I'd like to see a similar graph ending in 1900, 1800, etc. How different do those graphs look to this one? (EDIT: obviously you can just block out the last column(s), but the resolution isn't that good.)<p>In other words, is there anything special about this point in time?<p>Would a log graph better show if there has been other explosive growths like the 20th and the start of the 21st centuries? Maybe I'm incredibly naive, but it seems like they've plotted exponential growth and said, "hey, it looks exponential!"
"If people do make history, as this democratic view suggests, then two people make twice as much history as one."<p>If those people are isolated, this may be true, but if they are able to communicate, interact, and cooperate, to me it follows that the whole would be greater than the sum of the parts.
It's not clear to me that you gain much understanding by comparing economic output across time in this way. A lot of "economic output" is not objective production, but just people trading amongst themselves. More people, more churn, so a higher number. But not necessarily more production or scientific discoveries or technological advances. A group of 500 people cutting each other's hair has more economic output than 50 people doing so!
Interesting chart. Can someone explain 'years lived' to me? Is this the percentage of all years all people combined to live in each respective Century?<p>Thanks.
And yet another non logarithmic graph of money.<p>I'm really surprised to see such ignorance on The Economist. People who write about money for a living should know better.