![]() Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Alberto Mingardi Scott Sumner Subscribe by email
More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
COMMENTS (9 to date)
E. Harding writes:
"monogamy" -China? Polygamous? Arabia? Polygamous. Africa? Polygamous. Who am I missing? Posted September 10, 2015 12:26 AM
Dangerman writes:
"I see religiosity, monogamy, and high fertility as three ways that the pre-20th-century West resembled other pre-modern societies. Not only are these traits not distinctively Western; they're now distinctively non-Western." Two additional points: 1. I didn't want to bet on "religiosity" - I said "Christian" specifically for a reason. I don't think there's too much debate about the connection between Christianity and Western Civilization. 2. On the other hand, I get the sense that there IS debate (these days) about the connection between monogamy and western civ. Likely because monogamy and western civ HAD won over so much of the world. I would cite the following as a mere sampling of how people thought before this was taken for granted: A. "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people." - SCOTUS Reynolds v. United States (1878) B. The work of William Tucker: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370159/monogamy-made-us-human-william-tucker C. The work of Joseph Henrich - "The anthropologically peculiar institutions of imposed monogamous marriage may be one of the foundations of Western civilisation." ... So, with respect to at least the above two points... if you agree that "they're now distinctively non-Western" then we're agreeing that the West is in decline. Posted September 10, 2015 1:24 AM
Bob writes:
Bryan, I appreciate that the issue here is defining "Western Civ." I just finished a book called In Search of Civilization by John Armstrong and am now watching the old BBC series "Civilisation" hosted by Kenneth Clark. What I've taken away from both is that Civilization is indeed quite hard to define. So much so that the parallel is Potter Stevens "I'll know it when I see it" quote. Not that any of that helps define your bet, but it does help validate why it's so tough to do so. Posted September 10, 2015 6:12 AM
Pietro Poggi-Corradini writes:
This might be measurable: "how closely does a country or zone's central bank comes to targeting NGDP." It seems to me from reading Sumner, that anglophone countries such as England, Australia, Canada, and the US have marginally better monetary stances. Will this continue? Will other areas be better? Posted September 10, 2015 6:37 AM
Nathan W writes:
I think the measures proposed by Andrew S are generally consistent with what I see as the worthwhile parts of "modern" Western civilization. Is there such a thing as a "non-Western" thinker who advocates for individual rights or freedom of conscience? I am not aware of any examples. Posted September 10, 2015 8:05 AM
Miguel Madeira writes:
«"monogamy" -China? Polygamous? Arabia? Polygamous. Africa? Polygamous. Who am I missing?» "Monogamy" compared with "polygyny" is Western; compared with "promiscuity", perhaps not. And note that, in most "polygamous" societies, usually most marriages are monogamous; in the end, perhaps the share of persons living in monogamous marriages could be higher in non-western societies. Probably the better indicator of "western values" in marriage is the age of marriage - more higher, more "western" Posted September 10, 2015 1:20 PM
mico writes:
"Since the non-Islamic population of Western countries is shrinking, I'd lose the first bet unless there's a high threshold for "observant."" You wouldn't win it in that case either. Islam is not moderating and secularising into oblivion like Christianity. The ultra-observant fraction exemplified by people like Al-Qaeda and Islamic State is much larger, not smaller, than it was in 1950 or 1980. The growth rate of Islam probably increases with observance, albeit the ultra-observant are still only a small minority of the total Islamic population. "The chauvinist/nationalist party bet is interesting, but too vague to bet. Is the U.S. Republican Party already "native nationalist"?" In my opinion no, but it will be if it selects Trump as its candidate. The Democrats however are already an immigrant chauvinist party, not necessarily because they are more extreme but because they can express their beliefs openly with much less scrutiny or criticism. I agree it's too vague to bet, but I doubt many will disagree with the qualitative description in hindsight. "Aside: A culture that makes converts doesn't need biological population replacement to survive." It is possible for a culture to survive purely by conversion but it is not stable. One example of a culture with a persistently high birth rate, a relatively high rate of deconversion, and almost zero conversion is the Amish, who have consistently grown considerably faster than the host culture in which they live. In the long term, it is a question of when and not if such cultures arise and eventually displace the host culture. Posted September 11, 2015 6:46 AM
DD writes:
I still like my Night Clubs per Capita metric (which was ignored by Caplan). Look at places like the Middle East which were much more Westernized in the 70's than they are today. One thing they had back then which they certainly don't have now? Places to drink alcohol and socialize. Could divide the metric by GDP as well so that you're not just picking up countries becoming richer. Posted September 11, 2015 3:00 PM
Dangerman writes:
Relevant today: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/sunday-review/are-western-values-losing-their-sway.html Posted September 12, 2015 9:54 PM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |