness to Huguenot and other dissidents and many other areas lead to the Industrial Revolution. This is a strong chapter as it effectively argues that institutions almost always are against openness and that the success of Europe in driving so much of the recent progress was actually a failure (so that we have to be ever vigilant that things may be reversed :
The story of Europe’s eventual triumph can be told as the story of its failures: the failures of kings and emperors to unify the European continent; of Church authorities to impose a single religious orthodoxy; and of monopolies and guides to block new technologies and business models. This was not for lack of trying.
Taking its cue from this – the next sections then look at what leads to people being opposed to openness – and also how those opposed to openness deliberately encourage and play on these tendencies.
Us and Them: This section looks at tribalism and the tendency to want to define ourselves against an other. He points out that despite all its good intentions, identity politics actually exacerbates this tendency. He has an interesting take on social media. He argues that echo chambers (he uses the term filter bubbles) are not new (this is I think possibly a European view with socialist/Christian democrat divides and without say the BBC). However he argues that why it is bad as it can make you perceive other tribes as more of an immediate threat and one that attacks you (not helped as you typically come across the most extreme manifestation). He cleverly shows how tribes are often arbitrary – first of all using sports teams and then say Remain/Brexit in UK (an axis along which a huge part of the UK population now aligns itself but which was of almost no interest as an identity marker pre the referendum).
Zero sum. This section looks at how a zero sum, rather than a win-win, view of the world inevitably is aligned to closeness. This is I think one of the toughest sections as it discussed but not I think completely addresses how we are hard wired for fairness and differentials rather than for absolute outcome. He does provide some strong arguments that the increase in prosperity have massively decreases quality of life (rather than wealth) differentials. In simple terms when everyone has access to good food, healthcare, consumer goods etc the difference for the wealthy is much smaller – but at times I felt this was a middle class versus rich argument rather than a poor versus rich (interestingly though he is a proponent of UBI – I think as a way to eliminate poverty and the poverty trap). He also interestingly argues about what he calls the Physical fallacy (that valued in goods is only added by the direct manufacture process) and how this leads to an undervaluing of entrepreneurs, finance, traders etc (all of whom are then seen as – my terms – rent extracting parasites). It also has a great section on Status which includes the line:
The same people who would never carry out around an expensive hand bag or talk about how much they bench press would not hesitate to tell you … the fact that they are reading that bleak yet surprisingly amusing Slovenian novel.
Anticipatory Anxiety. This section I found rather unoriginal on the concept of nostalgia – and how there never were any good old days – the author of Ecclesiastes (7:10) dealt with this a long time ago. It then goes on to discuss innovation and how people are both fearful of it but also want to direct and manage it in ways that are almost always ill-founded rather than allowing natural ideas to develop (he argues that both conservatives and progressives are at fault for wanting either no progress or guided/closed-end progress rather than allowing for open ended progress). He uses the IT and internet revolution as an example here and argues the same (via a carbon tax) should apply to climate change.
December 16, 2022
I disagree quite intensely with the neoliberal agenda that Norberg - a historian and Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute - is promoting (in this book, somewhat stealthily).
With that out of the way, I have to credit him with writing an eminently readable and thoughtful book singing the praises of the open, liberal society. His many historical examples are varied and often interesting.
One thing though, it seems to me deeply bizarre that Norberg - a staunch defender of never-ending innovation, of setting free humanity's ingenuity and creative potential - can write this: It is "not possible to produce a system with fewer internal contradictions than liberal democratic capitalism" (p. 363), we can't "replace liberal capitalism with an even more responsive and open system" (p. 364).
With that out of the way, I have to credit him with writing an eminently readable and thoughtful book singing the praises of the open, liberal society. His many historical examples are varied and often interesting.
One thing though, it seems to me deeply bizarre that Norberg - a staunch defender of never-ending innovation, of setting free humanity's ingenuity and creative potential - can write this: It is "not possible to produce a system with fewer internal contradictions than liberal democratic capitalism" (p. 363), we can't "replace liberal capitalism with an even more responsive and open system" (p. 364).
October 3, 2020
Brilliant — of course
Another brilliant book. Norberg is one of the most lucid exponents of the values of liberalism and the open society the world has today. Read, enjoy and find yourself agreeing again and again.
Another brilliant book. Norberg is one of the most lucid exponents of the values of liberalism and the open society the world has today. Read, enjoy and find yourself agreeing again and again.
February 2, 2022
An important reminder. Solid 5 stars!
1. Open countries and empires prosper by accepting new ideas, technology and people who are persecuted. Wise emperors left old elites alone. When those empires became closed they went into decline.
2. H. sapiens won because we cooperated with strangers and Neanderthals didn’t. Tasmanian aborigines had regression of their technology when they were cut off from the Australian main land.
3. Trade was always good.
4. Immigrants were often resisted until they assimilated. Rome prospered because anyone could become a citizen. Immigrants contribute to entrepreneurship, are less likely to commit crime or on welfare. Each 1% immigration increases GDP by 2%. But the unskilled suffer a 1.7% wage drop.
5. A diverse group is better in solving problems. One dissenting view makes the group less extreme. Christianity in Europe was closed. Luckily governments in Europe were not successful enough because the persecuted could always find refuge in another country. China was too successful in ensuring conformity. So the industrial revolution started in Europe.
6. Open societies copy the success of others, and allow trials and errors. Closed societies want order and certainty so find it hard to progress.
7. We easily fall into Us vs Them mentality, especially when times are bad, or massive changed happen. Demagogues thrive on creating a scapegoat enemy.
8. We also think zero sum when times are bad.
9. We need more openness, but protect those who suffer from it. Universal basic income or a negative income tax are nice as they do not discourage those on welfare to work. Open town hall discussions help. Intellectuals and leaders need to constantly remind citizens the advantages of being Open, and not cater to populist ideas.
1. Open countries and empires prosper by accepting new ideas, technology and people who are persecuted. Wise emperors left old elites alone. When those empires became closed they went into decline.
2. H. sapiens won because we cooperated with strangers and Neanderthals didn’t. Tasmanian aborigines had regression of their technology when they were cut off from the Australian main land.
3. Trade was always good.
4. Immigrants were often resisted until they assimilated. Rome prospered because anyone could become a citizen. Immigrants contribute to entrepreneurship, are less likely to commit crime or on welfare. Each 1% immigration increases GDP by 2%. But the unskilled suffer a 1.7% wage drop.
5. A diverse group is better in solving problems. One dissenting view makes the group less extreme. Christianity in Europe was closed. Luckily governments in Europe were not successful enough because the persecuted could always find refuge in another country. China was too successful in ensuring conformity. So the industrial revolution started in Europe.
6. Open societies copy the success of others, and allow trials and errors. Closed societies want order and certainty so find it hard to progress.
7. We easily fall into Us vs Them mentality, especially when times are bad, or massive changed happen. Demagogues thrive on creating a scapegoat enemy.
8. We also think zero sum when times are bad.
9. We need more openness, but protect those who suffer from it. Universal basic income or a negative income tax are nice as they do not discourage those on welfare to work. Open town hall discussions help. Intellectuals and leaders need to constantly remind citizens the advantages of being Open, and not cater to populist ideas.
September 13, 2020
Smart, witty and positive. A fantastic defence of open societies, migration, trade and liberal science
November 27, 2021
Open by Johan Norberg is the book that humanity needs to read. Right now!
Open: The Story of Human Progress’s central thesis is that societies that embrace openness (tolerance, willingness to trade, innovate, liberty) as opposed to closedness (authoritarianism, isolationism, luddites) are responsible for pushing humanity further and further. And while life isn’t perfect (it never will be), the open society is the closest we have ever and will ever come to utopia.
