Introduction
The article analyzes Ian Morris's concept of social development, which he defines as a community's ability to effectively utilize energy, organization, information technology, and military power for adaptation and dominance. Contrary to traditional narratives of Western superiority, Morris proposes a quantifiable index that allows for the comparison of different civilizations throughout history, incorporating methodological adjustments such as comparing comparable regions. The author discusses the four pillars of Morris's index, analyzing their interrelationships and impact on the historical race between East and West. Particular attention is paid to the era of artificial intelligence, which radically alters the dynamics of these indicators, posing new challenges for global development and the balance of power. A key thesis is that social development, measured by the capacity to act, does not necessarily equate to moral progress, raising fundamental questions about the future of civilization in the face of technological power and the potential for destruction.
Ian Morris: Development as the Capacity to Achieve Goals
Ian Morris defines social development as a measure of the extent to which a community can master its physical and intellectual environment to "get things done in the world." Rather than retreating into the fog of cultural incomparability, the author applies the principle of parsimony, reducing 16,000 years of history to measurable data. A key methodological challenge was the so-called Pomerantz problem—the error of comparing wealthy England with the entirety of agrarian China. Morris corrects this by comparing only civilizational "cores," allowing for a reliable assessment of the historical race between East and West.
The index is based on four pillars of power. The foundation is energy consumption—from the biological calorie limit to the power of fossil fuels. This drives urbanization; the size of the largest city in the core serves as a metric for logistical efficiency and the capacity for complex coordination. Without sufficient energy and organization, no civilization could have broken through the "agrarian ceilings" of history, which for millennia limited population growth and prosperity.
Information Processing and Military Potential
Information technology is a horizontal condition for development. Its evolution—from clay tablets and printing to electronic media—sets the ceiling for collective planning. Today, artificial intelligence creates a powerful new feedback loop: an insatiable appetite for energy (data centers) combined with an exponential growth in computing power. AI is ceasing to be just a tool, becoming an active participant in decision-making processes, which radically intensifies the dynamics of social development.
Equally important is military potential. Morris argues that the capacity to project violence is a central test of organizational efficiency. In the age of modern technology, warfare capabilities have surged, leading humanity into a phase of nuclear and algorithmic margin of error. The risk is that in algorithmic warfare, decisions are made in fractions of a second; a misconfiguration of systems could lead to an irreversible existential catastrophe, undoing millennia of progress.
Geopolitical Strategies of Dominance and the Ethics of Development
The contemporary balance of power is defined by differing AI strategies. The USA focuses on a pro-innovation paradigm and productivity growth. The European Union chooses an ethical-regulatory course (AI Act), positioning itself as a global normative arbiter. China treats AI as an instrument of strategic control, while the Gulf States invest oil profits into data centers to become new players in the global power structure. Morris suggests that these processes are leading to a Great Convergence: around 2050, the East may catch up with the West, ending two centuries of Western dominance.
However, it must be remembered that social development is not synonymous with moral progress. Morris's index measures power, not justice. To avoid the trap where technology becomes an apparatus of oppression, the domestication of technology is necessary. This requires creating normative frameworks that harness the machinery of development within the logic of public reason. Only procedural control over algorithms will preserve human agency in a world dominated by measurable power and instrumental efficiency.
Summary
The digital age, while promising unprecedented development, also reveals a paradox: the greater our ability to shape the world, the higher the risk that our own algorithms will become our executioners. Can we tame the power we have created, or will we be consumed by the machine we ourselves drive? The answer to this question will determine the future not only of development but of humanity itself.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF