Ship of Fools: Is the answer stark and right?

Thread: Is the answer stark and right? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030533

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

It is obvious that world civilization is now utterly different to any previous ones ( I think that the figure is thought to be around sixteen).

When I say to my Granddaughter that it is because of what Jesus taught and did 2000 years ago, she scoffs and says it is all down to the Greeks, Renaissance, enlightenment etc.

Though it is knowledge and technology which has changed our world so much, the accomplishments, I believe, are due to the social environment brought about by Christianity (in the long term). Who is right? Or was it that "at the right time God sent his son"?

I have read Tom Wright's book " Simply Good News" and Rodney Stark's "The Rise of Christianity" and they seem to concur although Tom Wright is very ambiguous.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

What about the fact that civilisations had been running along fairly successfully for many thousands of years before the Christian era? This was the case in many different parts of the world too, quite detached from the Middle East.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
It is obvious that world civilization is now utterly different to any previous ones (I think that the figure is thought to be around sixteen).

As you note, the main difference between our current mechanized and industrial civilization and prior non-mechanized, non-industrial civilizations is that it's industrialized and mechanized. (To put it another way, we're a lot further along the Kardashev scale than any prior civilization.) Given the very long period between the origins of Christianity and our current civilization, the fact that Christianity was the product of a different civilization (Mediterranean antiquity), and lack of any obvious pro-industrialization Christian dogmas the answer is in no way 'stark'. It may be 'right' (though I don't think so) but the case is opaque enough that it should be argued explicitly.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You're not going to be able to tease out what effects are from Christianity and what effects are from the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, etc. etc. not only because it's too complex, but because large elements of those ages were brought about by Christianity. That's true even of the very elements that may seem most anti-Christian. And since we are presently standing neck deep in a culture flooded by Judaeo-Christian influence, even our own attempts to disentangle historic threads are going to be subject to bias in both directions (one over-attributes to Christianity, one bends over backward to avoid attributing anything to Christianity).

I fear this is rather like trying to recover a jar of India ink poured into a full bathtub.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I don't understand the reference to the social environment brought about by Christianity. There are plenty of non-Christians in the world, and they have over the centuries made plenty of contributions to communications, technology, social theory, etc. More than that: Christianity is adept at adapting to local culture and is by no means the same in all places. As for the idea that we have a more advanced civilization: certainly we are much closer to species suicide than any before us.

I think the original post can be characterized as a Euro-centric view.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You're not going to be able to tease out what effects are from Christianity and what effects are from the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, etc. etc. not only because it's too complex, but because large elements of those ages were brought about by Christianity.

And to make it even harder, if Christianity had not survived the 1st century we don't what might have taken its place (in a spiritual or temporal sense). God may shape our ends but "religions" are cultural and human creations. Such institutions seem to have always arisen and no doubt always will. So some of the forces at work might have been present even without Christianity.

[ 04. October 2016, 17:30: Message edited by: que sais-je ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Here is a blog post by economist Brad DeLong arguing that the gunpowder empire is the likeliest form of current civilization (in economic and organizational terms) absent the industrial revolution. DeLong argued the reverse case the following day, threshing out the major points on each side. The arguments seem to hinge on whether the industrial revolution was "a lucky, discontinuous break" created by a confluence of unusual circumstances unlikely to have been duplicated in another time and place.

No definitive answers, but a lot of ground covered. Also no real mention of Christianity.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Though it is knowledge and technology which has changed our world so much, the accomplishments, I believe, are due to the social environment brought about by Christianity (in the long term). Who is right? Or was it that "at the right time God sent his son"?

I concur. It is one of those. Probably both at the same time.

I would take it a step further and say that, even though Europeans have caused little other than trouble by sallying forth and occupying the rest of the world, there have been some benefits.

The best evidence, in my view, is the best seller status of the Bible. No other written material comes close. Sooner or later this will result in a better world. [Axe murder]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

A Chinese sociological study from several years ago apparently found that what created West's preeminence was Christianity.

Whether the Chinese also studied the influence of the Greeks, Romans and the Englightment (as mentioned by shadeson's granddaughter) is unknown to me, but it could be argued that the Englightenment is itself a fruit of Christianity, particulary the sensibility that each individual must test the Spirit for himself, and follow the divine light as he sees it, rather than submitting to blindly to a priestly caste, or more broadly to undeserving authority figures. For some this idea would lead to new Christian movements; for others, to an atheistic vision of re-creating the world.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
What about the fact that civilisations had been running along fairly successfully for many thousands of years before the Christian era?