The book is full of illuminating historical facts that expose how civilisations throughout history have progressed due to their willingness to be open. To trade with foreigners, to accept the eccentric, to try new things. And how collapse has always been heralded by terrified and uncreative authoritarians who would rather close their society off from the world and seek a form of stasis.
Norberg spends the first half of the book showing how openness leads to prosperity, progress and a better life for all. But in the second half, shows why humans are so obsessed with closedness. And why openness is something we have to consciously fight for.
As we are naturally terrified of differences, and in a time of fear, we will abhor the foreign and the eccentric.
But he successfully shows that time and time again, we have eliminated our worst impulses and embraced an open society that allows us to use freedom, diversity and access to the global community to prosper and invent wonders.
The open society is under threat. Fears of pandemic, immigration, terrorism, economic collapse, climate change and everything else has culminated into renewed political tribalism, conspiracy theories and a climate of closedness.
We must do our utmost to not let hate divide us and push us away from what makes us great. Not nations. Not our petty group identities. But freedom, reason and access to the globe, and all the wonders that come with it.
Open: The Story of Human Progress’s central thesis is that societies that embrace openness (tolerance, willingness to trade, innovate, liberty) as opposed to closedness (authoritarianism, isolationism, luddites) are responsible for pushing humanity further and further. And while life isn’t perfect (it never will be), the open society is the closest we have ever and will ever come to utopia.
The book is full of illuminating historical facts that expose how civilisations throughout history have progressed due to their willingness to be open. To trade with foreigners, to accept the eccentric, to try new things. And how collapse has always been heralded by terrified and uncreative authoritarians who would rather close their society off from the world and seek a form of stasis.
Norberg spends the first half of the book showing how openness leads to prosperity, progress and a better life for all. But in the second half, shows why humans are so obsessed with closedness. And why openness is something we have to consciously fight for.
As we are naturally terrified of differences, and in a time of fear, we will abhor the foreign and the eccentric.
But he successfully shows that time and time again, we have eliminated our worst impulses and embraced an open society that allows us to use freedom, diversity and access to the global community to prosper and invent wonders.
The open society is under threat. Fears of pandemic, immigration, terrorism, economic collapse, climate change and everything else has culminated into renewed political tribalism, conspiracy theories and a climate of closedness.
We must do our utmost to not let hate divide us and push us away from what makes us great. Not nations. Not our petty group identities. But freedom, reason and access to the globe, and all the wonders that come with it.
March 27, 2021
Open is a must read for everyone who wants to see their society flourish. The author provides clear evidence that societies that close themselves off to ideas, people, and trade will certainly ossify and decay. Those that are open will thrive and advance.
This book studies how humans can be both tribalists and traders, but it’s when they’re openly going back and forth with each other that progress occurs. Progress does not mean perfection, the author explains, but that everything keeps adjusting in response to problems. These problems just need to be solved to keep advancing.
Reverting to false nostalgia is sure to doom a society to fall backwards. This tends to happen when there are threats to an established way of existing. Closing society to others is a form of groupism or native tribalism that will lead to fear mongering and the rise of authoritarian leaders. That is, leaders who claim that only they can protect their people from the outsiders or from other groups. Fear tends to make people want a strong government and crave an authoritarian leader to protect them from the perceived threat. It’s clear that these same leaders - by taking these actions to close the society - will damage what they seek to protect and ultimately destroy progress.
The book ends on a positive note in that people can learn to be tolerant and accepting of other groups. People can learn more about other cultures and our own history to understand the positive impact of being open. The author provides ideas for government policies to promote job movement and support for people who need a safety net. I will read this book again and encourage everyone to open this one up.
This book studies how humans can be both tribalists and traders, but it’s when they’re openly going back and forth with each other that progress occurs. Progress does not mean perfection, the author explains, but that everything keeps adjusting in response to problems. These problems just need to be solved to keep advancing.
Reverting to false nostalgia is sure to doom a society to fall backwards. This tends to happen when there are threats to an established way of existing. Closing society to others is a form of groupism or native tribalism that will lead to fear mongering and the rise of authoritarian leaders. That is, leaders who claim that only they can protect their people from the outsiders or from other groups. Fear tends to make people want a strong government and crave an authoritarian leader to protect them from the perceived threat. It’s clear that these same leaders - by taking these actions to close the society - will damage what they seek to protect and ultimately destroy progress.
The book ends on a positive note in that people can learn to be tolerant and accepting of other groups. People can learn more about other cultures and our own history to understand the positive impact of being open. The author provides ideas for government policies to promote job movement and support for people who need a safety net. I will read this book again and encourage everyone to open this one up.
December 9, 2021
بسبب المعرفة العلمية والتقدم التكنولوجي والابتكار التنظيمي والنمو الاقتصادي ، يمكنك أن ترى أنك لست فقيرًا للغاية - في عام 1800 ، كان حوالي 90 في المائة من سكان العالم يعيشون في فقر مدقع. اليوم أكثر من 90 في المائة ليسوا في فقر مدقع. أنت لست أميًا (إذا كان الأمر كذلك ، فقد أهدرت أموالًا جيدة على هذا الكتاب) ولكن في عام 1800 ، كان بإمكان 12 في المائة فقط من العالم القراءة والكتابة. أنت بالتأكيد لست ميتًا ، ولكن هناك احتمال كبير بأنك كنت ستكون كذلك في ذلك الوقت. في عام 1800 ، مات كل طفل ثاني تقريبًا قبل عيد ميلاده الخامس ، وكانت الولادة خطرة على المرأة مثل لعب لعبة الروليت الروسية بستة رصاصات. واليوم ، تقل نسبة وفيات الأطفال عن 4 في المائة وتبلغ وفيات الأمهات العالمية 0.2 في المائة. ارتفع متوسط العمر المتوقع في العالم من تسعة وعشرين عامًا إلى أكثر من اثنين وسبعين عامًا.
هل تجاوزت الثلاثين؟ عبر إذاً عن بعض الامتنان للبريطانيين لأن هذا هو المكان الذي بدأ فيه كل شيء ، في القرن الثامن عشر الميلادي ، عندما بدأ الانفتاح بأبعاد مختلفة ، مما خلق مجتمعًا ليس ذو مخطط هرمي . حصلت الثورة الصناعية ، ثم ورثت الولايات المتحدة هذا الانفتاح واستخدمته لتحقيق عجائب أكبر.
هذا لا يعني أن الإثراء العظيم هو إرث غربي أو بروتستانتي ، كما قد يعتقد البعض. ظهرت العصور الذهبية للإبداع والإنجاز في العديد من العصور والثقافات ، مثل اليونان الوثنية ، والخلافة العباسية المسلمة ، والصين الكونفوشيوسية ، وعصر النهضة الكاثوليكية في إيطاليا ، والجمهورية الكالفينية الهولندية. القاسم المشترك بينهم هو أنهم كانوا ، مقارنة بالثقافات المعاصرة الأخرى ، أكثر انفتاحًا ، ولديهم المزيد من التجارة والاتصالات التي أدت إلى اختلاط الثقافات والأفكار. وكان الاختلاف عن التجربة البريطانية هو أن انفتاحهم لم يدم. تم القضاء عليه من قبل الغزاة والطغاة أو ردود الفعل الرجعية.
.
Johan Norberg
Open
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
هل تجاوزت الثلاثين؟ عبر إذاً عن بعض الامتنان للبريطانيين لأن هذا هو المكان الذي بدأ فيه كل شيء ، في القرن الثامن عشر الميلادي ، عندما بدأ الانفتاح بأبعاد مختلفة ، مما خلق مجتمعًا ليس ذو مخطط هرمي . حصلت الثورة الصناعية ، ثم ورثت الولايات المتحدة هذا الانفتاح واستخدمته لتحقيق عجائب أكبر.
هذا لا يعني أن الإثراء العظيم هو إرث غربي أو بروتستانتي ، كما قد يعتقد البعض. ظهرت العصور الذهبية للإبداع والإنجاز في العديد من العصور والثقافات ، مثل اليونان الوثنية ، والخلافة العباسية المسلمة ، والصين الكونفوشيوسية ، وعصر النهضة الكاثوليكية في إيطاليا ، والجمهورية الكالفينية الهولندية. القاسم المشترك بينهم هو أنهم كانوا ، مقارنة بالثقافات المعاصرة الأخرى ، أكثر انفتاحًا ، ولديهم المزيد من التجارة والاتصالات التي أدت إلى اختلاط الثقافات والأفكار. وكان الاختلاف عن التجربة البريطانية هو أن انفتاحهم لم يدم. تم القضاء عليه من قبل الغزاة والطغاة أو ردود الفعل الرجعية.
.
Johan Norberg
Open
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
September 22, 2024
BOOK REVIEW #12
Open : The Story of Human Progress explains the rise of our globalized, modern world and why we live in the best and most prosperous period of human history.
It's refreshing to read something optimistic after being bombarded by negative news and forecasts 24/7 but the arguments for open societies, open minds, open exchange and open doors are more or less the same things I read in Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson and Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker. The arguments are unoriginal but I must admit, Johan Norberg is a great writer.
I highly recommend this.
⭐⭐ ⭐⭐
Open : The Story of Human Progress explains the rise of our globalized, modern world and why we live in the best and most prosperous period of human history.
It's refreshing to read something optimistic after being bombarded by negative news and forecasts 24/7 but the arguments for open societies, open minds, open exchange and open doors are more or less the same things I read in Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson and Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker. The arguments are unoriginal but I must admit, Johan Norberg is a great writer.
I highly recommend this.
⭐⭐ ⭐⭐
September 27, 2020
Det är inte helt lätt att skriva en bra bok i denna genren men Norberg lyckas. Man behöver inte hålla med honom för att ändå uppskatta stilen och det positiva budskapet. En riktig solskenshistoria och det kan ju behövas ibland!
April 5, 2021
The greatest defense of open societies I have read. Openness is the way for progress, the unexpected, the innovation, the surprises when ideas, people, trade, migration and continuous change flourish
March 10, 2021
Ibland är det fan bra att läsa texter som en inte håller med om i allt.
July 7, 2021
A must read book in today's times.
Traces the history of Mankind through the ages with all its ups and downs.
Dwells very nicely on how society changes ,becoming open and closed .
Traces the history of Mankind through the ages with all its ups and downs.
Dwells very nicely on how society changes ,becoming open and closed .
November 28, 2024
A book i pick up and put down to digest it is fab and so insightful
April 1, 2021
I agree with almost all of the content in this book--Norberg is very much preaching to the choir here.
That said, boy oh boy did I get frustrated with it. My annoyance boiled down to one thing: repetition. Maybe it's a writing style or maybe it's legitimately bad writing, but per chapter, Norberg takes a basic assertion, provides some anecdotal support for it, and then repeats that assertion with slightly altered wording about 20+ times. Fine in the beginning, tiring by the end.
Much like other "survey"-type books, Norberg also occasionally falls prey to sweeping generalizations that he doesn't engage with or examine critically. Not a terrible issue, but certainly a missed opportunity.
For all those criticisms, there were still kernels of theory that I appreciated the fresh perspective on so not a total loss. Maybe a recommended book for the more patient out there.
That said, boy oh boy did I get frustrated with it. My annoyance boiled down to one thing: repetition. Maybe it's a writing style or maybe it's legitimately bad writing, but per chapter, Norberg takes a basic assertion, provides some anecdotal support for it, and then repeats that assertion with slightly altered wording about 20+ times. Fine in the beginning, tiring by the end.
Much like other "survey"-type books, Norberg also occasionally falls prey to sweeping generalizations that he doesn't engage with or examine critically. Not a terrible issue, but certainly a missed opportunity.
For all those criticisms, there were still kernels of theory that I appreciated the fresh perspective on so not a total loss. Maybe a recommended book for the more patient out there.
October 12, 2024
چرا همهچی داره بدتر میشه؟ انگار که تو یه تاکسی دربست باسرعت به مقصد گا در حرکتیم یا شاید هم فقط خروجی ذهن منه و احتمالاً با ورود کمی SSRI به سیناپسها، تصویر بهتر میشه.
اینا چیزاییه که جدیداً خیلی بیشتر ذهنمو درگیر میکنه و خب معمولاً داشتن شواهد بهتر از تنهایی فکر کردنه.
[هرچند خاورمیانه حسابش از روند کلی دنیا کمی جداست و ایران هم از خاورمیانه جدا. همین موضوع باعث میشه برای نگاه بهتر، نیاز به مطالعات بومیتری داشته باشیم]
نورنبرگ تو این کتاب سعی کرده از ۱۰ محور؛ غذا، بهداشت، طولعمر، فقر، خشونت، محیطزیست، سواد، آزادی، برابری و سیر آینده شواهدی جهانی ارائه بده تا از این ایده دفاع کنه که اوضاع واقعاً بهتر از قبله و با شیب نمایی بهترم میشه.
راستش خیلی خیلی جاها سعی کردم مقاومت کنم ولی انقدر تفاوتها فاحشه که نفهمیدن سخت میشه.
دگمترین حکومتهای امروز از آزادترین حکومتهای ۲۰۰ سال قبل دموکراتیکترن.
امیدزندگی ( میانگین احتمال طول عمر برای نوزاد متولد شده) توی سدههای اخیر چند برابر شده، آدمها کمتر به عزای عزیزاشون میشینن و برخلاف تصور حتی در طول زندگی هم کمتر از بیماریهای مزمن رنج میبرن.
و خب به برداشت نوربرگ، ریشه اکثر این تغییرات مثبت و حتی شکست تو ایجاد این تغییرات(مثل بهار عربی) به اقتصاد آزاد و افزایش سرمایه روانی در جریان افزایش سرمایه مادی برمیگرده. .
این جمله_که نقلقولی از فردریک باستیاست_ با توجه به حالوهوای این روزها برای من ارزشمندترین یادگاری این کتاب بود:
«از مرزی که کالا عبور نکند سربازان عبور میکنند.»
ناامیدی میُکشه و امید زیادی وبیجا بیشتر. شکگرایی و بررسی شواهد میتونه از مهمترین عصاهای دست امروز ما برای رفتار بر اساس واقعیت باشه، هرچند که شواهد و آمار هم همهچیز نیست.
اینا چیزاییه که جدیداً خیلی بیشتر ذهنمو درگیر میکنه و خب معمولاً داشتن شواهد بهتر از تنهایی فکر کردنه.
[هرچند خاورمیانه حسابش از روند کلی دنیا کمی جداست و ایران هم از خاورمیانه جدا. همین موضوع باعث میشه برای نگاه بهتر، نیاز به مطالعات بومیتری داشته باشیم]
نورنبرگ تو این کتاب سعی کرده از ۱۰ محور؛ غذا، بهداشت، طولعمر، فقر، خشونت، محیطزیست، سواد، آزادی، برابری و سیر آینده شواهدی جهانی ارائه بده تا از این ایده دفاع کنه که اوضاع واقعاً بهتر از قبله و با شیب نمایی بهترم میشه.
