Hi! Thank you fir a great read. Can those countries survive as Kingdoms if they diversify? Control of resources, especially oil, since it is not labor intensive is very good for Monarchies, since the wealth is highly concentrated and they can "buy off" their citizens. Diversified economies don't work like that.
I can imagine as the Arab Monarchy diversifies, oil patronage won't be an effective form of government control ,as you astutely mentioned. Alternative sources of power will emerge and the Monarchy will probably reform to limitations on their powers. I bet the Gulf Monarchies are aware of that and probably hope they can still retain some power like in non oil countries monarchies like Jordan or Morocco. But whether its possible since they are much richer than those countries is a tough question to answer.
Fascinating article. While I do not believe global oil and gas consumption is going to decline significantly for many decades, it is an interesting thought experiment.
I was also struck by your observation that almost all African kingdoms collapsed after the British abolished slavery. I had not heard that before.
I was wondering if you would be interested in doing a deeper dive to answer the following questions:
1) Just how important was slavery to the African kingdoms economically both before and during the Atlantic slave trade (not just whether it existed)? Was it wealth from slave labor or was it just income from selling slaves?
2) Did the abolition of slavery by British empire cause the societies to collapse or was it just an end to monarchies? Were there other factors?
I have tried to do some personal research on the subject, but there are very few books on the topic.
But yes! I can definitely do an article on the different forms of slavery in each African Kingdom and talk about how important it is.
Another thing is, for other kingdoms like Mali, selling gold mattered more than slaves. But the Mali empire collapsed by the 15th century.
Also another point, some Kingdoms were able to withstand the shock of the abolition of the slave trade better than other Kingdoms. Like I said before, my people the Ashanti lasted until 1902. Kongo became a vassal of Portugal in the 1860s, before the Berlin Conference even occured.
1) Slavery was pretty important in most African Kingdoms except a few like the Nri Kingdom in modern day Nigeria that I mentioned earlier.
In West & Central West Africa, slaves were used domestically in agriculture, craftsmanship, and as labor for royal and elite households. The wealth of African rulers and elites often derived from controlling people, including slaves, who were essential for maintaining social and political power. Slaves were also used in inter-African trade and tribute systems, contributing to the wealth of rulers but often on a smaller scale compared to the later Atlantic slave trade.
For nuance, slaves in some African societies could rise in status, have a job, or even gain freedom.
2) As for books "How Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson has a whole chapter on how the collapse of the British slave trade destroyed West & Central West African Kingdoms.
I have some quibbles with that book, but pages 250-258 are the precise pages you need.
In general, ending slavery had a weird ironic impact on the African Kingdoms. Think of it this way, how can you get more guns, cannons, and weapons if you can't sell slaves. All your enemies could begin raiding you instead. or a civil war could erupt because you don't have the arms to protect you from rival tribe who wants more power.
> The UAE, particularly Dubai, ran out of oil in the 1990s and has since diversified into tourism, logistics, airlines, finance, and re-exporting manufactured goods. Gold trading and other strategic investments have also played a key role. The other emirates still have plenty of oil, but Dubai has diversified.
Dubai's model is largely based on low taxes. Once all the other surrounding emirates lose oil money they'll start squeezing Dubai for handouts. Dubai has already raised corporate taxes and imposed local hiring requirements (which if you met someone from the UAE it is a privatised welfare scheme).
Rich countries will also crack down on the tax havens and criminal asylum activities of the UAE once oil dies.
Progesss in solar, wind and nuclear isn't that relevant for global oil demand. 50% of global oil demand comes from road transportation. The second biggest is petrochemicals. The rest is maritime shipping and planes. Very small segment of electricity and heating demand is met via oil.
The fall in oil demand is largely driven by progress in batteries and EVs. Electricity is already much cheaper than oil as it is.
There can be displacement if coal and natural gas demand fall dramatically. Coal and gas can be used to make petrochemicals (China is using coal while America is using gas). If gas becomes cheaper it might increase the popularity of CNG/LNG for road transportation. CNG trucks are taking off in China. LNG micro gas turbines can also act as range extenders for EVs.
There's a global glut in Chinese made solar power panels. I've been wondering if this will lead to even more rapid adoption of solar power and less rapid adoption of fossil fuel generation in newly electrifying areas.
There was an article on China and solar power some years back in which the Chinese leadership expressed concern about the need for electricity without pollution. Chinese engineers suggested that solar power might become cheaper if more solar panels were being produced. They said that they could find out if this was true, but it would be expensive, thirty billion dollars. In the story, the Chinese leadership collapsed with laughter then, after picking themselves off the floor, counted out thirty billion dollars from petty cash. The rest is history.
Great read as usual and a very interesting parallel. I’d like to point out a few nuances: the African kingdoms were well-established and dominant for centuries, whereas these Arab monarchies today have only recently come into affluence. Additionally, the global landscape today is vastly different from the past. While the world back then was fractured, today's world is highly globalized, with complex interdependencies and economies.
Although slavery eventually became a commodity, it wasn’t the case before the Europeans arrived. Slavery in Africa was similar to slavery throughout history everywhere: typically involving prisoners of war or as a form of punishment. The transatlantic slave trade introduced chattel slavery on a mass scale never seen before, turning slaves into a commodity much like oil today as you have stated. In my opinion, it’s important to address this nuance.
On another note, I liked how you used the term conquest instead of colonization, if that was what was intended. Because that’s exactly what it was.
I disagree with your statement that "slavery eventually became a commodity, but it wasn’t the case before the Europeans arrived." Slavery has functioned as a commodity (which just means exchanging slaves for another good) since ancient times. For example, the Kingdom of Meroe in Sudan traded slaves for grain with Egypt, and the Ghana-Mali-Songhai empires exchanged slaves with the Tuareg and Arab-Berbers of Morocco for salt (which was needed as a food preservative in the Sahara since refrigerators didn't exist yet and it was geographically impossible for West Africans to use iceboxes like Medieval Europe) . Similarly, the Swahili Coast commoditized slaves through its extensive trade network. The Arab Sudanese also enslaved people from the South long before European involvement. In Kanem-Bornu (modern-day Chad), Africans were sold to North Africans in exchange for muskets.
There were three major slave trades in Africa where slaves were treated as commodities besides the transatlantic slave trade: the Indian Ocean trade with Arabia, Persia, Turkey & the Gujarat of modern day India, the Trans-Saharan trade with Arab-Berbers, and the Red Sea trade, where Ethiopians captured Africans and sold them to Omani and Yemeni traders.
2) Chattel slavery, where slaves are treated as property, existed in Arabia for centuries. While Arabs had different forms of slavery—such as debt bondage, servitude with opportunities for promotion, and religious-based manumission—chattel slavery was legal and widespread along with the other forms of slavery. Slaves were considered property and slavery remained legal in places like Saudi Arabia (and its predecessor, the Hejaz), Mauritania, and Yemen until the mid 1900s.
You’re right on the commodity part. I had it too simplified. At the end of the day, slavery is still slavery. I still think there is a nuance there though - in most societies, particularly the Arab society, slaves still had some rights.
The transatlantic slave trade largely erased this in their practice and I believe had a much more destructive impact on Africa compared to the others.
You mentioned, "the African Kingdoms were well-established and dominant for centuries, whereas these Arab monarchies have only recently come into affluence." You are right mostly. These African Kingdoms in general were older than Arab Kingdoms. For example, the Benin Kingdom dates back to the 11th century, and Oyo and Kongo emerged in the 14th century. The Aro-Igbo Confederacy, Ashanti, and Dahomey arose in the 17th century. Meanwhile the House of Saud, Bahrain, and Kuwait emerged in the 18th century.
However, Oman predates all of them, with its Imamate emerging in the 8th century. Oman also controlled an East African network, which included coastal Swahili cities like Mombasa, Zanzibar, and Kilwa before and after expelling the Portuguese in the late 1600s. Oman's influence extended well before oil was discovered, as it maintained control over these regions until European powers forced an end to slavery. By contrast, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain only emerged in the 18th century.
So, while you're mostly correct, it's important to note Oman's earlier prominence.
2) I mainly agree with your comment that Europeans took slaves in a scale never seen before. It's worth noting that when we compare slaveries, we really have no idea how many slaves were taken across the Arab World because they didn't document their transactions like Europeans did in the same way.
If we thought of this as querying a database separated out Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Saharan, & Indian Ocean + Red Sea trade, and if we use the lower number of 17M, then you are right the Europeans enslaved more:
Trans-Atlatnic was 12.5 (from 1490 to early 1800s)
Trans-Saharan was 8M (from time immemorial to mid /late1800s)
Indian Ocean & Red Sea 9M (from before recorded hsitory to mid/late 1800s
But if we just queried by European vs. Arab slavery it would be
12.5M for Europeans
17M for Arabs
Again we have no idea how many Arabs have trafficked Africans since this has been taking place for a super long time.
Where I agree is that the scale of European slavery was much faster than Arab slavery since Europeans achieved 70% of what we think what the Arab count was in a much shorter time frame. Also, this is assuming the 17M number is accurate...
Some sources for Arab slavery gets to numbers as high as 50M.... But we really don't know. 17M is the number African scholars like Ndiaye use though.
I don't think much the Gulf countries will be colonised if oil goes to shit. Most of the world will largely lose interest in the middle east when oil demand falls. When I was growing up in the 2000s, some dickheads threatening a refinary in Nigeria will oil prices to spike but now Libiya stopped producing 200,000 barrels and no one noticed.
Europe might keep some colonies to prevent a swarm of illegal immigrants. Same with Turkey. The current Iranian regime will fall. 50% of Iranian government revenues come from oil. The new regime will probably not care to support islamists like Hamas. The rest of the region will be a forever basketcase that's kept afloat using UN peacekeeping missions like much of central Africa is today.
Very good points in this article, specially the ones that talk about the future.
I've always thought that, without industrie and technology of quality, a country can not develop. The exceptions to this were, of course, this rich countries that export resources, like those countries mentioned in your article. The exporters countries of the past or the present that are focused on export food or minerals are not developing (their elits, in many cases, yes; that happen on this Golf countries). When a product that hold all your economy falls, you fall. That happened in the past, and I share with you the concern about this countries in the future. The oil will keep strong, but will decrease, in a future, its percentatge of the energy sources.
I think that those countries are trying to develop some industrie and technology, and also tourism. However, I don't think that they can compite with Xina, India or the US on attraction on science and technology. About the tourism, of course that will be important, but will not be able to make them big players in the region if the oil lose importance. My question is:
¿Don't you think that the main option for keep in a power position, when (or if) the oil lose importance, is to ensure that logistic corridors pass trough their territories? We can argue that Egypt has this privilege, it is depending on Suez, but still in a not enviable position. The problem of those countries, in my opinion and excluding Saudi Arabia, is that they are small and have a small population. That's open an other option: like their are so small, they can became in fiscal paradises or continue existint like a hub, or something similar.
I don't know your thoughts about this, but let me tell yo that I really enjoyed this one.
It's not that solar, wind or nuclear will make oil obsolete. It's that electrification for transportation is superior than internal combustion. EVs will steadily displace ICEs over time. This is happening very fast in China, slowly in the US and medium paced in Europe, but it will continue, with the effect of capping the global price of oil at a lower and lower level. Oil demand will continue to exist for petrochemicals (plastics and fertilizers), so the smartest first step these oil producers should take is to invest in a globally competitive petrochemical production plant. A lot of these "Vision 2030" things like Neom and The Line are setting money on fire.
I should have spelt that out clearly like you did. Yes most oil is used for transportation especially cars. EVs will displace ICEs and this will reduce global demand for oil due to less demand or ICEs, capping the price.
Most of these countries do have petrochemicals as well. Saudi Aramco is big in petrochemical and Oman makes fertilizer.
As for if they are setting money on fire, only time will tell. If all of them are chasing at the same industries, there will be some winners and losers.
This is really fascinating! I always thought that Europeans would just go to Africa, capture people, and then sell them to the Americas. But it turns out, it was actually a collusion between Europeans and African kings. And to my surprise, the British selling opium to China significantly affected the African slave trade. This is the first time I'm hearing about it, and I definitely need to look into it more, haha!
Yes, Europeans had to collude with African Kings and my tribal ancestor was one of those monarchs. Europeans couldn't access the interior of Africa before the medical revolution of the 1800s. Before that, whites would die of malaria, tsetse fly, sleeping sickness, or yellow fever. Before the medical revolution, Africa was known as "White Man's Grave".
That's why colonization & the Berlin Conference happened in the 1880s, because before, Europeans couldn't enter the interior of Africa beyond the coasts. The European slave trade from 1460s to 1820s was concentrated at coastal castles where Europeans can meet the Africans who rounded up slaves in caravans.
In the 1800s, European doctors discovered that quinine from Brazilian tree bark can be used to combat malaria. They used that quinine to make tonic water which was bitter, so they mixed tonic with gin (hence the European drink "gin & tonic").
This was such a fascinating read but was wondering. I had heard on a podcast that Africa’s population experienced essentially no growth during the Transatlantic slave trade centuries so it seems that the slave trading economies enriched a few elites and definitely did not improve the lives of the general population. The Arab monarchies (believe me I’m not a fan) have presided over large population growth as well as improved education of their population. One of the arguments is that the social services provided to the native born are too generous. I do see the case for diversification. However it appears they may be providing more financial services for middle powers in the region ie. Egypt and Turkey and the situation may not be so dire.
Initially, I believed the transatlantic slave trade caused Africa's population stagnation. However, its impact was mainly limited to coastal West and Central Africa, and Mozambique. Europeans' inability to penetrate mainland Africa due to diseases like malaria and yellow fever restricted the trade's scope.
Examining landlocked African states and East Africa, affected by the Swahili slave trade, reveals stagnant populations despite lower slave export rates. If places like Rwanda, Morocco, Egypt, Kenya & Uganada places that weren't impacted by European slavery had stagnate populations for most of human history, then slavery isn't the main factor.
If you see this population estimate: Even Morocco and Egypt stagnated around 2M and 4M for centuries until they were introduced to European industrial medical advancements in the late 19th century.
Historically, high birth and death rates characterized human populations until the 18th-19th-century epidemiological revolution in Europe. This medical breakthrough introduced:
- Germ theory
- Vaccinations
- Antibiotics
- Modern sanitation and water systems
Europe's demographic transition followed:
- Stage 1 (high birth/high death rates) to Stage 2 (high birth/low death rates) in the late 1700s/early 1800s
- Stage 3 (low birth/low death rates) by the 1960s
-Stage 4 death rates exceed birth rates which only are seeing in Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea, and other advanced places.
Today, some European countries (e.g., Italy, Germany) face low fertility rates.. like japan they are so low that deaths exceed births, requiring immigration for population growth.
Africa remained in Stage 1 until post-WW1 colonial investments in healthcare sparked a population boom, transitioning to Stage 2 around the mid 1900s. However, most African countries (except North and Southern Africa) have yet to reach Stage 3, where birth rates approach replacement levels.
"...stagnant populations despite lower slave export rates." I assume plundering people of their population could have consequences for generations in their willingness to have new children.
Very interesting article and exchange of comments. The basic comparison, of a decision to not allow slavery, and a decision to not allow petroleum, I think is difficult, however. As some have commented the world situations are very different. First of all the vastly increased human population has made most of us 'walking petroleum'; fertilizers and machines for industrial farming, plastics for food distribution, medicines and plastics for health, just to mention some. A decision to stop using petroleum is hardly conceivable even if the moral/religious reasons for it may be just as demanding. In addition to that there are vast criminal networks, maybe as a result of sanctions, making decisions impossible to apply. Zero CO2 emissions for warfare is also pretty far off.
#2 Yes, oil is used for many things, but the primary use is transportation, with nearly 45% of oil demand going to cars. Petrochemicals account for ~20%, and industrial uses (manufacturing, farming) make up about 10%.
We’re already seeing a decline in oil demand due to the rise of electric vehicles. If you look at my oil chart, inflation-adjusted oil prices peaked in 2008, just before the Great Financial Crisis, and now hover around $70. (of course part of this is also due to increased supply from America's shale revolution). Additionally, global oil demand peaked in dollar terms in 2012 and hasn't surpassed those levels since.
While I don’t expect global climate action among the G20 to drastically reduce oil demand, technological advancements—like improvements in the Duck curve—and China’s increased use of solar, wind, and nuclear are replacing energy traditionally provided by oil for electricity, industrial uses, and desalination. China's oil demand peaked in dollar terms in the mid 2010s.
That being said, natural gas demand is still rising and imports of gas have risen each year. But as long as oil prices are low, the Gulf states are now running lower current account surpluses than they used to... Sometimes they run deficits now.
I think zero emissions is impossible, but I do think low oil prices is an existential issue for the Gulf States, which is why they have all these Vision 2030/2040 plans to diversify.
According to Gave China now has commodities in huge store. If prices go up China doesn't buy, until they go down again, and I think you are right 'prices' rather than 'decisions' may be making the impact now.
It’s difficult to definitively say if slavery affected the willingness to have children. I lean towards it not having a major impact, and here’s why (and I'll provide a counter as well):
Argument A: Limited Impact of Slavery on Population Growth
Most slaves sent to Europeans were war captives or criminals, not usually the general population. While some kingdoms, like the Ewe, were raided heavily, others, like my own Ashanti empire, grew stronger due to more weapons. African empires, including the Ashanti, encouraged large families to defend against rival empires. However, high childbirth mortality was common across all pre-modern societies.
Argument B: Large Families Were Common in Pre-modern Societies
As an Ashanti myself, I can attest that large families were typical. My grandparents had 12 children, and their grandparents had similar numbers. Large families were a cultural norm across all pre-modern societies, not just in Africa, because children were essential for farm labor and old-age care. This need persisted regardless of slavery.
Slavery didn’t start with Europeans. Before the Ashanti empire, the Bonoman region sold slaves to Tuaregs and North Africans. While the speed of the European trade was faster, the Arab slave trade was much longer and it didn’t change the basic pre-modern need for many children.
Even in regions heavily involved in the transatlantic slave trade, like Nigeria (with Arochukwu, Benin, and Oyo), populations remained larger than in unaffected European slave trade areas like Kenya and Tanzania. According to UN estimates, despite millions of Nigerians being taken as slaves, Nigeria still had a larger population than Tanzania and Kenya combined in the 1800s. They even do a "slave population decrease correction" in the data. Similarly, Congo, which lost many slaves, had a higher population than Kenya and Tanzania at the early 1800s (even before King Leopold entered in the late 1880s and murdered Congolese). It is only now that Tanzania and Kenya combined have a larger population than Congo.
Counterargument: East Africa's Higher Modern Population
One possible counterpoint is that East Africa, which experienced less impact from the European slave trade, now has a larger population than West or Central Africa (if you exclude Nigeria and Congo). This could be attributed to the smaller scale of the Swahili slave trade in East Africa.
If I compare Kenya to Ghana, Tanzania to Ivory Coast, Uganda to Togo. These East african places which experienced longer but slower scale, Swahili Arab trade had greater populations than these Coastal West African states which cold to Europeans.
I don't think Islam explains much of big families in East Africa.
1 - most of East Africa is now mostly Christian (Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique). The exceptions in East Africa would be Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros, & Sudan. Most African countries have big families because most of the country is still unindustrialized.
2- Muslims do have higher birth rates on average compared to Western/Confucius societies, so the spirit of your question is correct. But when you filter the data more, you'll notice more middle/high income Muslim countries have below replacement birth rates (less than 2.1 kids) while poorer, rural, and less developed countries still have high birthrates..
Muslim countries like Turkey, Bahrain, Malaysia, Qatar, UAE, Brunei, Iran, Tunisia, Azerbaijan now have below replacement birth rates. (less than 2.1)
Countries like Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Djibouti, Morocco, Oman, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Indonesia are about to be below replacement by the end of this decade if not by late 2030s . These countries are at 2.9s, 2.8s,, and some are at 2.1.
Muslim countries like Niger, Chad, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Mauritania,, Senegal, Comoros,, Yemen, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan have high birthrates, like 3 kids plus. Somalia is at 6 kids per woman. Afghanistan is 4.8.
The usual form of birth control is hunger. Women need a certain level of body fat to menstruate. There have been some folk medicine mechanisms for birth control, but they've never been adopted widely. It wasn't until 18th century France that a society began using birth control at scale. There were technical methods like condoms, and people adopted alternate sexual practices like mutual masturbation, oral sex and so on. France got a GDP per capita bump and a reputation for being oh so sexy.
A slave trade can affect population. I was reading "Thundersticks" about the introduction of firearms to the tribes of North America. In the north, guns were traded for pelts. In the south, they were traded for slaves. The slavers were all too effective at reducing the local population. The shortage of local slaves led the south started importing African slaves at scale. The base population in that part of world was much lower and had been devastated by disease from the Old World.
The world doesn't have to stop using petroleum. It just has to use less of it compared to available resources to change its importance and pricing dynamics. People still sell firewood (for campsites) out where I live, but very few people worry about stacking a cord or two for the winter the way they used to a century ago. If the US and Europe shift to electric vehicles, even if only halfway, the cut in demand will further weaken pricing power.
Saudi Arabia went through an internal crisis a decade or two ago when we weak oil prices started pressing on the demands of a generous welfare state. A lot of what happened is opaque, but the current ruler recognized the threat and made dramatic changes to the society. It's still a monarchy but one undergoing social and economic transition.
If you mean that UAE gives bailout loans to Egypt and that Turkey borrows from Saudi Arabia that's because the Gulf States have massive current account surpluses and they are capital rich from selling oil & gas for all these years.
But if oil & gas demand dies (and for oil it is... inflation adjusted prices used to be $200 in 2024 dollars now they are $70), so will their current accounts. This is why they have all these modernization plans to diversify. UAE is doing the best job so far.
Hi! Thank you fir a great read. Can those countries survive as Kingdoms if they diversify? Control of resources, especially oil, since it is not labor intensive is very good for Monarchies, since the wealth is highly concentrated and they can "buy off" their citizens. Diversified economies don't work like that.
Very astute comment!
I can imagine as the Arab Monarchy diversifies, oil patronage won't be an effective form of government control ,as you astutely mentioned. Alternative sources of power will emerge and the Monarchy will probably reform to limitations on their powers. I bet the Gulf Monarchies are aware of that and probably hope they can still retain some power like in non oil countries monarchies like Jordan or Morocco. But whether its possible since they are much richer than those countries is a tough question to answer.
Fascinating article. While I do not believe global oil and gas consumption is going to decline significantly for many decades, it is an interesting thought experiment.
I was also struck by your observation that almost all African kingdoms collapsed after the British abolished slavery. I had not heard that before.
I was wondering if you would be interested in doing a deeper dive to answer the following questions:
1) Just how important was slavery to the African kingdoms economically both before and during the Atlantic slave trade (not just whether it existed)? Was it wealth from slave labor or was it just income from selling slaves?
2) Did the abolition of slavery by British empire cause the societies to collapse or was it just an end to monarchies? Were there other factors?
I have tried to do some personal research on the subject, but there are very few books on the topic.
But yes! I can definitely do an article on the different forms of slavery in each African Kingdom and talk about how important it is.
Another thing is, for other kingdoms like Mali, selling gold mattered more than slaves. But the Mali empire collapsed by the 15th century.
Also another point, some Kingdoms were able to withstand the shock of the abolition of the slave trade better than other Kingdoms. Like I said before, my people the Ashanti lasted until 1902. Kongo became a vassal of Portugal in the 1860s, before the Berlin Conference even occured.
Thanks Michael,
1) Slavery was pretty important in most African Kingdoms except a few like the Nri Kingdom in modern day Nigeria that I mentioned earlier.
In West & Central West Africa, slaves were used domestically in agriculture, craftsmanship, and as labor for royal and elite households. The wealth of African rulers and elites often derived from controlling people, including slaves, who were essential for maintaining social and political power. Slaves were also used in inter-African trade and tribute systems, contributing to the wealth of rulers but often on a smaller scale compared to the later Atlantic slave trade.
For nuance, slaves in some African societies could rise in status, have a job, or even gain freedom.
2) As for books "How Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson has a whole chapter on how the collapse of the British slave trade destroyed West & Central West African Kingdoms.
I have some quibbles with that book, but pages 250-258 are the precise pages you need.
In general, ending slavery had a weird ironic impact on the African Kingdoms. Think of it this way, how can you get more guns, cannons, and weapons if you can't sell slaves. All your enemies could begin raiding you instead. or a civil war could erupt because you don't have the arms to protect you from rival tribe who wants more power.
> The UAE, particularly Dubai, ran out of oil in the 1990s and has since diversified into tourism, logistics, airlines, finance, and re-exporting manufactured goods. Gold trading and other strategic investments have also played a key role. The other emirates still have plenty of oil, but Dubai has diversified.
Dubai's model is largely based on low taxes. Once all the other surrounding emirates lose oil money they'll start squeezing Dubai for handouts. Dubai has already raised corporate taxes and imposed local hiring requirements (which if you met someone from the UAE it is a privatised welfare scheme).
Rich countries will also crack down on the tax havens and criminal asylum activities of the UAE once oil dies.
Progesss in solar, wind and nuclear isn't that relevant for global oil demand. 50% of global oil demand comes from road transportation. The second biggest is petrochemicals. The rest is maritime shipping and planes. Very small segment of electricity and heating demand is met via oil.
The fall in oil demand is largely driven by progress in batteries and EVs. Electricity is already much cheaper than oil as it is.
There can be displacement if coal and natural gas demand fall dramatically. Coal and gas can be used to make petrochemicals (China is using coal while America is using gas). If gas becomes cheaper it might increase the popularity of CNG/LNG for road transportation. CNG trucks are taking off in China. LNG micro gas turbines can also act as range extenders for EVs.
There's a global glut in Chinese made solar power panels. I've been wondering if this will lead to even more rapid adoption of solar power and less rapid adoption of fossil fuel generation in newly electrifying areas.
There was an article on China and solar power some years back in which the Chinese leadership expressed concern about the need for electricity without pollution. Chinese engineers suggested that solar power might become cheaper if more solar panels were being produced. They said that they could find out if this was true, but it would be expensive, thirty billion dollars. In the story, the Chinese leadership collapsed with laughter then, after picking themselves off the floor, counted out thirty billion dollars from petty cash. The rest is history.
Regarding: “ Electricity is already much cheaper than oil as it is.”
The are huge geographical variations in the cost of both, so you really can’t make a statement like that.
Great read as usual and a very interesting parallel. I’d like to point out a few nuances: the African kingdoms were well-established and dominant for centuries, whereas these Arab monarchies today have only recently come into affluence. Additionally, the global landscape today is vastly different from the past. While the world back then was fractured, today's world is highly globalized, with complex interdependencies and economies.
Although slavery eventually became a commodity, it wasn’t the case before the Europeans arrived. Slavery in Africa was similar to slavery throughout history everywhere: typically involving prisoners of war or as a form of punishment. The transatlantic slave trade introduced chattel slavery on a mass scale never seen before, turning slaves into a commodity much like oil today as you have stated. In my opinion, it’s important to address this nuance.
On another note, I liked how you used the term conquest instead of colonization, if that was what was intended. Because that’s exactly what it was.
Where I Disagree:
I disagree with your statement that "slavery eventually became a commodity, but it wasn’t the case before the Europeans arrived." Slavery has functioned as a commodity (which just means exchanging slaves for another good) since ancient times. For example, the Kingdom of Meroe in Sudan traded slaves for grain with Egypt, and the Ghana-Mali-Songhai empires exchanged slaves with the Tuareg and Arab-Berbers of Morocco for salt (which was needed as a food preservative in the Sahara since refrigerators didn't exist yet and it was geographically impossible for West Africans to use iceboxes like Medieval Europe) . Similarly, the Swahili Coast commoditized slaves through its extensive trade network. The Arab Sudanese also enslaved people from the South long before European involvement. In Kanem-Bornu (modern-day Chad), Africans were sold to North Africans in exchange for muskets.
There were three major slave trades in Africa where slaves were treated as commodities besides the transatlantic slave trade: the Indian Ocean trade with Arabia, Persia, Turkey & the Gujarat of modern day India, the Trans-Saharan trade with Arab-Berbers, and the Red Sea trade, where Ethiopians captured Africans and sold them to Omani and Yemeni traders.
2) Chattel slavery, where slaves are treated as property, existed in Arabia for centuries. While Arabs had different forms of slavery—such as debt bondage, servitude with opportunities for promotion, and religious-based manumission—chattel slavery was legal and widespread along with the other forms of slavery. Slaves were considered property and slavery remained legal in places like Saudi Arabia (and its predecessor, the Hejaz), Mauritania, and Yemen until the mid 1900s.
To learn more about the Ghana-Mali-Songhai trade:
https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/archive-files3/david_c._conrad_empires_of_medieval_west_africabook4me.org_.pdf
Ancient trade between Egypt & Sudan:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/frd/frdcstdy/su/sudancountrystud00berry/sudancountrystud00berry.pdf
You’re right on the commodity part. I had it too simplified. At the end of the day, slavery is still slavery. I still think there is a nuance there though - in most societies, particularly the Arab society, slaves still had some rights.
The transatlantic slave trade largely erased this in their practice and I believe had a much more destructive impact on Africa compared to the others.
Thank you for the cogent response!
Where it gets murky:
You mentioned, "the African Kingdoms were well-established and dominant for centuries, whereas these Arab monarchies have only recently come into affluence." You are right mostly. These African Kingdoms in general were older than Arab Kingdoms. For example, the Benin Kingdom dates back to the 11th century, and Oyo and Kongo emerged in the 14th century. The Aro-Igbo Confederacy, Ashanti, and Dahomey arose in the 17th century. Meanwhile the House of Saud, Bahrain, and Kuwait emerged in the 18th century.
However, Oman predates all of them, with its Imamate emerging in the 8th century. Oman also controlled an East African network, which included coastal Swahili cities like Mombasa, Zanzibar, and Kilwa before and after expelling the Portuguese in the late 1600s. Oman's influence extended well before oil was discovered, as it maintained control over these regions until European powers forced an end to slavery. By contrast, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain only emerged in the 18th century.
So, while you're mostly correct, it's important to note Oman's earlier prominence.
2) I mainly agree with your comment that Europeans took slaves in a scale never seen before. It's worth noting that when we compare slaveries, we really have no idea how many slaves were taken across the Arab World because they didn't document their transactions like Europeans did in the same way.
If we thought of this as querying a database separated out Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Saharan, & Indian Ocean + Red Sea trade, and if we use the lower number of 17M, then you are right the Europeans enslaved more:
Trans-Atlatnic was 12.5 (from 1490 to early 1800s)
Trans-Saharan was 8M (from time immemorial to mid /late1800s)
Indian Ocean & Red Sea 9M (from before recorded hsitory to mid/late 1800s
But if we just queried by European vs. Arab slavery it would be
12.5M for Europeans
17M for Arabs
Again we have no idea how many Arabs have trafficked Africans since this has been taking place for a super long time.
Where I agree is that the scale of European slavery was much faster than Arab slavery since Europeans achieved 70% of what we think what the Arab count was in a much shorter time frame. Also, this is assuming the 17M number is accurate...
Some sources for Arab slavery gets to numbers as high as 50M.... But we really don't know. 17M is the number African scholars like Ndiaye use though.
https://www.dw.com/en/east-africas-forgotten-slave-trade/a-50126759
https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1624_story_of_africa/page54.shtml
Hey! Yes, its I agree its not an exact parallel, but I think its general enough that its an interesting comparison.
There are some nuances that I agree, semi-agree, and disagree with and I'll just split it in a few separate comments.
Where I agree:
1) You are correct that the global landscape is way more globalized now in the 21st century than it was back then.
2) You are correct that Europeans used Africans as chattel slavery (slaves as property) on a mass scale - 12.5M
3) Most of these African Kingdoms are older than these Arab monarchies
4) Slavery differs across areas.
I don't think much the Gulf countries will be colonised if oil goes to shit. Most of the world will largely lose interest in the middle east when oil demand falls. When I was growing up in the 2000s, some dickheads threatening a refinary in Nigeria will oil prices to spike but now Libiya stopped producing 200,000 barrels and no one noticed.
Europe might keep some colonies to prevent a swarm of illegal immigrants. Same with Turkey. The current Iranian regime will fall. 50% of Iranian government revenues come from oil. The new regime will probably not care to support islamists like Hamas. The rest of the region will be a forever basketcase that's kept afloat using UN peacekeeping missions like much of central Africa is today.
Very good points in this article, specially the ones that talk about the future.
I've always thought that, without industrie and technology of quality, a country can not develop. The exceptions to this were, of course, this rich countries that export resources, like those countries mentioned in your article. The exporters countries of the past or the present that are focused on export food or minerals are not developing (their elits, in many cases, yes; that happen on this Golf countries). When a product that hold all your economy falls, you fall. That happened in the past, and I share with you the concern about this countries in the future. The oil will keep strong, but will decrease, in a future, its percentatge of the energy sources.
I think that those countries are trying to develop some industrie and technology, and also tourism. However, I don't think that they can compite with Xina, India or the US on attraction on science and technology. About the tourism, of course that will be important, but will not be able to make them big players in the region if the oil lose importance. My question is:
¿Don't you think that the main option for keep in a power position, when (or if) the oil lose importance, is to ensure that logistic corridors pass trough their territories? We can argue that Egypt has this privilege, it is depending on Suez, but still in a not enviable position. The problem of those countries, in my opinion and excluding Saudi Arabia, is that they are small and have a small population. That's open an other option: like their are so small, they can became in fiscal paradises or continue existint like a hub, or something similar.
I don't know your thoughts about this, but let me tell yo that I really enjoyed this one.
It's not that solar, wind or nuclear will make oil obsolete. It's that electrification for transportation is superior than internal combustion. EVs will steadily displace ICEs over time. This is happening very fast in China, slowly in the US and medium paced in Europe, but it will continue, with the effect of capping the global price of oil at a lower and lower level. Oil demand will continue to exist for petrochemicals (plastics and fertilizers), so the smartest first step these oil producers should take is to invest in a globally competitive petrochemical production plant. A lot of these "Vision 2030" things like Neom and The Line are setting money on fire.
I should have spelt that out clearly like you did. Yes most oil is used for transportation especially cars. EVs will displace ICEs and this will reduce global demand for oil due to less demand or ICEs, capping the price.
Most of these countries do have petrochemicals as well. Saudi Aramco is big in petrochemical and Oman makes fertilizer.
As for if they are setting money on fire, only time will tell. If all of them are chasing at the same industries, there will be some winners and losers.
You can make plastics and fertiliser using coal and natural gas. These products won't give the Arabs the pricing power they have now.
This is really fascinating! I always thought that Europeans would just go to Africa, capture people, and then sell them to the Americas. But it turns out, it was actually a collusion between Europeans and African kings. And to my surprise, the British selling opium to China significantly affected the African slave trade. This is the first time I'm hearing about it, and I definitely need to look into it more, haha!
Haha, you are lucky you found me.
Yes, Europeans had to collude with African Kings and my tribal ancestor was one of those monarchs. Europeans couldn't access the interior of Africa before the medical revolution of the 1800s. Before that, whites would die of malaria, tsetse fly, sleeping sickness, or yellow fever. Before the medical revolution, Africa was known as "White Man's Grave".
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/11generic1.shtml
That's why colonization & the Berlin Conference happened in the 1880s, because before, Europeans couldn't enter the interior of Africa beyond the coasts. The European slave trade from 1460s to 1820s was concentrated at coastal castles where Europeans can meet the Africans who rounded up slaves in caravans.
In the 1800s, European doctors discovered that quinine from Brazilian tree bark can be used to combat malaria. They used that quinine to make tonic water which was bitter, so they mixed tonic with gin (hence the European drink "gin & tonic").
Source about quinine:
https://hekint.org/2019/05/22/quinine-and-the-cinchona-plant-gain-or-bane-for-africa/
“The gin and tonic has saved more Englishmen’s lives and minds than all doctors in the Empire.” -- Winston Churchill
This was such a fascinating read but was wondering. I had heard on a podcast that Africa’s population experienced essentially no growth during the Transatlantic slave trade centuries so it seems that the slave trading economies enriched a few elites and definitely did not improve the lives of the general population. The Arab monarchies (believe me I’m not a fan) have presided over large population growth as well as improved education of their population. One of the arguments is that the social services provided to the native born are too generous. I do see the case for diversification. However it appears they may be providing more financial services for middle powers in the region ie. Egypt and Turkey and the situation may not be so dire.
Initially, I believed the transatlantic slave trade caused Africa's population stagnation. However, its impact was mainly limited to coastal West and Central Africa, and Mozambique. Europeans' inability to penetrate mainland Africa due to diseases like malaria and yellow fever restricted the trade's scope.
Examining landlocked African states and East Africa, affected by the Swahili slave trade, reveals stagnant populations despite lower slave export rates. If places like Rwanda, Morocco, Egypt, Kenya & Uganada places that weren't impacted by European slavery had stagnate populations for most of human history, then slavery isn't the main factor.
If you see this population estimate: Even Morocco and Egypt stagnated around 2M and 4M for centuries until they were introduced to European industrial medical advancements in the late 19th century.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population
Historically, high birth and death rates characterized human populations until the 18th-19th-century epidemiological revolution in Europe. This medical breakthrough introduced:
- Germ theory
- Vaccinations
- Antibiotics
- Modern sanitation and water systems
Europe's demographic transition followed:
- Stage 1 (high birth/high death rates) to Stage 2 (high birth/low death rates) in the late 1700s/early 1800s
- Stage 3 (low birth/low death rates) by the 1960s
-Stage 4 death rates exceed birth rates which only are seeing in Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea, and other advanced places.
Today, some European countries (e.g., Italy, Germany) face low fertility rates.. like japan they are so low that deaths exceed births, requiring immigration for population growth.
Africa remained in Stage 1 until post-WW1 colonial investments in healthcare sparked a population boom, transitioning to Stage 2 around the mid 1900s. However, most African countries (except North and Southern Africa) have yet to reach Stage 3, where birth rates approach replacement levels.
"...stagnant populations despite lower slave export rates." I assume plundering people of their population could have consequences for generations in their willingness to have new children.
Very interesting article and exchange of comments. The basic comparison, of a decision to not allow slavery, and a decision to not allow petroleum, I think is difficult, however. As some have commented the world situations are very different. First of all the vastly increased human population has made most of us 'walking petroleum'; fertilizers and machines for industrial farming, plastics for food distribution, medicines and plastics for health, just to mention some. A decision to stop using petroleum is hardly conceivable even if the moral/religious reasons for it may be just as demanding. In addition to that there are vast criminal networks, maybe as a result of sanctions, making decisions impossible to apply. Zero CO2 emissions for warfare is also pretty far off.
#2 Yes, oil is used for many things, but the primary use is transportation, with nearly 45% of oil demand going to cars. Petrochemicals account for ~20%, and industrial uses (manufacturing, farming) make up about 10%.
We’re already seeing a decline in oil demand due to the rise of electric vehicles. If you look at my oil chart, inflation-adjusted oil prices peaked in 2008, just before the Great Financial Crisis, and now hover around $70. (of course part of this is also due to increased supply from America's shale revolution). Additionally, global oil demand peaked in dollar terms in 2012 and hasn't surpassed those levels since.
While I don’t expect global climate action among the G20 to drastically reduce oil demand, technological advancements—like improvements in the Duck curve—and China’s increased use of solar, wind, and nuclear are replacing energy traditionally provided by oil for electricity, industrial uses, and desalination. China's oil demand peaked in dollar terms in the mid 2010s.
That being said, natural gas demand is still rising and imports of gas have risen each year. But as long as oil prices are low, the Gulf states are now running lower current account surpluses than they used to... Sometimes they run deficits now.
I think zero emissions is impossible, but I do think low oil prices is an existential issue for the Gulf States, which is why they have all these Vision 2030/2040 plans to diversify.
According to Gave China now has commodities in huge store. If prices go up China doesn't buy, until they go down again, and I think you are right 'prices' rather than 'decisions' may be making the impact now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFr_Zg6LLMI
thanks for the vid! I'll give my thoughts after I watch it!
Hi Olof,
Good to see your comments.
It’s difficult to definitively say if slavery affected the willingness to have children. I lean towards it not having a major impact, and here’s why (and I'll provide a counter as well):
Argument A: Limited Impact of Slavery on Population Growth
Most slaves sent to Europeans were war captives or criminals, not usually the general population. While some kingdoms, like the Ewe, were raided heavily, others, like my own Ashanti empire, grew stronger due to more weapons. African empires, including the Ashanti, encouraged large families to defend against rival empires. However, high childbirth mortality was common across all pre-modern societies.
Argument B: Large Families Were Common in Pre-modern Societies
As an Ashanti myself, I can attest that large families were typical. My grandparents had 12 children, and their grandparents had similar numbers. Large families were a cultural norm across all pre-modern societies, not just in Africa, because children were essential for farm labor and old-age care. This need persisted regardless of slavery.
Slavery didn’t start with Europeans. Before the Ashanti empire, the Bonoman region sold slaves to Tuaregs and North Africans. While the speed of the European trade was faster, the Arab slave trade was much longer and it didn’t change the basic pre-modern need for many children.
Even in regions heavily involved in the transatlantic slave trade, like Nigeria (with Arochukwu, Benin, and Oyo), populations remained larger than in unaffected European slave trade areas like Kenya and Tanzania. According to UN estimates, despite millions of Nigerians being taken as slaves, Nigeria still had a larger population than Tanzania and Kenya combined in the 1800s. They even do a "slave population decrease correction" in the data. Similarly, Congo, which lost many slaves, had a higher population than Kenya and Tanzania at the early 1800s (even before King Leopold entered in the late 1880s and murdered Congolese). It is only now that Tanzania and Kenya combined have a larger population than Congo.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population?time=1600..1859&country=GHA~CIV~KEN~TZA~NGA~COD
Counterargument: East Africa's Higher Modern Population
One possible counterpoint is that East Africa, which experienced less impact from the European slave trade, now has a larger population than West or Central Africa (if you exclude Nigeria and Congo). This could be attributed to the smaller scale of the Swahili slave trade in East Africa.
If I compare Kenya to Ghana, Tanzania to Ivory Coast, Uganda to Togo. These East african places which experienced longer but slower scale, Swahili Arab trade had greater populations than these Coastal West African states which cold to Europeans.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population?time=1600..1859&country=GHA~KEN~TZA~CIV~UGA~TGO
I am supposing from the experience of Systemic Constellations, and the traces of trauma passing on through generations.
Could the influence of Islam also explain the continuation of the old pattern with big families in East Africa?
I don't think Islam explains much of big families in East Africa.
1 - most of East Africa is now mostly Christian (Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique). The exceptions in East Africa would be Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros, & Sudan. Most African countries have big families because most of the country is still unindustrialized.
2- Muslims do have higher birth rates on average compared to Western/Confucius societies, so the spirit of your question is correct. But when you filter the data more, you'll notice more middle/high income Muslim countries have below replacement birth rates (less than 2.1 kids) while poorer, rural, and less developed countries still have high birthrates..
Muslim countries like Turkey, Bahrain, Malaysia, Qatar, UAE, Brunei, Iran, Tunisia, Azerbaijan now have below replacement birth rates. (less than 2.1)
Countries like Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Djibouti, Morocco, Oman, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Indonesia are about to be below replacement by the end of this decade if not by late 2030s . These countries are at 2.9s, 2.8s,, and some are at 2.1.
Muslim countries like Niger, Chad, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Mauritania,, Senegal, Comoros,, Yemen, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan have high birthrates, like 3 kids plus. Somalia is at 6 kids per woman. Afghanistan is 4.8.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un
The usual form of birth control is hunger. Women need a certain level of body fat to menstruate. There have been some folk medicine mechanisms for birth control, but they've never been adopted widely. It wasn't until 18th century France that a society began using birth control at scale. There were technical methods like condoms, and people adopted alternate sexual practices like mutual masturbation, oral sex and so on. France got a GDP per capita bump and a reputation for being oh so sexy.
A slave trade can affect population. I was reading "Thundersticks" about the introduction of firearms to the tribes of North America. In the north, guns were traded for pelts. In the south, they were traded for slaves. The slavers were all too effective at reducing the local population. The shortage of local slaves led the south started importing African slaves at scale. The base population in that part of world was much lower and had been devastated by disease from the Old World.
The world doesn't have to stop using petroleum. It just has to use less of it compared to available resources to change its importance and pricing dynamics. People still sell firewood (for campsites) out where I live, but very few people worry about stacking a cord or two for the winter the way they used to a century ago. If the US and Europe shift to electric vehicles, even if only halfway, the cut in demand will further weaken pricing power.
Saudi Arabia went through an internal crisis a decade or two ago when we weak oil prices started pressing on the demands of a generous welfare state. A lot of what happened is opaque, but the current ruler recognized the threat and made dramatic changes to the society. It's still a monarchy but one undergoing social and economic transition.
If you mean that UAE gives bailout loans to Egypt and that Turkey borrows from Saudi Arabia that's because the Gulf States have massive current account surpluses and they are capital rich from selling oil & gas for all these years.
But if oil & gas demand dies (and for oil it is... inflation adjusted prices used to be $200 in 2024 dollars now they are $70), so will their current accounts. This is why they have all these modernization plans to diversify. UAE is doing the best job so far.