I've enjoyed this guy's videos a great deal. I haven't watched this one yet, but the blog post is excellent.
It might make you wonder why people have historically been so poor. So here are a few points to think about:
1. This hut took a highly skilled polymath 102 workdays to build, using a little capital he'd previously built up (the celt.). The opportunity cost in the modern economy is about US$60 000. How long does it take you to save up US$60 000? Now, consider what kind of house you could build with US$60 000 by means of the economy, or with 102 days building with robots.
2. The vast majority of people in human history have been systematically excluded from access to both the knowledge and the material resources needed to carry out this project. If you had the knowledge, you could always build a hut like this — but the neighbors, who are organized into an effective violent force with a hierarchy of coercion, would be likely to raid you and take it away, even though most of them are low in the hierarchy and are therefore not allowed to live in a luxury house like this themselves. Most people still live like that. Now we call the people who do most of the raiding "police", and they have bulldozers.
3. And yeah, food is expensive when you have to plant it, and historically speaking, groups that have planted food can support denser populations with greater productive capital (mills, houses, tools) and more stratified social orders, all three of which make them militarily stronger, so they gradually pushed the groups that just gather it into the poorest and least fertile territories.
This seems like a terrible situation. How can we fix it?
> 2. The vast majority of people in human history have been systematically excluded from access to both the knowledge and the material resources needed to carry out this project. If you had the knowledge, you could always build a hut like this — but the neighbors, who are organized into an effective violent force with a hierarchy of coercion, would be likely to raid you and take it away, even though most of them are low in the hierarchy and are therefore not allowed to live in a luxury house like this themselves. Most people still live like that. Now we call the people who do most of the raiding "police", and they have bulldozers.
What? No, there is no need to posit systematic exclusion - keep Hanlon's Razor closer to heart. Deliberate destruction of value does happen but it's rare. At any point in history most people have to work hard to get a nice house not because that's objective fact, but because "nice" is defined by what people can afford.
> 3. And yeah, food is expensive when you have to plant it, and historically speaking, groups that have planted food can support denser populations with greater productive capital (mills, houses, tools) and more stratified social orders, all three of which make them militarily stronger, so they gradually pushed the groups that just gather it into the poorest and least fertile territories.
The most valuable resources go to those who make most efficient use of them (military strength has very little to do with it - in the long run it's all about productivity). Isn't that exactly what we want?
Deliberate destruction of value and systematic exclusion are the norm in peasant societies. If you’re a noble, you treat the peasants living on your land as chattel (even when they aren’t explicitly slaves), and assault, rape, steal, or kill with abandon. If the peasants start saving up some surplus (of food or money or whatever), you take it, because to not take it would threaten your power.
As one example, a case I know about because I’ve talked to people who were there: in rural southern Mexico, which was mainly a plantation economy up through the 70s, the casual theft/rape/murder of indigenous peasants by landowners was common even 50 years ago. But the same was/is common in rural peasant societies everywhere in the world, say, all over Europe 200 years ago (more recently in some parts), or the American South up through at least 1900.
He did it as a challenge though and didn't use any modern tools. With modern tools and knowledge it would be extremely quick, easy, and cheap.
I built a 2 story building with 4 rooms and even a cantilevered walkway for about $3500 and about 120 man hours (combined time of myself and 1 other person working on it). Probably would have been closer to 80 if I had a nail gun but I was poor at the time and didn't want to spend the money so I just used a hammer. Of course it wasn't legal but it worked well and was super sturdy. If I had to built it to code and follow all the regulations I wouldn't have even bothered and it would probably have cost me over $100,000 and taken over a year to build.
I bought a book from Home Depot on framing for about $20. It wasn't hard nor expensive to acquire the knowledge.
Buckminster Fuller proposed that homes should be built from pre-made components that can be assembled. I believe he (or maybe someone else referencing him) used the analogy if we built cars the same way we built homes, you would have to order all the parts from separate suppliers. You would have to hire an engineer to come up with the plans. Then you would have to hire workers to build it. And at several stages throughout the process you would have to pay the local government money to approve your plan and get permission to build it.
He did use modern knowledge, just not modern tools. If you're using modern tools and materials, you can build a Hexayurt. And you should!
My point wasn't that today access to knowledge is restricted or that houses today are expensive to build — quite the opposite! My point was that building a house with Stone Age tools and materials is very expensive, and that this is indicative of the causes of the general problem of pre-industrial poverty. I agree with you on that!
I'm curious how much you could ease the process by using more modern knowledge, but starting without modern tools or materials. (You'll note that the OP used modern thermodynamics to design his kiln.) For example, could you smelt iron from sand? http://youtu.be/RuCnZClWwpQ outlines an approach that's definitely workable, but it's using a bloomery furnace — could you, for example, bootstrap a micro-Bessemer furnace? How about a lathe that you can cut threaded screw fasteners on? (Or even just wooden dowels.)
FWIW Bucky's mass-produced-house dream has come to fruition, which is how I was able to live in a trailer park as a child.
It wasn't very precise. I figured that a highly skilled polymath in a modern economy can usually earn US$150k per year, and that this is a bit less than half of a working year. How much do you figure?
Your numbers sound so out-of-whack because you're assuming that only a person with the skills to earn $150k is capable of building a small stone hut in a third of a year.
And if you read the article itself, a third of the time is spent waiting for unseasonal rain to stop.
I don't think my numbers sound out-of-whack; no, I wasn't assuming that; and yes, I did read the article, in full, and my comment is informed by that. Also, I think your aggressive tone is uncalled for and frankly kind of bizarre.
It seems to me mostly fixed. Places like China and Vietnam where they used to be really poor are now pretty prosperous. Africa where it remains primitive in parts will shortly have smart phones and be able to surf Hacker News and watch Youtube how to videos themselves.
It might make you wonder why people have historically been so poor. So here are a few points to think about:
1. This hut took a highly skilled polymath 102 workdays to build, using a little capital he'd previously built up (the celt.). The opportunity cost in the modern economy is about US$60 000. How long does it take you to save up US$60 000? Now, consider what kind of house you could build with US$60 000 by means of the economy, or with 102 days building with robots.
2. The vast majority of people in human history have been systematically excluded from access to both the knowledge and the material resources needed to carry out this project. If you had the knowledge, you could always build a hut like this — but the neighbors, who are organized into an effective violent force with a hierarchy of coercion, would be likely to raid you and take it away, even though most of them are low in the hierarchy and are therefore not allowed to live in a luxury house like this themselves. Most people still live like that. Now we call the people who do most of the raiding "police", and they have bulldozers.
3. And yeah, food is expensive when you have to plant it, and historically speaking, groups that have planted food can support denser populations with greater productive capital (mills, houses, tools) and more stratified social orders, all three of which make them militarily stronger, so they gradually pushed the groups that just gather it into the poorest and least fertile territories.
This seems like a terrible situation. How can we fix it?