راستش خیلی خیلی جاها سعی کردم مقاومت کنم ولی انقدر تفاوتها فاحشه که نفهمیدن سخت میشه.
دگمترین حکومتهای امروز از آزادترین حکومتهای ۲۰۰ سال قبل دموکراتیکترن.
امیدزندگی ( میانگین احتمال طول عمر برای نوزاد متولد شده) توی سدههای اخیر چند برابر شده، آدمها کمتر به عزای عزیزاشون میشینن و برخلاف تصور حتی در طول زندگی هم کمتر از بیماریهای مزمن رنج میبرن.
و خب به برداشت نوربرگ، ریشه اکثر این تغییرات مثبت و حتی شکست تو ایجاد این تغییرات(مثل بهار عربی) به اقتصاد آزاد و افزایش سرمایه روانی در جریان افزایش سرمایه مادی برمیگرده. .
این جمله_که نقلقولی از فردریک باستیاست_ با توجه به حالوهوای این روزها برای من ارزشمندترین یادگاری این کتاب بود:
«از مرزی که کالا عبور نکند سربازان عبور میکنند.»
ناامیدی میُکشه و امید زیادی وبیجا بیشتر. شکگرایی و بررسی شواهد میتونه از مهمترین عصاهای دست امروز ما برای رفتار بر اساس واقعیت باشه، هرچند که شواهد و آمار هم همهچیز نیست.
Want to read
March 15, 20232023 I got to chapter 4. I still want to finish it sometime.
P 46 Phoenician period of globalization “ some grew incredibly wealthy on this trade, while others remain desperately poor. Often it upset old patterns of trade, and many people who had previously prospered got hurt. The ensuing inequality, bread, resentment and hostility, among those who felt left behind.”
P. 50 “ it can rightly be called a Dark Age, a phenomenon that has been repeated in several guises and scales throughout history when open this has given way to separation, and isolation.”
P. 51 “the problem was not in their brains, the problem was that they had lost access to the brains of others.”
P. 53 “ it’s sometimes difficult to find universal laws in human history, but this is as close as it gets: cities and regions, open to contact and exchange prosper, whereas closed region stagnate. Since innovation depends on the size of the interconnected population, cities, and countries that make it easy for people to travel, trade, and communicate, with others, create impressive wealth, and are fertile ground for new ideas and innovations.“
P. 70 “According to this narrative, we need to be saved from clashes with other cultures, ideas, and languages… we would not have a western cultural to defend in the first place…. what we now think of as Western Civilization is a combination of a philosophical heritage from the Greeks, religions from the Middle East, creatively interpreted by Romans in what is now Turkey, and scientific ideas borrowed from the Arabs and the Chinese. We got our alphabets from the Phoenicians, and our numbers are called “Arabic numerals” because we learned them from the mathematicians in Baghdad, who got them from the Indians.“
P. 158 as he’s talking about all of these open-minded philosophers, scientist, and mathematicians in the Royal Society, and the Republic of Letters, I’m wondering if he’s taking into consideration all the women who would’ve liked to of been a part of that, and even tried to be a part, and were rejected, like Mary Anning among many others. The Royal Society didn’t allow women until 1945.
P. 164 universities, especially need to be careful that they preserve free-speech as the best way to kill. a bad idea is with a better idea through discussion and debate… “Concerns about civility, and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however, offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”
“Truth has ever originated from the conflict of the mind with mind; it is the bright spark, that emanates from the collision of opposing ideas…“ Herbert Spencer
P 46 Phoenician period of globalization “ some grew incredibly wealthy on this trade, while others remain desperately poor. Often it upset old patterns of trade, and many people who had previously prospered got hurt. The ensuing inequality, bread, resentment and hostility, among those who felt left behind.”
P. 50 “ it can rightly be called a Dark Age, a phenomenon that has been repeated in several guises and scales throughout history when open this has given way to separation, and isolation.”
P. 51 “the problem was not in their brains, the problem was that they had lost access to the brains of others.”
P. 53 “ it’s sometimes difficult to find universal laws in human history, but this is as close as it gets: cities and regions, open to contact and exchange prosper, whereas closed region stagnate. Since innovation depends on the size of the interconnected population, cities, and countries that make it easy for people to travel, trade, and communicate, with others, create impressive wealth, and are fertile ground for new ideas and innovations.“
P. 70 “According to this narrative, we need to be saved from clashes with other cultures, ideas, and languages… we would not have a western cultural to defend in the first place…. what we now think of as Western Civilization is a combination of a philosophical heritage from the Greeks, religions from the Middle East, creatively interpreted by Romans in what is now Turkey, and scientific ideas borrowed from the Arabs and the Chinese. We got our alphabets from the Phoenicians, and our numbers are called “Arabic numerals” because we learned them from the mathematicians in Baghdad, who got them from the Indians.“
P. 158 as he’s talking about all of these open-minded philosophers, scientist, and mathematicians in the Royal Society, and the Republic of Letters, I’m wondering if he’s taking into consideration all the women who would’ve liked to of been a part of that, and even tried to be a part, and were rejected, like Mary Anning among many others. The Royal Society didn’t allow women until 1945.
P. 164 universities, especially need to be careful that they preserve free-speech as the best way to kill. a bad idea is with a better idea through discussion and debate… “Concerns about civility, and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however, offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”
“Truth has ever originated from the conflict of the mind with mind; it is the bright spark, that emanates from the collision of opposing ideas…“ Herbert Spencer
March 13, 2021
Human progress has always been defined by openness. The most progressive and advanced societies throughout history have embraced immigration and tolerance, traded freely with other countries, and exchanged ideas and knowledge to their advantage. It began with the Phoenicians and continued with the Greeks and Romans. During the European Dark Ages, the spirit of openness was kept alive by the Islamic world and the Song dynasty in China. It was again embraced by Europe when the Industrial Revolution helped spread free trade around the world. Since human beings have instinctive reactions to seek authoritarian protection in times of crisis, therefore remain vigilant in knowing that our problems can only be solved through openness.
Here are some key messages I've taken away from this book:
- Cooperation is key to human progress
- The first globalists revealed the enduring benefits of free trade and an open society
- Throughout history, enlightenment was happening outside a close-minded Europe
- In Europe, openness took hold as new trade possibilities emerged
- The global economy is not a zero-sum game
- In many ways, human instincts are in conflict with openness
- Authoritarianism is also rooted in human impulse - but it doesn't help
- The problems facing the world today can only be solved through openness
Enjoy your reading!
Here are some key messages I've taken away from this book:
- Cooperation is key to human progress
- The first globalists revealed the enduring benefits of free trade and an open society
- Throughout history, enlightenment was happening outside a close-minded Europe
- In Europe, openness took hold as new trade possibilities emerged
- The global economy is not a zero-sum game
- In many ways, human instincts are in conflict with openness
- Authoritarianism is also rooted in human impulse - but it doesn't help
- The problems facing the world today can only be solved through openness
Enjoy your reading!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 9, 2021
The book's argument - well-supported - is that humanity's achievements have accelerated in periods/regions of openness and languished or regressed in periods/regions of conservatism, xenophobia, and homogenous reliance on accepted practices. That's encouraging, especially in today's globalized economy. But each period of relative openness is fertile ground for the seeds of the next reversion to relative close-mindedness - the cycle repeats.
