Talk:Economic progress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm thinking this article is in the same class as one about "primitive civilizations," except that it's less substantiated. History before 500 AD "not characterized by economic progress"? What were the Romans doing all that time? I won't put it up for deletion, though, because the title may yet have potential. Gazpacho 09:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reply 2 Comment 3 Reply 4 Comment 5 Reply 6 some irrelevance? 7 Reply 8 Heavy POV 9 Reply 10 Reply to Danras 11 Reply to Masonroy 12 Reply 2 to Danras 13 Reply 2 to Masonroy 14 Reply 3 to Danras 15 Reply 3 to Masonroy 16 Economic Progress in the Ancient World 17 Reply 18 Reply of the reply 19 Alleged Chinese Economic Progress and Population Growth 20 People on here are way too nice, but I will be too 21 Is there anyone that can tell me how to work toward illiminating crazy articles such as this? 22 I'll be nice too: this article is quite loony 23 Wrong definition of Evolution

[edit] Reply

I think Gazpacho is right in that the lack of economic progress before 500 AD could be more substantiated even though such substantiation is proving a negative. Concerning the Romans, I have a quote from the Boulding book that badmouths their primitive technology. In the 1200s Venetian Marco Polo was impressed with his visit to the Mongolian Empire in China. Was that Empire characterized by economic progress? Even in the early 20th century, the condition and living standards of most Chinese peasants was the same as it was 3000 years before. If China never had contact with the West would the condition of these peasants be any better 3000 years from now?

The Chinese did have some advanced technology like clocks, printing, and gunpowder, but the public at large never adopted these. They also made voyages of discovery to India and the East Coast of Africa, but unlike the later Portuguese explorers, the Chinese were very uninterested in engaging in trade. I believe the book The Discoverers mentions these Chinese explorations as a contrast to the Portuguese explorations.

I think Gazpacho and other empirically minded people unconditionally apply their observation of current economic progress to all of history. Empiricist history makes a nice Horatio Alger type story which begins with a cave man is banging stones together and then 100 generations later his descendant is building a rocket ship. But the history of non-Western cultures prior to Western contact does not seem to support this view, nor does the history of pre-Christian Western cultures.

In his book Entropy, author Jeremy Rifkin provides some documentation that the ancients (I believe the Greeks) did not think at all in terms of economic progress, but felt that society had retrogressed from a golden age of the past. Rifkin happens to be an extreme environmentalist who apparently does not believe in economic progress and who thinks that limits to growth like running out of resources will put a stop to the illusion of progress. Rifkin is more rational than empirical and believes in determinism. He sees no cause for economic progress and that therefore it must not be happening.

I agree with empiricists that economic progress occurs, but I also agree with rationalists in their belief in determinism and that economic progress could not causelessly occur.

• Danras 03:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I have been asked to comment on this article. As it stands it is pure opinion and not very well expressed at that. It does however address some interesting questions. These ought to be dealt with by someone who knows what they are talking about, at articles like Economic history, History of economics, Capitalism or perhaps Economic growth / Growth (economics). This article ought to be then abolished. Adam 10:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Commentter makes blanket statement that article is pure opinion but does specify alleged facts he disagrees with. He seems to implicitly admit in his third sentence that he does not know what he is talking about. I welcome criticism, but hit and run namecalling serve no purpose other than to exalt the vanity of the attacker. I have added to the article to incorporate other opinions and theories, but I am unable to make them become completely logical.

I think the question of Economic Progress, addressing its origin, or beliefs about it, deserves a separate article from the ones the commenter suggests. I do not think the Capitalism article is a good suggestion because economic progress has occurred under medieval feudalism. I am removing the flags from the article. If someone wishes to reimpose them, please be specific as to why. Danras 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Why flag this article? In the first paragraph the author claims there is such a thing as economic progress which is distinct from technological progress. They claim that economic progress is the cause of technological progress in the West after 500 AD and the source of this progress is some characteristic of Christians. The article seems to say only they are willing to die for their beliefs, only they are justified in doing so, and only they can be brave.

As written, it glorifies Europe at the expense of the rest of the world and praises the modern world while ignoring the contribution of the Classical age.

Awis 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I do not really distinguish economic progress from technological progress, although I admit that economic progress is a broader category. Other people, such as soldiers are often willing to die for their beliefs, even irrational beliefs. Generally, however, this occurs when they are part of a group and are subject to being killed instantly. If tortured appropriately, soldiers can be made to deny their country or most other beliefs.

The article praises the modern world in as much as it is more progressed. Perhaps Awis is an environmentalist, who is ambivalent about whether progress is a good thing, but I mention this environmentalist point of view in the article.

