g m g D e s i g n . c o m

Tom Barnett puts it in perspective for us.

Few things are more consistency and fallaciously hyped as linear projections in demographics.

Societies are–oddly enough–social creatures that adapt to signals from the larger environment, and those signals tend to be quite similar, the world over, when it comes to modernization and urbanization and industrialization and globalization–all residual belief aside that claims a lasting, distinct cultural value…

The rise of welfare statism is bad for religion, it seems.

[Obama's] audacious plans for the expansion of the government — from the stimulus to health-care reform to a larger role in education — are likely to spell trouble for the vitality of American religion. His $3.6 trillion budget for fiscal 2010 would bring federal, state and local spending to about 40% of the gross domestic product — within hailing distance of Europe, where state spending runs about 46% of GDP. The European experience suggests that the growth of the welfare state goes hand in hand with declines in personal religiosity.

Fascinating editorial on Christian evangelicalism. The gist: evangelicalism will fade in America, after decades of robust acceptance by most of the population. The godless alternative, activist secularism, will displace evangelicalism and out-maneuver ill-prepared evangelicals who are used to preaching to the choir.

Why will this happen? The writer lists the following reasons:

1. Evangelicals have associated themselves with political conservatism
2. Evangelicals won’t survive the siren song of secular thought
3. Denominations will shrink
4. Christian education has ill-prepared younglings for secular counter-arguments
5. Secularism and its disciples will see evangelicals (and religion) as hostile to the “greater good”
6. Evangelical parents will find it difficult to instill faith in their children, even in areas of presumed evangelical strength, such as the South
7. Economics

However, a new vitality of evangelicalism will emerge under the ashes.

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.

We’re already seeing the decline of evangelicalism and the rise of a radical strain of secularism, are we not?

This brings to mind the recent “normalization of evil” editorial on the WSJ, of which I blogged about already.

I’ve felt for a while that mandatory liberal arts (or humanities) courses at universities are not the best idea. Never mind that humanities courses often break down into indoctrination courses into illiberal, left-wing thinking. They’re also of limited use in the real world–outside of academia, that is. The NY Times reports on this phenomenon.

No offense to devotees of the liberal arts. Some of the courses are interesting and useful. The NY Times suggests the following justification for humanities courses:

But “the need for my older view of the humanities is, if anything, more urgent today,” he added, referring to the widespread indictment of greed, irresponsibility and fraud that led to the financial meltdown. In his view this is the time to re-examine “what we care about and what we value,” a problem the humanities “are extremely well-equipped to address.”

Of course, the idea that humanities courses at universities encourage morality seems silly to me. Religious beliefs, not left-wing philosophical beliefs, account for personal virtue more than studying the works of Chomsky, Nietzsche, or Marx.

Economically, does it make sense to mandate humanities over business and technology courses? My answer: only if your career ambition is “life-long college student” or liberal arts professor.

What does it take for a society to have, or maintain, economic prosperity? One can approach this from many angles, from governance to geography, or from education to gender equality. There are a myrid of angles one could take to approach this question, so I’ll narrow the question a bit: what does it take for emerging markets to reach prosperity and for developed countries to maintain it?

I claim that it takes three things in particular: religion, science and freedom.

Religion

Across the developed world (US and Europe in particular), religion has had rotten eggs thrown in its direction. After 9/11, the world discovered what happened when Salafi-Islamism is allowed to operate unchecked by our intell services. Most people probably didn’t see the nuance and instead simply became paranoid of all Muslims. Some people, mostly “intellectuals,” simply blamed America rather than worry about more plausible explanations.

The terror attacks of 9/11 (and subsequent attacks or attempts inside or outside the US) have given the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others, the opportunity to launch attacks on religion in general and Christianity in particular. Hollywood is in on the fun, jeering or even demonizing religion, esp Christianity (Islam has largely been ignored from direct criticism, oddly).

Certainly, not all religions are created equally. Not all practitioners are equal in their piety. Focusing on the developed world, has religion–namely Christianity–been a bane, or a boon?

I’d argue that it has been a boon. The US was built on the system of moral values innate in Christian doctrine. Contrary to anti-Christian commentary, many scientists in this country’s history were also Christians. Our Founding Fathers were largely Christians as well. Absent their convictions, I question whether or not representative democracy would have been their priority.

But I doubt our Founding Fathers could have imagined the “values void” that we see in Europe and, increasingly, the United States. So what would happen if we were all atheists, or “humanists”? Since this blog post is economy-centered, I’ll point out that business thrives when trust and integrity are high. The “greed is good” phrase in Wall Street (a movie starring Michael Douglas) has proven to be absurdity. Look at WorldCom and Enron and you’ll see greed, not innovation, and certainly not integrity. When people are able to have a relatively high level of trust in others, and when they’re able to take them at their word, that is an environment where business is able to thrive.

The alternative is a society that requires much higher regulation and enforcement. The godless might not fear the wrath of God, but they fear the law. Since that is all that keeps them in check, regulation must be much more rigorous, and like a neighborhood of hoodlums, enforcement must be higher. Sarbox (Sarbanes-Oxley legislation) might not have been over the top after all. When people increasingly have no moral convictions and no moral concern outside themselves, more oversight isn’t just useful, but necessary.

The contrarian will argue that some religions have been harmful in some parts of the world. Look at the Middle East, where the areas of prosperity other than oil-wealth are areas where conservative Islam has taken a back seat. The UAE comes to mind. I agree with this assessment, and point again to the idea that not all religious are created equally. One could make the same argument in relation to India, whose polytheistic religion has not seemingly served to bolster their economy. Some philosophical religions, like Taoism or Buddhism, have had marginal roles in economic growth. Another contrarian argument might be this: what about “atheist China” and it’s 10%+ GDP growth for the past two decades? The China example is interesting, because China’s dabbling with the atheistic governance (call Communism) did not turn out so well for its people (tens of millions died during Mao’s unfortunate tenure). Now, China has more regular church-goers than western Europe.

So, when “God is dead,” Big Government becomes bigger. Regulations become more burdensome. People cling to their new Higher Power–the state–and freedom takes a back seat.

Science

In early 2007, Bill Gates wrote a commentary on the WP. It begins as such:

For centuries people assumed that economic growth resulted from the interplay between capital and labor. Today we know that these elements are outweighed by a single critical factor: innovation.

I think he’s right, and I think science is key to this single, critical factor. Science isn’t just about cell phones or wind turbines. It’s a thought process, one that requires analysis and detail. I can’t think of a single prosperous country that has become so without rigorous science curriculae. Although most people (that I know) would likely nod in agreement at this assertion, science courses are rarely mandatory in college, while “liberal arts” courses are always required. I suppose art history is more important than physics? Or maybe computer science takes a back seat to English Literature? In fact, current priorities are in favor of other nations excelling us in math and science, a process that is already unfolding.

Freedom

No country can achieve economic prosperity without freedom. Freedom allows us to start businesses without knowing top government insiders or being friends with the president. Freedom gives us the ability to work wherever we choose to work; it also gives employers the ability to fire employers at their whim.

Not all “free” countries are comparable. France, for eg, has restrictive labor laws. It’s difficult to fire even non-unionized employees, meaning that special care is taken in hiring them. If they’re “different,” i.e., non-white, they’re not going to be hired as frequently. The riots in France were a result to idle hands unable to get work. France’s labor laws are innately anti-freedom. Unions are inherently anti-freedom as well, displacing individual liberty with herd mentality.

Just as economies can’t prosper without freedom, freedom cannot exist without capitalism. Capitalism is freedom in the context of the marketplace, and without it, freedom (in the general sense of the word) simply doesn’t exist. How can one be free if he is a serf to the state to provide his employment and means of survival? How can he donate to charity if he does not control his own purse strings? He can’t do either.

Interesting analysis here on the rising tide of Christianity in China. Those “Commies” are really confused, eh? Fervent capitalists and, increasingly, devout Christians (despite blowback from Chinese authority, esp at the local level).

Not too long ago, the (now a misnomer) “Communist” Party gave Chinese citizens property rights. What’s next, a Bill of Rights?

Give it time.