The author has more faith in libertarian methods than I myself do. Markets have significant failures such as concentration and environmental degradation that will not be solved by small scale entrepreneurial experimentation. He gushes about Uber having mowed down regulatory barriers in its industry (never take down a fence until you know why someone put it up). Uber's technology is cool, but it facilitates the atomizing of its labor inputs, reduced employment for those who were abiding by existing regulatory barriers, and further wealth transfer to capital (of the most capricious sort).
Thought-provoking.
The author has more faith in libertarian methods than I myself do. Markets have significant failures such as concentration and environmental degradation that will not be solved by small scale entrepreneurial experimentation. He gushes about Uber having mowed down regulatory barriers in its industry (never take down a fence until you know why someone put it up). Uber's technology is cool, but it facilitates the atomizing of its labor inputs, reduced employment for those who were abiding by existing regulatory barriers, and further wealth transfer to capital (of the most capricious sort).
Thought-provoking.
August 1, 2021
Norberg takes up post to defend liberalisms open society: the capacity for the flow of people, goods and ideas and the positive sum game this creates, often fallaciously flaunted as zero sum. He writes passionately against a tide of isolationism, and I can see with particular policies by certain countries including my own, this is needed rather than written in paranoia. This was a book needed to defend a way of constructing our socities increasingly seen in politics as "unfashionable" by populists and I am thankful for it.
He does well to defend free trade and free movement. This maybe considered unpopular in some circles today but does well to show why we are all better for it, creating some good examples and pulling out some studies (though at times some items felt anecdotal). He does better to talk about when free movement doesn't work, as the free trade section feels like a free market fundamentalists guide. Having said that, the arguments are robust and argued from different angles, and does well to dispell common myths. The chapter on free minds was more constructed as more of a history lesson than the others, not relying on scientific studies but again informative, interesting and well researched and interesting perspective of history, looking at when and how socities became and lost greatness. Open socities looks to tie these together, though focuses on how Europe made it through the trap to industrualisation first, reinforcing earlier arguments looking to debunk an "inveitability" approach as well as more racist undertones that sometimes appear here, picking apart common misconceptions of romanticised history. This chapter did though feel reptitive and didn't add much new material, though I think the idea was "closing arguments".
The second section goes through fallacies and issues of closed working, the scientific evidence veers off here slightly, but it was entertaining and sections on nostalgia would certainly sound familiar even to any skeptic, and enjoyable to read and get on board with. His section on fear was fantastic, if ablight some preaching to the choir I thought was brillaint and a clever assessment of populism and authoritarian tendencies.
My big warning would be this is a book written in a lawyers sense, not a scientist. It is to be sure, carefully crafted, well researched and has a lot of merit. It is however a libertarians perspective of the world (not actually what I was expecting, but something I've been meaning to read). It may surprise nobody who has spoken to a free market fundamentalist the blinkered approach to inequality and the damage it does, largely ignoring ideas of wealth being extracted, transfers of productivity gains and issues of shareholder capitalism. The focus is always on absolute wealth, and the impact of relative wealth, on both people AND the rate of increase of the absolute wealth is ignored. Furthermore, when talking about dynancism in private vs public sector, we get the same usual spiel of the lack of in the latter. Steve Jobs was a visionary to be sure, and decentralised markets are fantastic, but the iPhone wouldn't be a twinkle in his eye without numerous inventions coming from government funded research. The internet (DoD DARPA funding - he does grapple with this one but poorly) GPS (US Navy funding) a touchscreen (CIA funded) SIRI (DARPA), superconductors (USAF & NASA) and the LCD (the guy Peter Brody actually tried to get funding by private business such as Apple but was denied. Who funded it in the end? DARPA) to name but a few - not to mention the loan gained from Apple in the early days from the US gov small business fund, and the billions they have recieved in R&D subsidies. The states role as a platform, facilitating those networks, capacity to give at risk funding for projects, fund basic R&D is often ignored by libertarians, and the synergy of both working can overcome the issues of both and is important to a high performing system. When the French President came to see Silicon Valley, and a venture capitalist bragged at his business, the Nobel Laureate Paul Berg lamented where were you all in the 50s and 60s when all the discoveries fuelling the industry were made. This isn't to say he or the book is full of tropes - it is not, he doesn't twist Adam Smith in the usual way or take any stupid shots at taxation or public services, but I can imagine a cynic rolling eyes at some of the paths trodden, even though most well argued.
This is not say the book isnt valuable but it is arguments (the majority of which I believe are well founded and agree with) rather than broad-minded analysis, and I was at time frustrated at the scorn for nostaligcs and romantacism when it had a very romantic libertarian view which very rarely admitted any fault within its system. This for me is encapsulated in his repeated line "the issues of openness can only be cured with more openness" a fairly stunning red flag of closed mindedness, immunised to error, which seems to me be what it presents itself to hate - closed system thinking. Essential reading but it needs critical thinking at points.
His conclusion and analysis on Fukuyama and Huntington was apt and insightful. He speaks of openness vs closed in the conclusion in a binary way i don't recognise. I think most likely this will continue with many states coming further in and others flirting with it, picking and choosing like a buffet according to what seems good for them at face value. Orban, Hungary's president is staunchly anti-immigration but revels in the advantage of EU free trade, China's communist party again isn't interested in open mindedness for their citizens but likewise want to enjoy free trade, and Putin also wants his grip on power, but seems incredibly unphased by the flow of people into Russia from poorer, largely muslim central Asian states. Some factions of Brexiteers hate freedom of movement but make their willingness to defend freedom of speech very well known and hark free trade. I think, though Cardwell's law be damned, countries and people will overall continue to embrace partially and for longer periods, with the open society. Two steps forward and one step back is still progress I suppose.
He does well to defend free trade and free movement. This maybe considered unpopular in some circles today but does well to show why we are all better for it, creating some good examples and pulling out some studies (though at times some items felt anecdotal). He does better to talk about when free movement doesn't work, as the free trade section feels like a free market fundamentalists guide. Having said that, the arguments are robust and argued from different angles, and does well to dispell common myths. The chapter on free minds was more constructed as more of a history lesson than the others, not relying on scientific studies but again informative, interesting and well researched and interesting perspective of history, looking at when and how socities became and lost greatness. Open socities looks to tie these together, though focuses on how Europe made it through the trap to industrualisation first, reinforcing earlier arguments looking to debunk an "inveitability" approach as well as more racist undertones that sometimes appear here, picking apart common misconceptions of romanticised history. This chapter did though feel reptitive and didn't add much new material, though I think the idea was "closing arguments".
The second section goes through fallacies and issues of closed working, the scientific evidence veers off here slightly, but it was entertaining and sections on nostalgia would certainly sound familiar even to any skeptic, and enjoyable to read and get on board with. His section on fear was fantastic, if ablight some preaching to the choir I thought was brillaint and a clever assessment of populism and authoritarian tendencies.