This is what originally puzzled me. None got even so far as a useful steam engine. I think that although technology growth is exponential it can easily be snuffed out by wars and bad rulers. The teachings of Jesus brought about a social change which allowed the exponent to continue

quote:
Originally posted by HCH
I don't understand the reference to the social environment brought about by Christianity. There are plenty of non-Christians in the world, and they have over the centuries made plenty of contributions to communications, technology, social theory, etc.

I think you are referring to todays state of affairs - brought about by social change.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A Chinese sociological study from several years ago apparently found that what created West's preeminence was Christianity.

If we're to believe the link you've provided, it describes not "a Chinese sociological study" but "a speech about China by Dr. William Jeynes of the Witherspoon Institute". (The Witherspoon Institute also sponsored the infamous Regnerus study.) No link was provided to any kind of study, by Jeynes or anyone else, where we could assess the veracity of his claims.

The biggest problem with arguments like this is they mostly depend on cherry-picking a very narrow set of examples. For instance, if Christianity is required for economic prosperity, why is non-Christian Japan (GDP $34,871 per capita) more prosperous than Christian Romania (GDP $9,157 per capita)? Or why was Christian Europe much less economically prosperous than the Muslim middle east or imperial China in the Middle Ages?

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I'm no specialist in world history, but if we look at the world pre-Christianity we seem to see a gradual increase in technology and science as time goes on... old stone age to new stone age, new stone age to bronze age, bronze age to iron age. It's gradual and there are some areas of the world that got stuck at one point or another for whatever reason, but over the world in general this seems to hold true. So since that happened pre-Christian era, I see no reason why it shouldn't have continued happening with or without Christianity.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
This is what originally puzzled me. None got even so far as a useful steam engine. I think that although technology growth is exponential it can easily be snuffed out by wars and bad rulers. The teachings of Jesus brought about a social change which allowed the exponent to continue.

This doesn't seem to jibe with actual history. Christians don't seem to be any particularly less prone to war or being bad rulers than adherents of any other faith. To take an example cited by Svitlana2, the Enlightenment seems to have spawned some of the most brutal religiously-motivated warfare seen in Europe up to that point.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr
I'm no specialist in world history, but if we look at the world pre-Christianity we seem to see a gradual increase in technology and science as time goes on

This did not seem to apply to the Chinese civilization which existed for a period comparable to the C.E.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos
Christians don't seem to be any particularly less prone to war or being bad rulers than adherents of any other faith

And yet Christians survived the wars and rulers in one form or another and continued to modify society.

It is the fact that those of other faiths or none are all showing degrees of co-operative compassion not existing in the past that convinces me that the root cause is Christianity.

I say all this because I have come to believe that when Jesus spoke of his followers being 'salt', 'yeast' or even his own death as being a seed, he was talking about the effects we see today.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I'm no specialist in world history, but if we look at the world pre-Christianity we seem to see a gradual increase in technology and science as time goes on... old stone age to new stone age, new stone age to bronze age, bronze age to iron age. It's gradual and there are some areas of the world that got stuck at one point or another for whatever reason, but over the world in general this seems to hold true.

I believe appearances of being stuck are usually deceptive.
The question is whether the advances in understanding of the world made in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the technological advances they made possible amount to just the same progress undergoing a sudden shift, or whether they are a unique set of events that requires explanation.
If the former, then one would have expected to see an industrial revolution happen in China or India, which have older traditions of social organisation and in which conditions look at least as promising.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Croesos

You're correct that it wasn't a link to the study itself. I could only find second or third hand references to it, having vaguely remembered reading about it some years ago.

As for cherry picking, I imagine that all attempts to assign causes to very broad and varied historical phenomena across a huge range of cultures are likely to involve some of that. There are always going to be places and cultures that represent our theory in some way, as well as others that don't fit.

I'm reminded of the Protestant work ethic, described as a significant factor in the development of capitalism. No doubt one could cherry pick the best examples as proof the theory; or reveal examples of laggardly, indifferent or ineffective Protestant cultures and environments that appear to undermine the whole idea.

[ 04. October 2016, 21:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr
I'm no specialist in world history, but if we look at the world pre-Christianity we seem to see a gradual increase in technology and science as time goes on
This did not seem to apply to the Chinese civilization which existed for a period comparable to the C.E.

How so? The last two thousand years of Chinese civilization have seen quite a bit of domestic technological development, including the magnetic compass (3rd century), gunpowder (9th century), and moveable type printing (10th century), just to name a few. That certainly looks like "a gradual increase in technology and science as time goes on". Most historians would rate China as more technologically advanced than Europe from about 100CE to 1500CE.

Some have speculated that this was due to differing levels of information technology. Prior to 100CE the typical writing material in what is now China was bamboo, which is heavy and cumbersome, while European/Mediterranean scholars were writing on papyrus or parchment. China invented paper and was able to shoot ahead of Europe (technologically speaking) until Gutenberg. (Gutenberg's real breakthrough was not just his moveable-type press, which the Chinese had already played around with, but his technique for molding new type blocks and his development of an oil-based ink, which transformed the moveable-type press from curiosity to world-changer.)

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The problem ISTM isn't just that there are so many variables, it's also that we've got a sample size of one, i.e. one Industrial Revolution that spread. If we had independent revolutions in Britain, Ethiopia and Kongo at a time when those places were Christian but had little contact with each other, then we could draw stronger conclusions.

A while ago we had a poster who'd written a book demonstrating all the ways in which Christianity had driven scientific progress. I don't think anything he said was factually wrong but ISTM such arguments are more valuable for refuting atheists who think Christianity is necessarily anti science than for proving historical cause and effect.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, some of the arguments about Christianity facilitating science are very interesting. For example, I recall the idea that the split between primary and secondary causes, much discussed in the medieval period, helped scientific development. As far as I remember, the idea that God directly causes things was scorned by some philosophers at that time, so there was the motivation to ignore God and just examine, for example, the tides as a physical phenomenon. A bit later, Bacon said, use the senses.

However, as others have said, it's a big stretch to go from that to saying that Christianity facilitates X or Y. It's a guess, and a wish fulfillment. Ironically, it was by setting religion to one side, that science was fertilized, with the growth of various methods of observation.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The problem ISTM isn't just that there are so many variables, it's also that we've got a sample size of one, i.e. one Industrial Revolution that spread.

So true.

I love the way that Jared Diamond brings together many of these variables in his 1997 best-seller "Guns, Germs and Steel".

Clearly there are many factors at work. And since it is a sample size of one it is hard to know how it would have come out if some of those factors were missing.

Still, it would be foolish to discount the significance of a culture's dominant philosophy. Whether Christianity is the driving force or just one of many factors is not something we can easily work out.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ironically, it was by setting religion to one side, that science was fertilized, with the growth of various methods of observation.

Another way of looking at this is that it was not so much a setting aside of religion, but a more sophisticated understanding of the proper role of religion.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A traditional quote in such discussions:

"In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power; we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass."

Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus et plantis. (c. 1260?).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ironically, it was by setting religion to one side, that science was fertilized, with the growth of various methods of observation.
Another way of looking at this is that it was not so much a setting aside of religion, but a more sophisticated understanding of the proper role of religion.

I think interpretations of this have been very varied. At one extreme, you can argue that there was a split between religious faith and empirical observation, and this split led in the end, to Protestantism, and then atheism! Of course, as with the idea that Christianity helped science, difficult to demonstrate really.

At the other extreme, there are a clutch of books today arguing that so far from there being a Dark Ages, the medieval period was rich in scientific discovery, and this was fertilized by Christianity. For example, James Hannam's books, e.g. 'God's Philosophers'.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos
The last two thousand years of Chinese civilization have seen quite a bit of domestic technological development, including the magnetic compass (3rd century), gunpowder (9th century), and moveable type printing (10th century), just to name a few. That certainly looks like "a gradual increase in technology and science as time goes on".

I think you mean chinese technology up to the C.E. A very long time. Subsequently there has definitely been a great leap forward!

Why didn't Confucius or Buddha (500BCE), say, have the effect on technology that Christianity had after the C.E.?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos
The last two thousand years of Chinese civilization have seen quite a bit of domestic technological development, including the magnetic compass (3rd century), gunpowder (9th century), and moveable type printing (10th century), just to name a few. That certainly looks like "a gradual increase in technology and science as time goes on".
I think you mean chinese technology up to the C.E. A very long time. Subsequently there has definitely been a great leap forward!