I think most non-Western societies are objective enough to admit that European society advanced while their own societies remained stagnant. The so-called contributions of the Classical age did not raise the living standards of the average person. The pyramids of Egypt and the temples on the Athenian acropolis served no economic purpose. Classical artwork was pleasant to look to at, but it was inherently useless. A number of thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle, produced writings on various subjects, but such writings generally codified existing knowledge and had little economic impact.

I am removing the flags. This article is about real or demonstrable economic progress. It is not about hype.

--Danras 11:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some irrelevance?

I'm not an expert on economic progress, but it does seem to me that this article contains a few statements that have much more to do with proselytizing than with economic progress. For example:

"When confronted with the Christian message of salvation, some respond that they cannot believe in anything immaterial like ghosts in heaven, but instead can only believe in the evidence of their senses. However, economic progress provides evidence readily perceived by the senses."

Granted, I'm new to offering suggestions on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure The section on "The Miracle of Economic Progress" belongs here either. Much of it seems to reflect the author's personal viewpoint or speculation w/o identifying it as such. Even if this is a widely held theory (I wouldn't know) it seems to me it should be somehow qualified.

Masonroy 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I am not trying to proselytize. I just remember one person who refused to believe in anything like faith, and said he only believed in the evidence of his senses. I thought the point was good. No faith is empirically valid unless it causes some material benefit to the individual.

I used the term miracle to emphasize the extra-terrestrial nature of economic progress. Your questions suggest that you wish to keep the spiritual and material worlds separate. Logically you cannot maintain this separation. You can side with some environmentalists and deny that economic progress occurs. But if you admit that economic progress occurs, you are at a loss to explain where it comes without some extra-terrestrial realm. I associate this extra-terrestrial realm with Christianity because of the historical association of economic progress with nations that are largely Christian. I have nothing against including other possible viewpoints as long as they make a modest amount of logical sense.

I think everyone who saw the Xerox commercial mentioned recognize that a miracle was being depicted. My stating that economic progress is a miracle is the same thing. It is not a private viewpoint or speculation on my part.

--Danras 10:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy POV

Although this article offers some general discussion of the topic, the second half seems to be primarily an argument for a particular interpretation, namely that eternal life is the root cause of economic progress. The religious bias is evident in a number of matter of fact statements, while the other points of view are cursorily offered as opinion.

"economic progress is caused by the actions of Christians, which ignore the death threat posed by political authorities."

"Despite Evolution's opposition to another theory of origins, called Creationism, Evolution itself is a form of creationism."

"Evolution is a Christian theory in that its main basis of support is in largely Christian nations where its underlying concept is evident."

"Economic progress is caused by eternal youth, the ability to remain mentally forever young which a consequence of eternal life."

It seems to me that this article holds far too strong a POV to be considered up to standard.

Masonroy 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Economic progress cannot come from terrestrial sources as Western society is the most advanced on the earth, and there is no more advanced society on the earth from which it can borrow. Therefore, progress must come from an extraterrestrial source or sources. One can postulate that aliens from an advanced society on another planet live among us and that their advanced knowledge is slowly leaking out and leading to progress, but I do not think such a theory is credible. Why would they live on earth for over 1000 years primarily just in Western nations? Why has no one directly detected such aliens? One would think individuals with knowledge of an advanced society would stand out and would have been detected.

The only other extraterrestrial source of progress is religion. If people commune with God, they presumably gain extraterrestrial knowledge. Since such knowledge is presumably advanced, it would lead to economic progress. This conclusion is dictated by logic.

Masonroy says I have a "religious" bias because I am promoting religion as the cause of economic progress over other possible causes. But I contend that other possible causes could quickly be debunked if he cared to name any. I am materialistic in that I believe every effect has a cause. If there exists no secular explanation for a particular effect, I do not have a fetish against considering a religious explanation. I do not regard a religious explanation of some fact as inherently biased because it offends some atheist.

In regard to more specific complaints:

Some form of eternal life has to be the root cause of economic progress, as the benefits of progress build up over time and last forever. "Eternal" means forever. It is not inherently a religious term.

I am not arguing against Evolution. I like some evolutionary ideas like the common ancestry of taxonomically related animal groups. However, whatever its factual correctness, Evolution does not enjoy the worldwide support that some would claim. I think we should be aware of worldwide opinion and understand others point of view.

I reject Masonroy's POV claim. I have nothing against citing other points of view. It seems to me he wishes to censor allegedly on POV grounds without citing an alternative point of view.

--Danras 00:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Danras

“Economic progress cannot come from terrestrial sources as Western society is the most advanced on the earth, and there is no more advanced society on the earth from which it can borrow.”

This statement makes the assumption that humans can only progress by “borrowing” from something/someone else. It seems to me that the origins of human ingenuity cannot be reduced to this simple formula. If this were case, you would be forced to apply the same “logic” to the aliens or to the God and you would be stuck wondering where they got their ideas from, resulting in infinite regress.