My big warning would be this is a book written in a lawyers sense, not a scientist. It is to be sure, carefully crafted, well researched and has a lot of merit. It is however a libertarians perspective of the world (not actually what I was expecting, but something I've been meaning to read). It may surprise nobody who has spoken to a free market fundamentalist the blinkered approach to inequality and the damage it does, largely ignoring ideas of wealth being extracted, transfers of productivity gains and issues of shareholder capitalism. The focus is always on absolute wealth, and the impact of relative wealth, on both people AND the rate of increase of the absolute wealth is ignored. Furthermore, when talking about dynancism in private vs public sector, we get the same usual spiel of the lack of in the latter. Steve Jobs was a visionary to be sure, and decentralised markets are fantastic, but the iPhone wouldn't be a twinkle in his eye without numerous inventions coming from government funded research. The internet (DoD DARPA funding - he does grapple with this one but poorly) GPS (US Navy funding) a touchscreen (CIA funded) SIRI (DARPA), superconductors (USAF & NASA) and the LCD (the guy Peter Brody actually tried to get funding by private business such as Apple but was denied. Who funded it in the end? DARPA) to name but a few - not to mention the loan gained from Apple in the early days from the US gov small business fund, and the billions they have recieved in R&D subsidies. The states role as a platform, facilitating those networks, capacity to give at risk funding for projects, fund basic R&D is often ignored by libertarians, and the synergy of both working can overcome the issues of both and is important to a high performing system. When the French President came to see Silicon Valley, and a venture capitalist bragged at his business, the Nobel Laureate Paul Berg lamented where were you all in the 50s and 60s when all the discoveries fuelling the industry were made. This isn't to say he or the book is full of tropes - it is not, he doesn't twist Adam Smith in the usual way or take any stupid shots at taxation or public services, but I can imagine a cynic rolling eyes at some of the paths trodden, even though most well argued.
This is not say the book isnt valuable but it is arguments (the majority of which I believe are well founded and agree with) rather than broad-minded analysis, and I was at time frustrated at the scorn for nostaligcs and romantacism when it had a very romantic libertarian view which very rarely admitted any fault within its system. This for me is encapsulated in his repeated line "the issues of openness can only be cured with more openness" a fairly stunning red flag of closed mindedness, immunised to error, which seems to me be what it presents itself to hate - closed system thinking. Essential reading but it needs critical thinking at points.
His conclusion and analysis on Fukuyama and Huntington was apt and insightful. He speaks of openness vs closed in the conclusion in a binary way i don't recognise. I think most likely this will continue with many states coming further in and others flirting with it, picking and choosing like a buffet according to what seems good for them at face value. Orban, Hungary's president is staunchly anti-immigration but revels in the advantage of EU free trade, China's communist party again isn't interested in open mindedness for their citizens but likewise want to enjoy free trade, and Putin also wants his grip on power, but seems incredibly unphased by the flow of people into Russia from poorer, largely muslim central Asian states. Some factions of Brexiteers hate freedom of movement but make their willingness to defend freedom of speech very well known and hark free trade. I think, though Cardwell's law be damned, countries and people will overall continue to embrace partially and for longer periods, with the open society. Two steps forward and one step back is still progress I suppose.
January 6, 2021
This witty book is an easy and enjoyable read. With it, Norberg breathes new life into classical liberalism and makes its progressive values of an open and free world accessible to a wider audience. A very timely and refreshing book with an important and positive message in a period plagued by pandemics and populism.
July 7, 2021
I got about halfway through and my wife said, "you read so many books like that, what's this one about?" And beyond reciting the title, and saying "openness is good", I really couldn't say. So I gave up.
March 30, 2022
On the political spectrum, I’m pretty far to the left. And I’m a staunch capitalist. (As are, I might note, many if not most liberals.) Capitalism and free markets remain, without a doubt, the best tool we’ve ever found to raise people from poverty and create wealth, equality and lawfulness. Not socialism, not communism, not dictatorships, not national socialism, etc. None. Only capitalism.
But capitalism is a tool, and not an end in itself. It exists to serve humans. It is not an absolute good or a religious principle. It is not all or nothing. It is a tool that requires responsible use and constant adjustment like a water valve that needs turned up and down in order to best serve the most people. Openness and capitalism have a human toll that cannot and should not be ignored. What’s being destroyed with so-called creative destruction is the lives of people.
Norberg’s Open takes a look at the principles underlying free markets: Openness. Openness to innovation, to immigration, to experimentation, to knowledge, to dissent, to change, to failure. In the second half of his book, he looks at the forces – psychological, political and cultural -- that close markets, cultures and minds.
Norberg, it should be noted, comes from the Cato Institute, which is about the polar opposite of me politically. But he makes a strong case for being open, and for many traditionally liberal positions – more open borders, combatting racism and sexism, keeping religion out of politics, etc. And he does it with relatively few swipes at “woke cancel culture” and institutes of higher education. Norberg sees some value in laws/rules and regulations on business. Obviously, he thinks fewer are better, but having none, we would devolve into a criminal syndicate and kleptocracy. Good laws and regulations promote business – you can go to the market and buy a pound a hamburger without wondering if it will kill you. That’s great for the livestock industry.
Openness is they key to societal wealth, power and growth. But with it come change, fear and uncertainty. We can embrace and celebrate openness, but also protect people from the worst of its ravages. This is not easy, and there are differing opinions on the solution(s), and those are worth continuing debate and reform.
Open is a little dry and at times tedious, but the subject is a critically important. As Norberg points out, the important battles of the future will not likely be religious, or ideological, or even nation-state – they will be between the forces of openness and the forces of closure. We can easily slip back into a closed mind set and set back the immense progress we’ve made over the past 75 years in lifting people from poverty, and promoting equality and democracy.
I highly recommend this book to those interested in contemporary political systems and markets -- and the future.
***
Allow me a moment of snark about the “all regulations are terrible” crowd. Overall, Norberg avoids this insane approach, but he does drop some bombs then moves on quickly. For example, toward the end of the book he suggests that requiring truck drivers to get special training and licenses increases unemployment and opportunity for some people. Yeah …. I guess so. But …
My dad was a truck driver. In the early 1950s, he bought a truck and headed to Kenosha, Wisconsin to pick up a load of new cars and bring them back to Pennsylvania car dealers. No special license, no training, he just hopped in the cab and drove off. Recall, however, that in the early 1950s, the population of the U.S. was 151 million people (half of today’s) and he rode most of the way there on dirt roads. Literally.
In the crowded roads and cities of the 21st century, having someone driving 40 tons of death on a highway without special training or licensure is frankly horrifying to consider.
Again, Norberg doesn’t do this often, but I find it amusing.
But capitalism is a tool, and not an end in itself. It exists to serve humans. It is not an absolute good or a religious principle. It is not all or nothing. It is a tool that requires responsible use and constant adjustment like a water valve that needs turned up and down in order to best serve the most people. Openness and capitalism have a human toll that cannot and should not be ignored. What’s being destroyed with so-called creative destruction is the lives of people.
Norberg’s Open takes a look at the principles underlying free markets: Openness. Openness to innovation, to immigration, to experimentation, to knowledge, to dissent, to change, to failure. In the second half of his book, he looks at the forces – psychological, political and cultural -- that close markets, cultures and minds.
Norberg, it should be noted, comes from the Cato Institute, which is about the polar opposite of me politically. But he makes a strong case for being open, and for many traditionally liberal positions – more open borders, combatting racism and sexism, keeping religion out of politics, etc. And he does it with relatively few swipes at “woke cancel culture” and institutes of higher education. Norberg sees some value in laws/rules and regulations on business. Obviously, he thinks fewer are better, but having none, we would devolve into a criminal syndicate and kleptocracy. Good laws and regulations promote business – you can go to the market and buy a pound a hamburger without wondering if it will kill you. That’s great for the livestock industry.
Openness is they key to societal wealth, power and growth. But with it come change, fear and uncertainty. We can embrace and celebrate openness, but also protect people from the worst of its ravages. This is not easy, and there are differing opinions on the solution(s), and those are worth continuing debate and reform.
Open is a little dry and at times tedious, but the subject is a critically important. As Norberg points out, the important battles of the future will not likely be religious, or ideological, or even nation-state – they will be between the forces of openness and the forces of closure. We can easily slip back into a closed mind set and set back the immense progress we’ve made over the past 75 years in lifting people from poverty, and promoting equality and democracy.
