Development of Countries

[Stan]

Ever wonder why some countries seem to have developed more that others?

Take England, for an example, a little island "way up there" controlled a huge part of the world, other bigger countries with more people and resources were ruled by England.

Many sociologist have credited the Protestant Work Ethic for this.

One of my theories, and there are holes in this, is the further you get away from the equator the more people realizes time marches on. ie the various seasons.

Thoughts?

[David Koot]

The origin and growth of the British empire is an intriguing story. As for the Protestant ethic . . . interesting thought. I thought that British mercantilism had its origins at an earlier time than when the Puritans gained influence. Queen Elizabeth I was no Puritan. I don't remember any of the great sea adventurers of her time being Puritan. Nor do I recall the great merchants being Puritan. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the Puritans were in a bit of a revolt against much of the status quo.

I had attributed the origin of the BE to English love of exploration as well as the obsession with finding a route to the 'riches' of 'cathay' and other such imaginary places--greed, if you please; and, later, the need for controlled markets for British industry as well as for raw materials from the colonies. And, the old saying comes to mind, 'the British empire happened in a fit of absence of mind.' In summary, I would suggest that the BE developed as the natural result of greed, mercantile influences and market forces, rather than being tied to religious influences.

[David Koot]

Come to think of it, English trade with the Continent was thriving before the Saxon invasion. During the time of Saxon England, the navy was developed (I forget which king.) After the Norman conquest, one of the Plantagenets really built up the navy. (Someone help me on this: was it Henry II or Henry III? My memory is a bit foggy on that.) The Tudors certainly did. By the time of Henry VIII if I recall correctly, British mercantilism was thriving. And, of course, under Elizabeth Regina it rather took off.

[bevin]

This is the topic of an excellent boook

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond

A lot of it is, indeed, geography.

Some of it is cultural innovation - often driven by geography

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Ahhh, I checked Wikipedia. The Tudor, Henry VII, developed the navy, and trade was thriving under Henry VIII. However, the article fails to mention the ORIGIN of the navy in Saxon times, and the efforts of earlier kings to build it up. Oh well, thats Wikipedia for you! But I believe it may have been Athelstan, the Saxon king who extended his dominion over all of England. He may have been the founder of the English navy.

[Dr. Shane]

I think we do find those from cold environments are historically harder working than those from warmer climates. However in present day, the nations that are governed by the rule of law with little corruption are the ones that are more prosperous.

Compare the wealth between North Korea and South Korea or between Hong Kong and China. What is the difference?

[David Koot]

Hmmmm . . . well, actually, Tacitus recorded observations of the German tribes in the 1st c. C.E.--to wit, that the men were lazy, that they would go on a hunt, then have a huge feast and sleep for three days afterwards, and spend their time in fighting and hunting! Something of a far cry from Germany at present. I doubt that climate is that significant.

A good case study of the proposition about the effect of religious beliefs would be Germany. Specifically, a study of the productivity of the German states after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) What are the productivity figures for the Lutheran states as compared with the Catholic states during the next three hundred years?

How about that for a jumping off place?

Dave

[David Koot]

Hmmmmm . . . no takers?

[Bravus]

I think the work ethic is being taken as an unexamined positive value, and development as an unexamined positive thing.

Yep, it makes sense that, for example, if the growing season is only a few months and you have to grow, harvest and preserve enough during that time to keep you alive during a long winter, you're going to be more industrious (at least for those few months, though averaged out across the year who knows) than someone who lives in a tropical or subtropical climate where food grows all year 'round. Doesn't make one morally superior to the other.

I'd argue that much of the suffering among people in the tropical and subtropical climates now didn't exist before colonisation from Europe, and that being 'undeveloped' led to fulfilling modes of life in many of these areas. (Yes, some also practiced cannibalism and had extremely violent ways of life - I'm no proponent of the 'noble savage'.)

Increased birth rates and lowered infant mortality rates along with colonsation-caused major population movements have contributed to the suffering in Africa, for example.

It's not about blaming colonization or Europeans for the suffering, it's just about dismantling the myth that 'undeveloped' means 'low quality of life'. And I know Stan didn't intend it in starting the thread, but there are definitely unexamined values in most discussions of this topic that need some exploration.

[lazarus]

I think we do find those from cold environments are historically harder working than those from warmer climates. However in present day, the nations that are governed by the rule of law with little corruption are the ones that are more prosperous.

Are we talking about the last few hundreds of years or are we talking about real history.

I think if you check it out many nations of the world were "developed" at one time of the other. Didn't Egyptians have an empire. I guess it may have been cold in Egypt then. How about the Babylonians? I think King Solomon had a bit of cash.

It seems as if every nation had their chance at world domination and therfore were at that time the most developed. The sun has now set on the BE. Its America's turn I guess.

If the world were to last another 300 years I guess we would see a different configuration in terms of development possibly due war, climate change, the availability of natural resources and the abilities of the people in their respective countries.

[bevin]

Quote:

It's not about blaming colonization or Europeans for the suffering, it's just about dismantling the myth that 'undeveloped' means 'low quality of life'. And I know Stan didn't intend it in starting the thread, but there are definitely unexamined values in most discussions of this topic that need some exploration.

"Triumph of the Nomads: A History of Aboriginal Australia" by Geoffrey Blainey

Available from Amazon, which has the following as one of its submitted reviews

Quote:

Though infant mortality and incidence of violent death in war and quarrels was higher than in Europe, in the year 1800 it was probably true that the average Aborigine had as good a standard of living as the average European---or better(color by Bevin). They may not have had houses, but they felt no need for them in most parts of the country. They were nomads who didn't have sheep or cattle, but who wandered their beloved country in conjunction with natural seasons of plenty. Their diet was better than that enjoyed by many European peasants or factory workers, they had more leisure time, working fewer hours to get what they needed to live (and did not rely on child labor) and a richer cultural life in which all participated. The way in which the Aborigines conquered their environment and managed to wrest from it such a standard of living is indeed nothing less than a triumph.

[lazarus]

Hey Bravus

I wasn't trying to negate your point.

I was simply expressing the idea, (which you said more elegantly) that its misleading to look at the development of countries in the light of the last few hundred years. The notion that cooler climbs produce harder workers brushes aside a good bit of world history and is a bit loaded.

[David Koot]

I hade been thinking the same thing as Lazarus. About Egypt, as a stellar example. A very hot climate, yet a very industrious people. By contrast, the Germans were lazy and slovenly, (except when it came to fighting) according to Tacitus' observations, yet they lived in a cold climate. Another example may some of the Central American civilizations in pre-Columbian times.

I should think that cultural influences have greater impact than climate.

Dave

[bevin]

Diamond's book points out that climate is not the important factor. It is the size of the ecological zones.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Addressign Stan's original thought . . . Calvinism and its progeny do teach that worldly success is evidence of the election. Max Weber described the impact of that belief on a particular segment of Anglo-American society. However, the belief is not held within other branches of the Reformation. Another factor, however, could be more cultural in nature--the hardworking Scandinavian and German farmers in the American Midwest, who were staunch Lutherans. The question would be to what extent, if any, their religious beliefs affected their work ethic. My impression has been that the work ethic has its roots in other sources than religion. Am I wrong about that?

[Dottie]

David--

In one of my daughter's school books, published by a church college (not SDA), it was stated as fact that people in countries with Christianity as their basis did better and had more than countries without. They offered no cause for that conclusion. It was a seventh-grade history book.