I think you're either using C.E. to stand for something different than it usually means in historical discussions, or don't really understand this whole before/during distinction. 900CE (for example) occurred during the Common Era, hence the name. Clarification please?

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Why didn't Confucius or Buddha (500BCE), say, have the effect on technology that Christianity had after the C.E.?

How do you know they didn't? All the Chinese technological innovations I listed (plus a whole bunch of others I omitted for the sake of brevity) took place after the birth of Christ, and yet they were all invented by non-Christians despite the supposed advantage you claim Christians have at this sort of thing. If Christianity is such a spur for technological innovations, why were the Chinese so technologically superior to the Christian parts of the world for the first fifteen centuries of Christianity's existence?

[ 05. October 2016, 17:34: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
Originally by Freddy
Whether Christianity is the driving force or just one of many factors is not something we can easily work out.

I don't think Christianity is the driving force. Technology now has a life of its own and unless there is Nuclear Armageddon or some nastier form of the Zika virus turning us all into morons I think it is unstoppable.

quote:
Originally by Crœsos
I think you're either using C.E. to stand for something different......

Sorry, my mis-read. I didn't notice the tech quoted was in the C.E. However it doesn't detract from my point that despite Confucius and Budha, the following two thousand years did not achieve much

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:

quote:
Originally by Crœsos
I think you're either using C.E. to stand for something different......
Sorry, my mis-read. I didn't notice the tech quoted was in the C.E. However it doesn't detract from my point that despite Confucius and Budha, the following two thousand years did not achieve much

You keep saying that, yet it keeps not being true. Maybe you should repeat it a few more times and it will become true!

Or maybe you can explain why things like gunpowder or the magnetic compass or paper or the moveable-type printing press* or any of a number of other technological innovations don't count as "achiev[ing] much", and also why Christians contemporary with these innovations couldn't even reach that level of achievement? Something wrong with the innovation-causing Jesus-ray projector for the first fifteen or eighteen centuries?

--------------------
*Only counts if you're a European Christian. If you're a non-European non-Christian, the printing press isn't really that much of an achievement.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Just a word about technology. I have seen the construction of a canoe from birch bark, sewn together with split spruce roots, and sealed with balsam fir pitch. I've seen other examples of very sophisticated understanding of materials, animal habits and the like. Civilization has advanced the materials technology is made from, it has nothing to do with intellectual ability to make technology, nothing to do with elegance, discovery and just about everything else about it.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

I think my O.P. was not well worded.

I do believe that the changed social order facilitates the advance of technology. But there is a more important point.

"the accomplishments" are not only technological but include a changed moral behaviour. This seems to be "utterly different". Society itself has changed and even the church has been dragged kicking and screaming into a world which in many ways teaches Christianity a new theology.
I feel that Jesus started this change in a way that Confucius, Buddha, Judaism or Muhammad could never have done.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

There's definitely got to be a point where it's silly to say, to go for the ridiculous:
Because Turing/Flower's/Zuse invented the 1Hz computer and Gates/Jobs invented the 1GHz PC, that if you'd swapped their birth dates we'd have had the Apple for WW2, or that G/J were a billion times more scientific*.
Or it was because of G/J's more business minded skills that...

And some of the argument clearly is that sort of logic at the extreme. Especially when it ignores how things interplay.
For example the surprise at the lack of the steam engine. Which really needs reliable gas valves, airtight containers that can deal with high pressue (so not rivets or pottery), cheap wood (or coal) to burn, airtight pipes of sufficient length to be useful.

*especially as we can track where they got their ideas from (PARC and Xerox).

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I think my O.P. was not well worded.

I do believe that the changed social order facilitates the advance of technology. But there is a more important point.

"the accomplishments" are not only technological but include a changed moral behaviour. This seems to be "utterly different". Society itself has changed and even the church has been dragged kicking and screaming into a world which in many ways teaches Christianity a new theology.
I feel that Jesus started this change in a way that Confucius, Buddha, Judaism or Muhammad could never have done.

Society is always changing, so unless you want to be more specific your premise is still "not well worded".

You could also address why the unspecified "accomplishments" you speak of seem to have taken so long. I'm guessing that you're not touting the empire of Charlemagne as "utterly different" than all previous societies, and yet it was a Christian culture.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Of course, we are forgetting Muslims, who also didn't invent anything that benefited civilisation.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Sorry, my mis-read. I didn't notice the tech quoted was in the C.E. However it doesn't detract from my point that despite Confucius and Budha, the following two thousand years did not achieve much

One book I always wanted is the 10 part 27 volume Science and Civilisation in China There was no shortage of invention. Confucius created a moral order that was part of empire that spanned a continent.Many of the ideas; printing, oil wells, and the creation of large armies with large numbers of mass produced crossbows were later adapted by Christian civilization. Your claim that modern technical civilization depends on Christianity is a biased view. You might say that it depended on plagues or seafaring.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
Originally by Crœsos
"Jesus-ray projector"

I must admit, that phrase kept in my head. It dawned on me that this is another way of describing "even the Spirit of Truth - whom the world cannot receive" as Jesus says.

quote:
Originally by Jay-Emm
For example the surprise at the lack of the steam engine. Which really needs reliable gas valves, airtight containers that can deal with high pressue (so not rivets or pottery), cheap wood (or coal) to burn, airtight pipes of sufficient length to be useful.

As I said much earlier, technology growth is exponential. Advances rely on previous knowledge being disseminated, not snuffed out by wars or disease. Or held back by the dictates of a rigid religion.

quote:
Originally by Palimpsest
You might say that it (technical civilization) depended on plagues

I think that is exactly the point that sociologist Rodney Stark makes in his book. Christianity grew partly because when plagues occured, christians didn't run for the hills but looked after the sick - helping some to recover and indirectly changing society.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There's a basic problem with all these ideas about X determined Y, or X influenced Y, which is, how are you going to demonstrate this?

It's one thing to assert a connection, but then to go on and demonstrate it, is something else. I suppose it works if it matches your own wishes.

Reminds me of the joke, that as piracy increased in the last few years, so did ice-cream sales.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Karl Popper attempted to address the issue of historical causality. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Karl Popper attempted to address the issue of historical causality. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Yes, there is a large injection of skepticism there; for example, Popper refers to the 'dream of prophecy', that humans would be able to one day know the future.

He also points out that if we can predict eclipses, that doesn't mean that we can predict revolutions. Exit Marxism.

However, that doesn't make history impossible. And it's OK to make speculations about the causes of various things, it's just that the speculations have their own fashions.

I remember when the English Civil War was laid at the feet of the rising gentry, but then others argued that the gentry was in fact declining! And a third position that the civil war had nothing to do with either.

Somebody made the point about variables - how on earth do we compute them in relation to historical or social events?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I remember the shock of finding that history studies could come to such different conclusions. I recall derailing an essay question in college American history by trying to explain that it seemed that we could come to few real conclusions. My teacher had mercy on me and just gave me a C.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I remember the shock of finding that history studies could come to such different conclusions. I recall derailing an essay question in college American history by trying to explain that it seemed that we could come to few real conclusions. My teacher had mercy on me and just gave me a C.

It reminds me of art history. For 300 years, Caravaggio was out of favour, but now he is full-on beef flavour with steroids.

Similarly, with historical explanations. I think the word we are looking for here is subjectivity. If Christians want to say that everything from rock 'n' roll to astronomy was invigorated by their beliefs, go for it.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

My academic background is in history. I remember readings on the Popper-Hempel theory for a graduate seminar. When all is said and done, as historians, we are putting forward our best guess of what happened, how and why.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Somewhere in the thing called Christianity, which is inextricably entwined with Western hegemony only challenged by Turkics in the C5th and C14th-C16th, the latter part of a thousand years of struggle with Islam which resulted in waning and waxing of Middle Eastern and North African colonies, with the rise of Russian hegemony in East Eurasia, briefly threatened by the C13th Mongols, similarly entwined for a thousand years, in all that violence, there MUST have been some actual Christianity going on.

As now.

Difficult to see any I know.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Karl Popper attempted to address the issue of historical causality. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Yes, there is a large injection of skepticism there; for example, Popper refers to the 'dream of prophecy', that humans would be able to one day know the future.

He also points out that if we can predict eclipses, that doesn't mean that we can predict revolutions. Exit Marxism.

However, that doesn't make history impossible. And it's OK to make speculations about the causes of various things, it's just that the speculations have their own fashions.

That was one of the advantages of the two DeLong posts I linked to earlier. The "predictions" of the alternative history are fairly large-scale and broad brush, and yet rely on concrete things we can measure or reasonably estimate (global population and GDP).

DeLong is riffing off of two rival historical economists. Richard Allen essentially argues that break from the Malthusian past allowed by the industrial revolution was a lucky accident contingent upon several factors coming together in time and space and unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere/elsewhen. Michael Kremer, on the other hand, analyzes long-term population and income data for as much of human history as is re-creatable and concludes innovation seems linked to population (two heads are better than one) and the Malthusian population dynamics of the pre-industrial world would have eventually led to a society innovative enough to industrialize.

DeLong maths this out using Kremer's population/resource data (read the whole thing for details) and summarizes thus:

quote:
In this scenario [a world projecting forward the population and resource trends from pre-industrial times], today would see a world with 3 billion people -- instead of our 7 billion plus. It would see a world with average GDP per capita of $1,000/year -- rather than our $10,000/year. It would see a world in which real global GDP was growing at 2%/year rather than our 4%/year. And it would see a world in which the slowing of population growth was not yet in train, rather than well advanced.

However, this scenario does not look like a permanent or a semi-permanent "Gunpowder Empire" world. This looks like a world that is 100 to 150 years behind our own in the transition to Modern Economic Growth. The aggregate patterns thus suggest that perhaps Bob Allen is wrong: the British Industrial Revolution and its hitting the sweet spot with its coal-steam-iron-machinery technological sweetspot saved humanity perhaps 150 years along its road, but not much more.

At least, that is the conclusion that you reach if you take the association between global populations and global economic growth back before the British Industrial Revolution seriously, as a causal relationship.

Now nobody is making you do this. You can argue that while two heads may be twice as good as one, a billion heads is not twice as good as 500 million, either for the reason of duplication of effort, for the reason that a human population in the billions produces large-scale resource degradation, or for both reasons. You can thus argue that the rate of technological innovation and population growth was about to asymptote -- that a no-British Industrial Revolution scenario has global population and real GDP growth at roughly 0.5%/year for a long time, with improvements in technology barely keeping up with the halving of farm sizes every hundred and fifty years, as human population grows from 1 billion in 1850 to 2 billion in 2000 and 8 billion in 2300 being then barely fed by an economy only one-fifteenth as large as ours is today.

But to make such an argument you have to find some way of explaining away the very large scale population level-economic growth correlation that Michael Kremer highlighted -- you have to find some way of accounting for it rather than as a very large scale indication that, where invention and innovation are concerned, two heads are better than one -- twice as good, in fact.

So this isn't really predicting revolutions, but it does project larger-scale factors for which a fairly reasonable and trendable data set is available.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

At first sight it seems more tenable to argue that it is Protestant Christianity rather than Christianity as such that facilitates exponential technological change and consequent social change?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It does Russ. I suspect the Protestant cult of individualism is a major factor.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
At first sight it seems more tenable to argue that it is Protestant Christianity rather than Christianity as such that facilitates exponential technological change and consequent social change?

Go ahead. You can make that argument. At the moment all you've done is make a bare assertion.

An interesting historical "natural experiment" occurs to me. Were the Protestant portions of Switzerland (Geneva, Zurich, etc.) more technologically and socially 'advanced' than the Catholic parts (Fribourg, Lucerne, etc.)? It's a natural experiment that minimizes (though can't completely eliminate) other factors like cultural or geographic differences. Anyone care to make the analysis? I lack the proper expertise myself.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

Hmm wikipedia (that oh so reliable source))does suggest that the catholic areas clamped down on printing. Meanwhile on the universities,

Basel (Prot) is the oldest University (at 1460 it's really pre-ref so might argue the inverse.) Shrunk from 1000 to 60 students over 1600-1785 but now one of the top 100 but also with issues. And the mixed picture reappear with Bernoulli, Abderhalden and Jung as it's alumni.

Bern (Prot) changed from seminary to university in 1800. First female professor, first german jewish professor. But still small till 1900 really. Does have Barth& Einstein lectured,

Freiberg (Cath) is 60 years younger, and changed to a University even later.

Geneva (Prot) has a similar story, but developed earlier.

Neuchatlel (Prot Monarch) is very new and small.

Lausanne (Prot) has a similar story,

Lurcene (Cath) is very tiny and really very very new.

Lugano (?) younger than me

St Gallen (Prot. but Cath Abbey) newish, business based

Zurich (Prot) biggest university, only one with nobels mentioned (12). Appointed Strauss (v theo lib). FREE EDUCATION (in 16th C), natural history about the same time.

Both Technology institutes are also in Prot regions.

So while that's only one aspect, it would appear the protestant areas are vaguely correlated with better higher education. But of course there could be many factors (e.g. to invent something maybe Vienna was so advanced and hence tempting to catholics, that it stifled local advances but they still happened elsewhere)

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

quote:
Originally by Crœsos
Michael Kremer, on the other hand, analyzes long-term population and income data for as much of human history as is re-creatable and concludes innovation seems linked to population

In the light of re-reading Rodney Stark's chapter on 'epidemics, networks, conversions', the above comment does seem to chime with the idea that the introduction of a christian society allowed faster developement of technology.

Since the cities (Rome apparently had a population of about 1 million) must have been primarily centres of craft, rather than admin. ,pestilence and disease caused havoc.

It seems that a loss of one third of the population was often the result of smallpox, cholera etc.

According to Stark, Christianity grew rapidly because of the care for the sick - a lot of whom could recover. The pagan attitude meant the sick were just thrown into the streets in the panic. Stark puts forward other reasons for the growth related to marriage and infanticide.

My point is that the stability of crafts would have been enhanced and the traditional care of christian societies carried on into other and future cities.

It is probable that later theological changes in christianity enabled more stable populations to communicate ideas and kick off the technological revolution.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
In the light of re-reading Rodney Stark's chapter on 'epidemics, networks, conversions', the above comment does seem to chime with the idea that the introduction of a christian society allowed faster developement of technology.

Since the cities (Rome apparently had a population of about 1 million) must have been primarily centres of craft, rather than admin. ,pestilence and disease caused havoc.

Since you picked the example, let's see how Rome's population fares over time. If your theory is correct, should see a sharp increase with the adoption of Christianity, or at least greater stability. Hmmm, something must be wrong with history. It's not living up to your expectations.

Now someone with a less dogmatic axe to grind might suggest that the precipitous decline in the population of the city of Rome in fifth century (over a million residents in 400CE, less than a tenth of that in 500CE) was attributable to a century of warfare and Rome's inability to recover could be blamed on its aqueducts being destroyed by the (Christian, though heretical) Ostrogoths in 537. (The aqueducts not only provided drinking water for residents but also powered its grist mills.) Given that all the parties involved (the Romans, the Goths, the Vandals) were Christians at that time, why weren't they able to build a better Rome than the one the Pagans had constructed?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Didn't Gibbon argue that Christianity hastened the fall of Rome? Supposedly influenced by Voltaire, who is often quoted thus: "that instead of being a merciful, ameliorating, and benignant visitation, the religion of Christians would rather seem to be a scourge sent on man by the author of all evil."

Just a different point of view!

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Do we have evidence that Christians cared for the sick more than other cultures? ISTM a little unlikely. Apart from anything else, most Medieval medical texts seem to be of non-Christian origin - either directly from Ancient Greece and Rome or through Arabic translations preserved by the Muslims.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Croesus:

quote:
The biggest problem with arguments like this is they mostly depend on cherry-picking a very narrow set of examples. For instance, if Christianity is required for economic prosperity, why is non-Christian Japan (GDP $34,871 per capita) more prosperous than Christian Romania (GDP $9,157 per capita)? Or why was Christian Europe much less economically prosperous than the Muslim middle east or imperial China in the Middle Ages?

The obvious problem with that comparison is that economic development in Romania was retarded by a command economy foisted upon them from the late 1940s to 1989 by a government that could hardly be characterised as Christian.

But the example of Japan, I think, points to a more profound objection. One the West had started developing science, industry and representative governments other societies could follow suit. Christianity wasn't an integral part of the model. Which obviously raises the question as to what extent it was a cause of the rise of the model in the first place. To be honest I would be somewhat surprised if it made no contribution but to some extent there was the introduction of something truly novel which some Christians were unable or unwilling to suppress and which other Christians sought to justify with Christian arguments. Macaulay's essay 'On The Civil Disabilities Of The Jews' is a case in point. Macaulay sincerely makes the case for giving Jews full civil and political rights from a Christian point of view, but we would hardly deduce from this that Christianity was inherently and intrinsically philosemitic.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
It is probable that later theological changes in christianity enabled more stable populations to communicate ideas and kick off the technological revolution.

Another take on this idea is not that Christianity caused the technological revolution. Rather, God caused the technological revolution to facilitate the spread of Christianity. Which it did.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0