In any case, I don't need to refute your theory (as implausible as it sounds to me), nor am I offended by it. I think it should remain a part of the article. I simply recommend that it not be presented as if it were the only explanation worth considering.

Also, I still stand by my recommendation to remove the religious bias from the article. The quotes I pasted above should be evidence enough.

I will offer one example: That “Evolution itself is a form of creationism" either posits a different meaning for one or both of the terms than is generally accepted, or else would be opposed by nearly anyone even related to the field of science. The third possibility is that it is a statement of your opinion, which is the most likely explanation. This is my concern about the article, since many similar statements are made. Perhaps you could reorganize your views under a “Christian Viewpoint” section.

“Masonroy says I have a "religious" bias because I am promoting religion as the cause of economic progress over other possible causes.”

Exactly. You are “promoting” your view on the matter. Again, I recommend you include qualifiers with your theory and offer some evidence.

“But I contend that other possible causes could quickly be debunked if he cared to name any. I am materialistic in that I believe every effect has a cause. If there exists no secular explanation for a particular effect, I do not have a fetish against considering a religious explanation.”

Considering a theory is one thing; posting it in the encyclopedia as fact is another.

“Some form of eternal life has to be the root cause of economic progress, as the benefits of progress build up over time and last forever. "Eternal" means forever. It is not inherently a religious term.”

This is more speculative theory. the premises and conclusion do not connect:

Premise 1: The benefits of progress build up over time (true)

Premise 2: The benefits of progress last forever (unsubstantiated, but I suppose it's possible)

Conclusion: Some form of eternal life has to be the root cause of economic progress.

Even if premise #2 is true, you seem to be assuming that because progress and eternal life both occur, one must cause the other. This is a confusion of cause and effect.

“Evolution does not enjoy the worldwide support that some would claim.”

Certainly not by the population at large, but the mainstream scientific consensus currently considers it the best theory available (look it up on Wikipedia). Either way, this article is not about your opinion of the status of evolution.

Unfortunately, I currently don’t have the time to research alternative viewpoints, but I will try to put something together this weekend. I will put flags on the page until then.

Masonroy 06:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Masonroy

Humans can only progress by “borrowing” from something/someone else. The wealth created by progress has to come from somewhere other than from thin air. Ingenuity and knowledge can create lesser, more concrete forms of wealth, but existing ingenuity and knowledge is already borrowed. Lesser wealth created by it is not an additional borrowing.

My explanation can lead to regress, but it stops at God, who is infinite, and can support an infinite amount of economic progress.

Your explanation suggests that everyone is a god and can magically create wealth or progress through their own ingenuity. I suppose I cannot ask what causes individuals to create wealth as I am morally obliged to respect their assertion that they live outside the realm of scientific causality. However, history shows that little or no economic progress occurred in non-Western areas. Why didn't people from these areas use their ingenuity the way that Westerners must have. Do you have an explanation for this observation?

I am not sure what you mean by religious bias? Use of terms like miracle and eternal life? Would the mathematical term infinity also be religious? I use terms based on their meaning, but I suppose you object to any religious connotation. Perhaps I am a biased sinner who deserves eternal torment in hell. Yet you have presented the anti-bias gospel to me, and perhaps if I repent of my sins of bias, I can be saved.

Both evolution and your theory of economic progress are forms of creationism. By "creationism," I do not mean the formal theory of origins taught by some as an alternative to evolution. I mean that evolution and your theory involve creation, namely the creation of wealth that fuels progress. I do not see why you believe the statement, “Evolution itself is a form of creationism," is religious, much less a biased religious statement.

I think you only have knowledge of Western progressing culture and your assumption that everyone shares in progress is quite unfounded. Progress to you is like background radiation. It just occurs and there is no need to question why. I probably should document better attitudes and beliefs in non-progressing societies.

I do not have any special problem with presenting the Christian origin of Economic Progress alongside other theories. I am curious about your beliefs. Does progress occur in every society in every time period, or do some ever stagnate? If so are there any causes for progress and/or stagnation?

--Danras 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 2 to Danras

”Humans can only progress by “borrowing” from something/someone else. The wealth created by progress has to come from somewhere other than from thin air.”

I’m not an economist, but if you would like to see a theory on the creation of wealth (and not just someone’s opinion, as is the case with what you have proposed), see Surplus value.

”Ingenuity and knowledge can create lesser, more concrete forms of wealth, but existing ingenuity and knowledge is already borrowed. Lesser wealth created by it is not an additional borrowing.”

Before I go to the effort of pointing out all the unproven and highly spurious assumptions underlying your “theory,” please read Wikipedia: No original research guideline. It speaks directly to this discussion.

“My explanation can lead to regress, but it stops at God, who is infinite, and can support an infinite amount of economic progress.”

Okay, I will point out one of your assumptions. See above. Not only is this your primary assumption, but it’s also what you’re trying to prove. Your reasoning makes a circle.

“I use terms based on their meaning…

…By "creationism," I do not mean the formal theory of origins taught by some as an alternative to evolution. I mean that evolution and your theory involve creation, namely the creation of wealth that fuels progress."

First, I did not propose any theory, so I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to. Second, that is not the meaning of the term “creationism.” Please see the dictionary or see the Wikipedia article Creationism for clarification. I understand your confusion, because the word "creationism" incorporates the word "creation." Nevertheless, "creationism" either refers to (a) the religious belief, (b) traducianism or (c) beliefs about the origin of the universe in general. In any case, I would recommend shying away from that term, especially when the language already makes reference to supernatural explanations (unless you are actually referring to creationism the belief).

”I do not see why you believe the statement, “Evolution itself is a form of creationism," is religious, much less a biased religious statement.”

You're right about this one. I see now that creationism can refer to the origin of the universe/life in general. I stand corrected.

“I think you only have knowledge of Western progressing culture and your assumption that everyone shares in progress is quite unfounded.”

Again, I did not propose any theory, and I made no such assumption. “Everyone shares in progress” is ambiguous and unqualified. I would not hold such a position.

“Progress to you is like background radiation. It just occurs and there is no need to question why.”

If anything, a statement like this only illuminates your assumptions about me. I haven’t proposed any hypothesis on the matter.

"Does progress occur in every society in every time period, or do some ever stagnate? If so are there any causes for progress and/or stagnation?"

I’m not a historian, but from what I know about history the answer to both questions is yes. There are doubtlessly hundreds of causes for progress and stagnation.

My basic concerns about this article are that (1) your "theory" is presented as fact while the others are cursorily dismissed (POV); and (2) it appears to be your theory. For an explanation of why this is a problem, see Wikipedia: No original research. If this is a published theory, I suggest you include references.

Masonroy 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 2 to Masonroy

You quote me and comment:

”Humans can only progress by “borrowing” from something/someone else. The wealth created by progress has to come from somewhere other than from thin air.”

I’m not an economist, but if you would like to see a theory on the creation of wealth (and not just someone’s opinion, as is the case with what you have proposed), see Surplus value.

Your point seems to be that progress can occur magically without any cause. You want me or someone to prove to you that progress cannot occur causelessly. You are not being intellectually serious.

You state that I engage in circular reasoning because I state the economic progress must come from a more advanced society or advanced person like God. The Japanese obtain progress from Western society by borrowing heavily. Your point is that a more advanced society would have to obtain progress from an even more advanced society or person like God. That is true. But you are being silly in proposing an infinite regress where God has to obtain progress from and even greater God who in turn has to obtain progress from a still greater God. Even then the reasoning is infinitely linear, rather than circular.

Your quote me and comment:

“I think you only have knowledge of Western progressing culture and your assumption that everyone shares in progress is quite unfounded.”

Again, I did not propose any theory, and I made no such assumption.

This article on economic progress is based on historical evidence. It is an empirical theory. You claim to know nothing about history. I can agree with you that it sounds biased or politically incorrect to state that Christianity causes economic progress, but the historical evidence associating Christianity with economic progress is compelling.

Since you claim to know nothing about history, I cannot debate points with you as you would not grasp what I am talking about. Even if I conveyed to you the relevant history, my words would just be my opinion of history, as you do not claim to independently understand anything about history.

Given your understanding, I do not appreciate you flagging this article. If you were an intellectual giant, you would be welcome to try and give me a thrashing. Instead you attitude seems to be "I'm stupid," "I'm an idiot," "I do not have to know anything to censor others." I am removing your flags. You seem to be fighting for some cause, but please take your censoring attitude elsewhere. Please do not post flags again.

You do not have a specific view of economic progress. You claim I do not include or short shrift the views of others, but where are these others? Conveniently, they are not around. You are wary about declaring support for any of these views, but I am allegedly negligent for not giving such views a respect that you would not give them. In the article, I explain there is a range of informal opinion about economic progress from empiricist to rationalist. Most of the people who hold an informal opinion do not write specifically about economic progress, so people in general do not have a formal opinion as to the cause of economic progress. I am not responsible for the lack of published opinions.

--Danras 12:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 3 to Danras

I said: I’m not an economist, but if you would like to see a theory on the creation of wealth (and not just someone’s opinion, as is the case with what you have proposed), see Surplus value.

You said: Your point seems to be that progress can occur magically without any cause. You want me or someone to prove to you that progress cannot occur causelessly. You are not being intellectually serious.

Actually, my point was that there are well-known theories to account for the creation of wealth. The implication is actually the opposite of what you perceived my point to be—there are many causes for economic progress.

“You state that I engage in circular reasoning because I state the economic progress must come from a more advanced society or advanced person like God. The Japanese obtain progress from Western society by borrowing heavily.”

I think it was obvious that my accusation of circular reasoning applied to invoking a supernatural cause, not borrowing ideas in general. People borrow ideas from each other all of the time. It seems to me that borrowing ideas allows “progress” to spread. This doesn’t mean that borrowing is the only way for progress to occur.

”Your point is that a more advanced society would have to obtain progress from an even more advanced society or person like God. That is true. But you are being silly in proposing an infinite regress where God has to obtain progress from and even greater God who in turn has to obtain progress from a still greater God. Even then the reasoning is infinitely linear, rather than circular.”

It seems you and I disagree over what my points are. My point most certainly was not that “a more advanced society would have to obtain progress from an even more advanced society or person like God.” That was your point. I’m glad you see the absurdity of infinite regress. The reason I mentioned it was to demonstrate that the idea of a god causing economic progress leads to absurdity.

"This article on economic progress is based on historical evidence. It is an empirical theory. You claim to know nothing about history. I can agree with you that it sounds biased or politically incorrect to state that Christianity causes economic progress, but the historical evidence associating Christianity with economic progress is compelling."

There’s no reason to distort my claims. It’s interesting that you find the evidence so compelling. As per Wikipedia: No original research, you need to cite a reputable source of this theory.

“Since you claim to know nothing about history, I cannot debate points with you as you would not grasp what I am talking about. Even if I conveyed to you the relevant history, my words would just be my opinion of history, as you do not claim to independently understand anything about history.”

I said I’m not a historian. That does not mean I know nothing of history. Trying to belittle me does not make your theory more compelling.

“Given your understanding, I do not appreciate you flagging this article. If you were an intellectual giant, you would be welcome to try and give me a thrashing. Instead you attitude seems to be "I'm stupid," "I'm an idiot," "I do not have to know anything to censor others." I am removing your flags. You seem to be fighting for some cause, but please take your censoring attitude elsewhere. Please do not post flags again.”

One does not need to be “an intellectual giant” to point out the apparent POV and Original Research contained in this article. You mischaracterize me again. Deriding me personally does not improve your theory.

“I am not responsible for the lack of published opinions.”

Certainly not. However, if you’re going to post an article on Wikipedia you are responsible for reading the guidelines. It seems you neglected the link I provided above. Please refer to Wikipedia: Verifiability, Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View to understand why this article is not acceptable as it currently stands. Thanks.

Masonroy 17:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply 3 to Masonroy

Masonroy, don't you think you should know something about a subject before you criticize it? I do not know anything about Etruscan pottery, and would never think of criticizing an article on it (if one exists.) You acknowledge your lack of knowledge (so that you can duck questions), but your criticism asserts that you have knowledge.

The medieval Europeans were especially religious and called their territory Christendom. History shows Christendom progressed while all other areas of the world stagnated. Yet you blindly assert that this is a non-neutral point of view. In an earlier reply you lambasted, "all the unproven and highly spurious assumptions underlying [my] 'theory.'" The progress of Christendom and the economic stagnation of other areas is historical fact, not "unproven" or "spurious."

You say you admit you do not know much history, yet you nevertheless assert that the above stated view is non-neutral as though you are asserting that there is some historical controversy about its correctness. You are being deceitful.

It is considerate of you, a newcomer, to welcome me to the Wikipedia guidelines that you recently discovered. Did you happen to read the guideline Wikipedia Is Not Censored in What Wikipedia Is Not? Also you should read Wikipedia Is Not A Bureaucracy which warns against using perceived procedural errors rather than consensual discussion to resolve disputes. I am willing to be consensual and help you post any halfway coherent theory of economic progress that you hold, but I do not think you hold any.

You allege the article contains original research. The article does not cite any original research. I have done no archeology. The article does not depend on any private data. Perhaps you imagine it contains original research, because it depends on history, a subject you are relatively unfamiliar with.

As far as verifiability, the article cites other sources. It does not cite sources for general history as they are quite numerous.

I covered neutral point of view objection above. But, in addition, in order for a point of view to be non-neutral, there has to be at least one other coherent point of view. If there is a coherent theory of radio waves that seems to fit the facts, not everyone may agree that it is correct. But an article about radio waves that cites the theory is neutral, as opponents of the theory have not come up with a coherent alternative. You and others who may think like you do not have a coherent theory for your position.

You have stated, "there are well-known theories to account for the creation of wealth," and "there are many causes for economic progress." Presumably, you mean things like ingenuity and hard work. Such causes sound plausible, but history shows that centuries of ingenuity and hard work did not help India or China to progress. Your theory or theories needs to account for historical facts.