I highly recommend this book to those interested in contemporary political systems and markets -- and the future.
***
Allow me a moment of snark about the “all regulations are terrible” crowd. Overall, Norberg avoids this insane approach, but he does drop some bombs then moves on quickly. For example, toward the end of the book he suggests that requiring truck drivers to get special training and licenses increases unemployment and opportunity for some people. Yeah …. I guess so. But …
My dad was a truck driver. In the early 1950s, he bought a truck and headed to Kenosha, Wisconsin to pick up a load of new cars and bring them back to Pennsylvania car dealers. No special license, no training, he just hopped in the cab and drove off. Recall, however, that in the early 1950s, the population of the U.S. was 151 million people (half of today’s) and he rode most of the way there on dirt roads. Literally.
In the crowded roads and cities of the 21st century, having someone driving 40 tons of death on a highway without special training or licensure is frankly horrifying to consider.
Again, Norberg doesn’t do this often, but I find it amusing.
March 27, 2021
This is a compelling book that dives deep into the complexities of human progress (and setbacks) in a multifaceted perspective. For a while now, I have encountered fascinating moments in history and stories of enlightenment, only to realize we have significantly regressed. Norberg tries to explain the 'why?', as he equips his readers with what I think are tools for progress.
At the end of this, I think his core argument is: societies have to remain open (through open exchange, open doors, and open mind) to progress onwards. And this is a very compelling argument.
I liked his interdisciplinary approach (merging anthropology, history, psychology, philosophy economics etc). This book is so diverse in perspectives yet so focused with a solid purpose structured to support his core argument.
Also bonus points for Norberg's sneaky humour and cheeky comments between anecdotes. The book is filled with case studies, qualitative and quantitative research backing his claims without boring or overwhelming readers. He also frequently referenced female scholars - not sure if intentional or otherwise, but it is great!
Although this book is not without criticisms:
1) On power: yes humans are status conscious and status is relative, and he claims not a zero-sum. But power is linked to status. There is a zero-sum to power. I don't think he adequately touched on the relationship between status and hegenonic power. Even if culture is a mesh of stealing and borrowing of ideas, he glossed over the dynamics of power and exploitation. Is there a limit to 'Openness' that demands equitable/justifiable 'limits'? I wish he discussed more on this.
He brushed off European colonialism by projecting the existence of Eastern imperialism. He also did not acknowlegde intergenerational harm. In spite of his attempt to balance history, I still detected some eurocentric bias.
2) On gender: the Republic of Letters was a great moment in open writing and criticism, but he overlooked completely how women were excluded in that. Although he did give attention to Eastern history and civilization, I was disappointed to find yet another writer who forgets, minimized and dismissed women's contribution in history. Beyond the binary, I would have liked to know more about the role of other genders in 'Open' societies - this was a missed opportunity.
3) On capitalism: Norberg is obviously a strong defender of capitalism. But there is a number of tensions and contradictions so naturally 'liberal' in his book that is hard to dismiss. Perhaps he intended it.
I think elements under the 'Closed' section should not be dismissed entirely, or it would reinforce the homogenization he opposes under 'Open'.
Zero-sum mentality can be useful to shed light on out important criticisms of capitalism's exploitative tendencies. Similarly, the most effective arguments made on discrimination come from the (distorted) lens of "Us vs. Them", particularly on hidden institutional racism/sexism. Dismantling a system that favours a certain sex and race at the top of the social and economic hierarchy demands drawing out a contrast (Us vs. Them).
Overall, I think his points to be 'Open' still holds. We still need to engage, listen and discuss the tensions brought forth by what is 'Closed'. In other words, the variables of what makes an open and closed society seem to be mutually reinforcing. But it may be beneficial to let 'Open' sustain.
Progress is iterative.
At the end of this, I think his core argument is: societies have to remain open (through open exchange, open doors, and open mind) to progress onwards. And this is a very compelling argument.
I liked his interdisciplinary approach (merging anthropology, history, psychology, philosophy economics etc). This book is so diverse in perspectives yet so focused with a solid purpose structured to support his core argument.
Also bonus points for Norberg's sneaky humour and cheeky comments between anecdotes. The book is filled with case studies, qualitative and quantitative research backing his claims without boring or overwhelming readers. He also frequently referenced female scholars - not sure if intentional or otherwise, but it is great!
Although this book is not without criticisms:
1) On power: yes humans are status conscious and status is relative, and he claims not a zero-sum. But power is linked to status. There is a zero-sum to power. I don't think he adequately touched on the relationship between status and hegenonic power. Even if culture is a mesh of stealing and borrowing of ideas, he glossed over the dynamics of power and exploitation. Is there a limit to 'Openness' that demands equitable/justifiable 'limits'? I wish he discussed more on this.
He brushed off European colonialism by projecting the existence of Eastern imperialism. He also did not acknowlegde intergenerational harm. In spite of his attempt to balance history, I still detected some eurocentric bias.
2) On gender: the Republic of Letters was a great moment in open writing and criticism, but he overlooked completely how women were excluded in that. Although he did give attention to Eastern history and civilization, I was disappointed to find yet another writer who forgets, minimized and dismissed women's contribution in history. Beyond the binary, I would have liked to know more about the role of other genders in 'Open' societies - this was a missed opportunity.
3) On capitalism: Norberg is obviously a strong defender of capitalism. But there is a number of tensions and contradictions so naturally 'liberal' in his book that is hard to dismiss. Perhaps he intended it.
I think elements under the 'Closed' section should not be dismissed entirely, or it would reinforce the homogenization he opposes under 'Open'.
Zero-sum mentality can be useful to shed light on out important criticisms of capitalism's exploitative tendencies. Similarly, the most effective arguments made on discrimination come from the (distorted) lens of "Us vs. Them", particularly on hidden institutional racism/sexism. Dismantling a system that favours a certain sex and race at the top of the social and economic hierarchy demands drawing out a contrast (Us vs. Them).
Overall, I think his points to be 'Open' still holds. We still need to engage, listen and discuss the tensions brought forth by what is 'Closed'. In other words, the variables of what makes an open and closed society seem to be mutually reinforcing. But it may be beneficial to let 'Open' sustain.
Progress is iterative.
April 11, 2021
I agree with most of this book, and definitely with its central thesis. I did unfortunately learn very little, and man, it was exhausting to read (cons: repetition)
Skimming the chapter index basically *is* the points the author is trying to make, with little more analysis depth than that.
The thesis: that open exchange (trade), doors (borders), minds (religious and speech freedoms), and societies are superior to ones that are not.
The pros:
- astoundingly deeply researched, reminding me of others I liked such as Jared Diamond or Daniel Pink.
- some cool stories in an anecdotal, populist style, like Malcom Gladwell.
- thankfully quite wide in its analysis convering not just Europe but across the Euraian continent; yet sadly never really mentioning any other cultures or continents (barely a mention of pre-invasion Americas, Oceania or Africa).
The cons:
- repetitive, boring style. The vast bulk of this book is spent in these surface-level cherry pick anecdotes from history, no little examination of anything that doesn't support the thesis. Style wise, Norberg makes one point for the whole 60 page chapter, then hammers it with repeated assertions through out the chapter that aren't particularly nuanced or add any new insight to the main point.
- such effusive cheer leading for global capitalism and "open" whatever leads to not real examination or nuance of critique, e.g. says Song dynasty was open, Ming was closed. Huge statements not too in line with historical analysis, but moves quickly on to next anecdote.
- solutions light, the actual discussion of these implications occurs on page 373 of a 383 page bible.
Actual (limp wristed, no time or disucssion of nuance here) suggestions are:
- not UBI but negative income tax for low earners
- skills re-training for unemployed
- remove economic incentives in industralised nations for property owners vs renters; "loosen planning system"
- loosen occupational liscencing, lower/remove costs to it, enable easier way for ex cons to get liscences and therefore jobs
- invest in basic stuff - non crubmling infrastructure and good schools
- have politicians live in their constituencies
- platforms for deliberative democracy, where citizens can discuss their ideas
- beware populist strongmen
- believers in openess should self-criticise less
- be a single dissenting point of view for openess when others are being closed
Skimming the chapter index basically *is* the points the author is trying to make, with little more analysis depth than that.
The thesis: that open exchange (trade), doors (borders), minds (religious and speech freedoms), and societies are superior to ones that are not.
The pros:
- astoundingly deeply researched, reminding me of others I liked such as Jared Diamond or Daniel Pink.
- some cool stories in an anecdotal, populist style, like Malcom Gladwell.
- thankfully quite wide in its analysis convering not just Europe but across the Euraian continent; yet sadly never really mentioning any other cultures or continents (barely a mention of pre-invasion Americas, Oceania or Africa).
The cons:
- repetitive, boring style. The vast bulk of this book is spent in these surface-level cherry pick anecdotes from history, no little examination of anything that doesn't support the thesis. Style wise, Norberg makes one point for the whole 60 page chapter, then hammers it with repeated assertions through out the chapter that aren't particularly nuanced or add any new insight to the main point.
- such effusive cheer leading for global capitalism and "open" whatever leads to not real examination or nuance of critique, e.g. says Song dynasty was open, Ming was closed. Huge statements not too in line with historical analysis, but moves quickly on to next anecdote.
- solutions light, the actual discussion of these implications occurs on page 373 of a 383 page bible.
Actual (limp wristed, no time or disucssion of nuance here) suggestions are:
- not UBI but negative income tax for low earners
- skills re-training for unemployed
- remove economic incentives in industralised nations for property owners vs renters; "loosen planning system"
- loosen occupational liscencing, lower/remove costs to it, enable easier way for ex cons to get liscences and therefore jobs
- invest in basic stuff - non crubmling infrastructure and good schools
- have politicians live in their constituencies
- platforms for deliberative democracy, where citizens can discuss their ideas
- beware populist strongmen
- believers in openess should self-criticise less
- be a single dissenting point of view for openess when others are being closed
March 13, 2021
I read this book thanks to Blinkist. I loved it.
Final summary
The key message in these blinks:
Human progress has always been defined by openness. The most progressive and advanced societies throughout history have embraced immigration and tolerance, traded freely with other countries, and exchanged ideas and knowledge to their advantage. It began with the Phoenicians and continued with the Greeks and Romans. During the European Dark Ages, the spirit of openness was kept alive by the Islamic world and Song dynasty in China. It was again embraced by Europe when the Industrial Revolution helped spread free trade around the world. Since human beings have instinctive reactions to seek authoritarian protection in times of crisis, there is a risk of us returning to closed-off societies. We must therefore remain vigilant in knowing that our problems can only be solved through openness.
What to read next:
Humankind, by Rutger Bregman
If you felt inspired by human history’s accomplishments through cooperation, you’re likely to find even more to enjoy in our blinks to Humankind: A Hopeful History. You’ll find more examples of how everything good that’s happened in the world has been a result of people from different walks of life coming together to do the right thing.
There’s no shortage of uncertainty in the world today, but history tells us that human beings have a strong tendency to unite in the face of such challenges and overcome adversity. We recommend heading over to our blinks for Humankind, where you’ll find some comfort in our historical triumphs.
Final summary
The key message in these blinks:
Human progress has always been defined by openness. The most progressive and advanced societies throughout history have embraced immigration and tolerance, traded freely with other countries, and exchanged ideas and knowledge to their advantage. It began with the Phoenicians and continued with the Greeks and Romans. During the European Dark Ages, the spirit of openness was kept alive by the Islamic world and Song dynasty in China. It was again embraced by Europe when the Industrial Revolution helped spread free trade around the world. Since human beings have instinctive reactions to seek authoritarian protection in times of crisis, there is a risk of us returning to closed-off societies. We must therefore remain vigilant in knowing that our problems can only be solved through openness.
What to read next:
Humankind, by Rutger Bregman
If you felt inspired by human history’s accomplishments through cooperation, you’re likely to find even more to enjoy in our blinks to Humankind: A Hopeful History. You’ll find more examples of how everything good that’s happened in the world has been a result of people from different walks of life coming together to do the right thing.
There’s no shortage of uncertainty in the world today, but history tells us that human beings have a strong tendency to unite in the face of such challenges and overcome adversity. We recommend heading over to our blinks for Humankind, where you’ll find some comfort in our historical triumphs.
February 19, 2022
Was skeptical opening this book as I feared it may be yet another "you have the moral obligation to work with others" kind of bullshit that haunts non-fiction bookshelves. Instead, this was a fascinating historical examination of the value of openness and collaboration in achieving many of the successes humanity shares today -- and the various nativist threats to them. A market capitalist champion (thank you) who nevertheless welcomes the widest possible net with respect to fostering innovation and ideas while showing how the most open trade possible is beneficial to most ("production and trade are not zero-sum"). I have problems with the inevitable "not is all lost!" final chapter, which is inevitable in these kind of books (despite all evidence pointing to the contrary), and while it's exhaustive in its examples, generalities do creep in ("We are tribalists, but also traders." - thanks). While these generalities have the inevitable Tweetable intention, there are some great lines. "We must understand that journalists, tech companies and politicians thrive on our rage."
A great book for those who distrust a good mob.
A great book for those who distrust a good mob.
September 1, 2022
I greatly enjoyed this book. As a reader who is exploring different genres at this moment in time I was grateful and a bit surprised to find this as interesting as I did. This book opens the mind of the reader to new ideas and possibilities. It shows that the evolution of humankind is deeper than what most of us believe it to be. One of the key points of this book that I enjoyed was the fact that the author took evidential stories from different places and time periods in the world. The book itself focused on how regardless of beliefs and structured civilizations the very concept of trade and how people strive for survival can go hand in hand with each other. While this book focuses on some of the positives that curiosity and collaboration that humankind used to propel forward it also sheds light into one of humankind's most driving traits: greed. Overall I recommend this book to anyone who's interested.
Read
March 13, 2021Human progress has always been defined by openness. The most progressive and advanced societies throughout history have embraced immigration and tolerance, traded freely with other countries, and exchanged ideas and knowledge to their advantage. It began with the Phoenicians and continued with the Greeks and Romans. During the European Dark Ages, the spirit of openness was kept alive by the Islamic world and Song dynasty in China. It was again embraced by Europe when the Industrial Revolution helped spread free trade around the world. Since human beings have instinctive reactions to seek authoritarian protection in times of crisis, there is a risk of us returning to closed-off societies. We must therefore remain vigilant in knowing that our problems can only be solved through openness.
September 2, 2024
I really like Norberg’s casually enthusiastic, well-orchestrated presentation. His argument for openness shows four ways that social and mental openness has driven human development throughout history. Then he shows how four main motives for closed-ness have repeatedly limited human potential. The world-ranging discussion clarifies that development is not a product of “Westernization.” It’s a product of openness. Norberg celebrates the effects of virtually all forms of collaboration. His positive bias highlights the social, intellectual, and moral benefits of free trade better than Adam Smith. For Norberg, the world’s main social and political divisions are between the opportunistically open and the defensively closed. And clearly, the open have the future.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews