Most interesting paragraph in the excellent article
>>Remember — until the mid-seventeenth century, most people in England were either slightly — or very — drunk all of the time. Drink London’s fetid river water at your own peril; most people wisely favoured watered-down ale or beer (“small beer”). The arrival of coffee, then, triggered a dawn of sobriety that laid the foundations for truly spectacular economic growth in the decades that followed as people thought clearly for the first time. The stock exchange, insurance industry, and auctioneering: all burst into life in 17th-century coffeehouses — in Jonathan’s, Lloyd’s, and Garraway’s — spawning the credit, security, and markets that facilitated the dramatic expansion of Britain’s network of global trade in Asia, Africa and America.
In particular, the assertions about the causes and economic effects of that dawn of sobriety are extremely bold in the absence of any formal study. Plausible maybe, but the article doesn't defend them with data (what may exist).
And this may be a stretch, but I do wonder if the popularity (and necessity) of coffeshop discussion was due in part to the crippling British copyright system depriving people of access to books, which started in the beginning of the 18th century:
EDIT: And before the copyright system, the crippling monopoly over publishing enjoyed by the Stationers Company, which took hold in the early 15th century. My point being that Britain had long endured a stifling of written discourse, possibly encouraging verbal discourse in its stead.
I don't know if a real study needs to be done to find out a population can be more creative/productive when they go from slightly (or very) drunk to being hyper caffeinated.
The effect of alcohol consumption in GDP is not a trivial thing to study. AFAIK, research has shown only slight affects on GDP. Take for example this study on "The societal cost of alcohol consumption" in Sweden, which showed only around 1% change in GDP:
I rather suspect that correlating caffeine to GDP would be even more difficult. Either way, the article doesn't even try to support these assertions factually. Which is OK -- it's a well-written article on an interesting subject. It's just good to keep in mind that some of the material is highly speculative.
Not just GDP but also nation-altering events such as warfare. I recommend "A Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman if you haven't already read it, as it's a wonderful book (medieval history, but it still applies here).
Tuchman mentions our modern bewilderment at the insanely rash and reactionary decisions that were often taken by nobility in those times - declarations of war, terrible combat strategy and so forth, and which affected so many lives (mostly those of the poor). She goes on to speculate that these decisions make sense in the context of near-permanent drunkenness.
And [IIRC she also notes that] many of them were hotheaded teenagers / twenty-somethings. With the life expectancy of those days one had to grow up fast. And yet many did not.
This study is looking at modern recreational alcohol consumption. It's perfectly believable that its effect would be minor.
This an entirely different scenario from entirely replacing water with alcohol and being at least slightly drunk all the time. Not "all the time" as in "every weekend" but every hour of the day, including work.
Yes, but this is potentially counterbalanced by the increased dependence of modern work on clear heads. It's quite possible that the more manual, unmechanized work of pre-industrial societies was more immune to the effects of alcohol than even menial jobs today. It's also possible that modern technology raises the epidemiological cost of drunkenness in some ways; they didn't, for example, have too many drunk-driving deaths before there were cars.
Like I said, it's a complex area of research. If you think you're able to draw any meaningful conclusions based on your own intuition, then I think you're being a tad simplistic.
Really? Not a Ballmer curve believer? Never heard anyone suggest that add/adhd/being unable to focus/caffeine jitters can decrease productivity? Seems like exactly the kind of assumption without evidence that would warrant studying.
As the article makes clear, the coffeehouse scene exploded in popularity well before the end of the 17th century. By 1675 the king is already trying (and failing) to shut them down.
[Propagandist] apologias and wondrous claims of travel-writers aside, more compelling evidence suggests that far from co-existing in perfect harmony on the fireside bench, people in coffeehouses sat in relentless judgement of one another.
So, the Hacker News of its day. Quid novi? A set of stupid, formal, ancient prigs, horrid periwig bores, every way unfit to herd with such bloods as us.
Reading about Newton (who lived around that same time), he seems like a prototypical science geek, same as many geeks today. Robert Hooke too.
It seems like this particular type of individual is usually involved in creative work that pushes boundaries. But this is no surprise for anyone hanging around tech powerhouses like the Silicon Valley.
Newton's career is a splendid example of the truth being stranger than fiction - when he moved onto the Royal Mint not only did he introduce significant innovations (milled edges on coins) but also went undercover to gather evidence against counterfeiters and then also ran the prosections of accused in court:
I'd love to see a TV adaptation of the Baroque Cycle keeping Newton as one of the main characters (there must be material there for a 100 or so shows).
> It may have been in response to the constant pressure from the society (and himself) that the experimentalist Hooke performed plenty of experiments on his own body. Many of his adventures in self-experimentation were dangerous; almost all of them were pretty disgusting. At various times, he medicated himself with botanical purgatives, botanical emetics, mercury, steel filings, tobacco, absinthe, and mineral water so foul that he found ammonium chloride preferable to it. Hooke obsessed over getting a good night's sleep and clearing out his lethargic digestive system. He often found his home remedies violently effective. He authored a recipe for turning pee into phosphorus salts, including an intermediate step of letting the effluvia sit "till it putrify and breed Worms."
For a group that has no photo or civil names, and where people ever mention their gender or race, I have the feeling HN is getting a lot of criticisms. But then again, saying that is missing the point that people who argue about those things tend to define discrimination as not mentioning those, while they generally base their career and speaking platform on their gender and race.
I was immediately reminded of The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson. arethuza also mentions this series elsewhere in this comment section. A few of scenes from the books take place in London Coffeehouses, which are described much like the linked article.
Read these books! It's a bit of a time investment, but IMO it's better than Game of Thrones!
Neal Stephenson's attention to historical detail is extraordinary.
I thought exactly the same thing. Those books are very educational, as well as entertaining. The main/only problem is it is sometimes hard to know where the fantasy starts and the facts stop. I suspect the non-titular/non-noble characters (Shaftoes, the slave galley crew that become Jack's boon companions). Plus there is the whole island of Qwghlm. Also fortunately it has its own Wiki http://baroquecycle.wikia.com/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle_Wiki.
Another fascinating detail is how the king tried to shut them down because of the political impact they were having. A "war on drugs" that never got off the ground!
The historical context actually makes this story more interesting. Prior to the 18th century, sugar was available in Europe, but was quite expensive. Certainly too expensive to be used in coffee. However, by the early 18th century, the New World colonies of the West Indies, both British and French, were producing sugar relatively cheaply. At one point, sugar was a huge European commodity and the demand for it actually drove quite a bit of the slave trade to provide the labor that made it possible. Similarly, coffee had previously been available, but had not spread all over Europe.
However, the British and Dutch East India companies were able to acquire larger quantities of coffee cheaper (likely through slavery, at least in Indonesia) than the product available through the old overland "Spice Route" from Arabia through Egypt to Venice. ransportation and handling costs would have been exhorbitant! Interesting point: South Africa was established to help with the Dutch transport to/from Indonesia and India in the course of the trade.
Lost world? Not so. Look a little harder. Try visiting the Department of Coffee and Social Affairs, Fernandez and Wells, Speakeasy, or one of many other boutique coffee shops serving excellent coffee. Okay, they're outnumbered by Starbucks, Nero and Costa, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
Modern day coffee shops are not really the same though.
Apparently there was a parallel to the whole "people sitting on their laptops" issue way back in those days. Originally, there were long benches and people would be forced to sit together and drink and chat, but there was a pressure for the more snobby patrons to sit alone or apart and later individual tables were added.
The issue isn't the coffee shops. It's people. After college, it becomes socially unacceptable to initiate conversation with a person you don't know. People are not only stratified vertically by socioeconomic status, but horizontally by industry- and subculture-specific senses of superiority (academics vs. "techies" vs. bankers).
A coffee house would have to work at it to recreate the old dynamic: hold board game tournaments, have common viewing of intelligent television (when it's on, which is rarely). But that would conflict with the business goal (except in college towns) of getting people in and out reasonably quickly so you can afford rent on the space. The truth is that most people don't want to meet new people. They want to work on their laptops and talk to people they already know.
"After college, it becomes socially unacceptable to initiate conversation with a person you don't know."
I don't think this is actually true. My girlfriend will chat up basically anyone she meets - she'll talk to the guy making her burrito in Spanish, crack jokes with the checkout cashier, introduce my slam-poet friend to her CFO's teenage daughter who wants to get involved in the arts scene, cold-call alumni from her school asking for career advice, respond to cold-calls from people asking for career advice, and randomly strike up a conversation with a stranger on a street corner. Occasionally it leads to some awkwardness, like on Halloween when she asked the guy behind us if he was Sheldon Cooper for Halloween (he wasn't wearing a costume). But most people are very glad to be treated like a human being and talked to directly.
I think that what happens is there's a selection effect at work. People don't try to maintain a conversation with other people who don't want to be talked to - that's rude. And so if you believe that most people don't want to be talked to, you'll give off "I don't intend to talk" signals, which will ensure that most people don't try to talk to you.
My last girlfriend was like that. Two things: 1) she was very attractive; 2) she was outrageously gregarious.
I can accomplish a fractional amount of her socialization if I happen to be feeling supremely gregarious (not very often), but for the more averagely social human being, it can be challenging to initiate conversation with people you don't know. I do think the built environments of the adult, professional world are less conducive for this.
On this point though, I always marvel at the park picnic scene: often you can find very large groups of ethnic or seemingly blue collar people holding court at the picnic tables at parks. My own personal demographic isn't as frequently represented in that scene. Go ahead, guess.
My wife is like this. We have an agreement where she goes to more of the children's birthday parties. She loves to socialize with strangers, me not so much.
Visited a couple times already and the atmosphere is notably different from your run-of-the-mill establishment. It feels nothing like a coffee house though. Feels more like you're visiting your slightly quirky but absolutely delightful Russian aunty who has a penchant for antiquity.
Have to say I like the idea a lot. It seems kind of inexpensive too. Even a little too inexpensive to be lucrative?
From what I read 6p/min, they shouldn't serve beer. ;)
3p a minute is the minimum suggested donation. £1.80 an hour is very reasonable. Ziferblat has found great success with this model in Russia. Here's hoping it sticks in the West.
>>Remember — until the mid-seventeenth century, most people in England were either slightly — or very — drunk all of the time. Drink London’s fetid river water at your own peril; most people wisely favoured watered-down ale or beer (“small beer”). The arrival of coffee, then, triggered a dawn of sobriety that laid the foundations for truly spectacular economic growth in the decades that followed as people thought clearly for the first time. The stock exchange, insurance industry, and auctioneering: all burst into life in 17th-century coffeehouses — in Jonathan’s, Lloyd’s, and Garraway’s — spawning the credit, security, and markets that facilitated the dramatic expansion of Britain’s network of global trade in Asia, Africa and America.