I will leave in the sectional flag for now. I am not sure what point the flag refers to, but the section can probably be improved.

--Danras 14:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Progress in the Ancient World

Hi. I have been researching ancient economic history and found out huge erros in this article, since ancient roman living standards were much better than any european coutry until the rise of Netherlands in the 17th century and 18th century England. Also, the christian theory must be a joke, what religion has to do with economic progress?--RafaelG 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I am interested in learning of your alleged evidence or getting references to it. Totalitarian empires like the Roman Empire were organized to maximize economic conditions. They provided many benefits, but at the expense of political freedom. The fall of the Roman Empire caused living conditions to decline for many. Much of the urban population had to return to largely self-sufficient farms. In the 1200's, Venetian Marco Polo traveled to China and wrote wonderfully of the Empire of Kublai Khan. Polo apparently felt that living standards in Khan's capital were much superior to European Venice.

Europeans after the 1200's wore tailored clothing similar to that worn today. Ancient Romans wore sheets of cloth that they wrapped around themselves. The Romans had established trade with all areas surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, but by the 1500s Europeans were sending trading vessels to all areas of the world. By the 1500's Europeans also had cheap printed books. I think by the time of the first European voyages to America in 1492 and Asia in 1497, European civilization had clearly surpassed that of Rome.

The Romans had bigger government and could afford public works of civil engineering like aqueducts and a system of roads. European governments were too small, too poor, and too fragmented too afford such works. The Romans may have had some urban amenities that Europeans lacked until later centuries, but until the 19th century, over 90% of the population lived on rural farms, just as it did in Roman times.

You say the Christian theory must be a joke. However, if economic progress had historically been associated exclusively with India rather than with Europe, I would think it plausible to have a theory that associated economic progress with Hinduism, the dominant religion of India. I do not believe in Hinduism, but such a theory would fit the facts.

Non-religious explanations of economic progress are not plausible. Some people of the past have refused to believe reports that the Wright Brothers flew through the air, or later that men have walked on the moon. They were not especially irrational. These events and other technological innovations are miracles. Miracles require religion. Many Westerners are so accustomed to these miracles, that they assume they are naturalistic and that every society will progress more or less, but history shows that such an assumption is false.

--Danras 11:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply of the reply

What matters is not the area in with trade takes place but the volume of trade and its impact on the living standards on the overal population so the fact the europeans traded goods in the atlantic sea and beyond is irrelevant. Also, you are correct about the romans in that they did not promote economic progress, economic progress reached its peak in the 1st century BC and later declined and was only fully recovered in the 19th century. The greeks and carthaginnians builded the ancient world, the romans only dominated and ultimately destroyed it. Also, the number of shipwrecks found in the mediterranean sea from the the roman period are larger than the combined number of shipwrecks of all other ages, since the volume of commerce in the mediterranean sea only returned to roman levels in the late 19th century!

About cristianity. First, correlation is not causalization and cristian societies like 11th century europe were comparably poor with india and china. I agree that the eastern civilizations did not had economic progress, my disagrement is about the graeco-roman world.--RafaelG 01:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Chinese Economic Progress and Population Growth

The book cited, Introduction to Social Macrodynamics, is not available in the United States (where I live), although I know it can be bought online for euros. Because there was an accurate census in 2 AD, I would agree that Chinese population increased from about 80 million in 2 AD to an estimated 300 million in 1900. China did have overland contact with the West during most centuries from Roman times. It had contact with European ships after 1500.

The suggestion that China first had contact with the West in the early twentieth century is a simplification, although the end of Imperial Rule in 1911 allowed much more contact. Chinese population quadrupled in the 20th century apparently due to this contact. It would not be surprising if the population had also doubled between 1700 and 1900 due to Western contact. China could have experienced early growth due to the clearing of forested land and the settlement of barbarian tribes. Such growth would not have required new technology. The spread of imperial rule allowed some growth because imperial dynasties had the capital to build irrigation systems.

China had smart people. In 1090, a Chinese emissary invented and built for the emperor the world's first clock. However, it was dismantled after 4 years, because it was associated with the old emperor and impugned on the new emperor's status. In 1597, two Europeans presented the Chinese Emperor with two European-made clocks. The clocks amazed the emperor and his court, but they were ignorant that imperial records showed the clock had been first invented in China more than five centuries earlier. Still the invention went nowhere. China was a society based on status, and the spread of new technology required more than a superficial recognition of merit. Such recognition was alien to Chinese culture. I doubt any new technology would have made much headway in China during Imperial Times. The writer cites the 11th century as a time of progress, but that was the century the clock was invented and went nowhere.

I think the progress the writer is referring to is the building of irrigation systems by Imperial governments. It is similar to the Roman Empire's building of a road network. One can always maximize use of existing technology through autocratic rule. Italian dictator Mussolini made trains run on time. Such progress is not real, but a tradeoff gained through the loss of political freedom. Once the Chinese lost a measure of freedom in exchange for some measure of progress, there was no further progress to be gained. --Danras 10:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessarily true that God exists. Any article suggesting a Godly cause is a heavy POV. Economic progress existed before Christianity and has it's roots in prehistory. There was a point in time when economic process stalled in the Western world, this is called the dark ages. During this time technology was furhtered and kept primarily in the islamic world. It wasn't until the enlightenment when people first started turning away from the Catholic church that technological advancement resumed in the Western world. The United States has been a juggernaut of economic achievement since its inception. The United States is a secular institution created by free thinkers who made certain that the constitution was created completely seperate of Christian dogma. Christian dogma isn't allowed in US schools and there is no evidence that it ever will be. This encyclopedia is used to a great extent by American youth and I would suggest that you rewrite this article to be consistent with modern educational techniques. (i.e. no God!!!!)

[edit] People on here are way too nice, but I will be too

It is not necessarily true that God exists. Any article suggesting a Godly cause is a heavy POV. Economic progress existed before Christianity and has it's roots in prehistory. There was a point in time when economic process stalled in the Western world, this is called the dark ages. During this time technology was furhtered and kept primarily in the islamic world. It wasn't until the enlightenment when people first started turning away from the Catholic church that technological advancement resumed in the Western world. During the enlightenment Western people rediscovered the knowledge of the Greek and Romans and built upon it. Therefore economic progress has been continuous with the slowest period being the period of religious control. The United States has been a juggernaut of economic achievement since its inception. The United States is a secular institution created by free thinkers who made certain that the constitution was created completely seperate of Christian dogma. Christian dogma isn't allowed in US schools and there is no evidence that it ever will be. This encyclopedia is used to a great extent by American youth and I would suggest that you rewrite this article to be consistent with modern educational techniques. (i.e. no God!!!!) BTW there is a part of the US known as the "bible belt" I think you'll find that "economic progress" in this region lags behind the more atheistic north. Mexico is highly catholic where is Mexicos economic success haven't they learned more info from the Christians than the atheistic Japanese? Central Americans were taught Christian dogma over 500 years ago. Where is there progress?

This article is pure POV. It should have been deleted a long time ago.--RafaelG 02:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, according to polls, about 90% of the population believe in God. I know some atheists believe in lengthy theories about how existence is an accident, but most people believe that existence has a deterministic cause and do not take offense in believing that there must be a God that caused existence to be. With that said, I think causes of most phenomena can and should be explained in terms of natural phenomena.

The problem is that economic progress cannot be explained naturally. It is not credible to believe that economic progress in the most advanced nations was imported from somewhere else. One can hold, as many environmentalists do, that economic progress does not occur. However, the empirical evidence for economic progress is very strong. Without resorting to an extraterrestrial source of economic progress (i.e., God), one has to give up reason and hold that economic progress happens causelessly, or one has to disbelieve the evidence of one's senses and hold that economic progress does not occur. In regard to economic progress, atheists disagree amongst themselves about whether to reject reason and their minds or whether to reject their senses. This article holds that both reason and empirical evidence are valid. If relating reason and empirical evidence together requires that one assert something that violates atheistic beliefs, that is just too bad for atheists.

Prior to Christianity, the most major technological innovation that I could discover was the discovery of how to make iron. People familiar with smelting already knew how to make it, but never bothered because they used bronze, which was glossier and better looking. Scholars believe that there was a shortage of either copper or tin, the ingredients of bronze, in the Near East around 1000 B.C. This shortage led to the production of iron. Iron was technically harder than bronze, but its use did not make a major difference in people's lives. Christians caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, by refusing to worship Caesar. No leader then could create enough status for himself to hold a vast empire together.

Christians were reality focused and were not going to worship some political opportunist who wanted to say he was god. This collapse brought about the so-called "Dark Ages," but it actually was a time of innovation.

Europe was in some ways behind other places at first, including the Islamic World. Europeans did manage to conquer the Holy Land from the area's Islamic rulers, but Europeans lost interest in keeping their conquest. While the Islamic world was in some ways more advanced, Islamic kingdoms were not progressing and within a few centuries, Europeans would clearly overtake them.

By 1500, Europe had advanced to first place among world economies. It had clearly begun linking together the entire world by sending ships to Asia and the Americas. Social developments like the Protestant Reformation begun in 1517 were important, but progress was continuing without them. For example, Ferdinand Magellan began his circumnavigation of the globe in 1519.

The United States allowed religious freedom from the start, but was hardly an agnostic nation. Revivalists went from location to location and drew large audiences. Ben Franklin vowed once not to give a revivalist any money, but he did so anyway.

I believe that U.S. public schools started as church run schools. They became so widespread that the government started funding them. Then, I believe, sometime in the 19th century, the government prevented them from teaching any religious instruction. The government can do what it wants. No one is arguing against freedom of religion. Religion, though, is important in understanding history. The Pyramids, the Temples of Athens, the Crusades, and many wars, all had religious causes.

The U.S. South was first settled by an apparently secular group at Jamestown, Virginia. The U.S. North was first settled by persecuted religious groups like the Pilgrims and the Puritans in Massachusetts. One might think the South was more atheistic. The most prominent American atheist, Madelyn Murray O'Hair had her offices in Austin, Texas. In recent decades the South has been called the Bible Belt by the media. Being less economically advanced, I think Southerners are more political in using religion to defend traditional values that they feel are under attack by more socially advanced areas. However, there are plenty of religious people in the North, and the fact that Northerners are more secular does not imply that they are more atheistic.

In the Christian Theory of Economic Progress, belief in Christian doctrine, per se, does not cause economic progress. Only the acceptance of salvation or eternal life from Jesus causes economic progress. In the United States about 80% of the population believe that Jesus is the Son of God. However, only about 30% to 35% accept salvation. (These statistics are from Gallup opinion polls that I found online.) Individuals have been accepting salvation from the time of Jesus, but after the Protestant Reformation, the acceptance of salvation has generally just been taught by Protestants. Because of this fact, Protestant areas in northern Europe have progressed noticeably faster than Catholic areas of southern Europe. The progress of Catholic areas may be due more to their cultural contact with Protestant areas than to any native progress. The United States has also progressed because it is largely Protestant.

One would not expect Mexico, having little Protestant population, to experience much economic progress. It has progressed since its founding in the 1500s, but clearly lags behind its northern neighbor. Japanese economic progress is clearly imported. Their religious beliefs are irrelevant. At one time, the Japanese automotive industry was paying close attention to an American quality control expert, while the American automotive industry was ignoring such experts. As a result, in this one area, Japan was able to surpass the United States.

Besides the Christian Theory of Economic Progress, I do present an atheist point of view in Ayn Rand's "Men of the Mind." Ayn Rand is an atheist. I value her perspective, but I do not think she really explains the origins of economic progress. Any claim that suggests this article just presents one point of view is false. --Danras 02:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there anyone that can tell me how to work toward illiminating crazy articles such as this?

I'm new to Wikipedia, how does it work? I'd like to make this my first. I had no idea that stuff like this was allowed here.

[edit] I'll be nice too: this article is quite loony

The Christian Theory of Economic Progress is probably the craziest thing I've ever heard. Yes, religion has over the years influenced this world in many aspects. But the presumption that christians are the 'source' of all progress is quite far-fetched. I'll just take my country as an example: 98% of all romanians are christian orthodox and polls also suggest that 50-60% are religious (attend religiuous whatever regularelly). If I were to believe that wild theory, Romania should be one of the most economically important states in the world. That is clearly not the case (I wouldn't be surprised if you guys haven't even heard about it).

Another thick nail in this thing's coffin would be the well-fare of all other great non-christian civilizations throughout history (chinese,turks,greeks).

The most i would take from an article would be an overview of the economical implications of religion across the middle ages or something like that. I'm trying hard not to resort to profanity in expressing my disaproval of this article. (Sinalot 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

It is my understanding that Orthodox churches do not teach or stress the need for people to accept Jesus Christ's gift of salvation. Without this salvation or eternal life, no amount of Christian belief, however widespread, is going to cause economic progress. It would not matter if everyone was devout and went to church every day.

In Western Europe and in the Americas, largely Catholic countries were and are in a similar situation as Orthodox Romania. They did not experience much native progress. It was only in largely Protestant countries that noticeable economic progress occurred. In such countries, the Christian gospel of salvation was often preached and a significant percentage of the population accepted salvation. In the U.S., according to opinion polls, about a third of the population accept salvation. I doubt that a comparable figure for Romania would exceed 5%.

If you want to disapprove of the Christian Theory of Economic Progress, that is fine, but it does not say what you contend it does.

Great non-Christian civilizations are interesting to read about, but it is difficult to measure any improvement in the average person's living standards following the existence of a great civilization as compared to living standards prior to its existence. We may identify with historical figures of such civilizations and think their wealthy lifestyles represented progress, but such lifestyles do not reflect how the great majority of people lived. --Danras 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong definition of Evolution

The continued minsinterpretation of the theory of Evolution is surely a consequence of not actually reading either Darwin's or Wallaces original work. There is nowhere inherent in the theory the proposition that evolution represents advancement or improvement of a species. It merely postulates that over time, species evolve in response to either natural selection or drift and evolve means to "change", not "improvement". 213.185.124.130 06:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Russell