Nathan W. Toronto's Blog: Imagine
November 1, 2016
Islam Is a Religion of Peace
I recently received a video from a good friend. The video argued that Islam, as a religion, is in need of reform, and in his characteristically concise and insightful way, my friend asked, "Is Islam a religion of peace?"
I have two answers to this question. The first is, "Yes, absolutely." I know many wonderful Muslim people, and in fact I work and interact with many Muslims every day. All of them are considerate and gentle, and respectful to a degree not often seen in the West, something that I attribute in large measure to their faith. Where I live, in the UAE, Islam is certainly lived as a religion of peace.
But we have to admit that this is not the case everywhere, which leads to the second answer to my friend's question: "Islam is as much a religion of peace as Christianity was in seventeenth century Europe." From 1618 to 1648, most of central Europe was rocked by the Thirty Years' War, a series of conflagrations fought over religion. Combatants committed horrendous atrocities in the name of religion. One quarter of the population of Germany died from starvation, disease, or combat (see Daniel Philpott's Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations to read more).
Perhaps things aren't quite that bad in the Middle East today, but my point is that we don't blame Christianity for the horrors of the Thirty Years' War. By the same token, why should we blame Islam for the horrors of terrorism or civil strife? We shouldn't. We should blame politics.
Political entrepreneurs use whichever -ism of the day is convenient to make their mark on the world, be it anarchism, communism, populism, or Islamism. Where political institutions are effective, where they engender widespread legitimacy and distribute societal goods in a meaningful way, as in the UAE, these -isms hold much less sway. Consider how stable the UAE remained during the Arab Spring protests that created so much tumult in other countries. Consider, furthermore, how different a role Islam plays in politics in Asian countries like Indonesia and Singapore. The question we should be asking is what happened to politics in the Middle East, and in so many Arab countries in particular, to give extremism a chance to flourish like it has?
The answer to that question, in my mind, goes back to geography and the initial development of state institutions. Theoretically, states that grow up in harsh environments, where resources are concentrated in, say, one river valley (e.g., the Nile, Mesopotamia), will be more likely to have highly centralized authority structures, and it will be difficult for alternative power centers to rise up and challenge central authority. Check out E.L. Jones' The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia, in which he points to the dispersion of geographic resources and the diffusion of political power as principal reasons for Europe developing as successfully as it did. In the Information Age, political entrepreneurs are using extremist Islam to challenge central authority in a way not known to this point, and we see the effects of this play out on the evening news.
So, yes, Islam is a religion of peace, but don't confuse religion with politics. It would behoove us to better understand the initial conditions for political development in the Arab Middle East before we argue that Islam is to blame for so much death and destruction.
I have two answers to this question. The first is, "Yes, absolutely." I know many wonderful Muslim people, and in fact I work and interact with many Muslims every day. All of them are considerate and gentle, and respectful to a degree not often seen in the West, something that I attribute in large measure to their faith. Where I live, in the UAE, Islam is certainly lived as a religion of peace.
But we have to admit that this is not the case everywhere, which leads to the second answer to my friend's question: "Islam is as much a religion of peace as Christianity was in seventeenth century Europe." From 1618 to 1648, most of central Europe was rocked by the Thirty Years' War, a series of conflagrations fought over religion. Combatants committed horrendous atrocities in the name of religion. One quarter of the population of Germany died from starvation, disease, or combat (see Daniel Philpott's Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations to read more).
Perhaps things aren't quite that bad in the Middle East today, but my point is that we don't blame Christianity for the horrors of the Thirty Years' War. By the same token, why should we blame Islam for the horrors of terrorism or civil strife? We shouldn't. We should blame politics.
Political entrepreneurs use whichever -ism of the day is convenient to make their mark on the world, be it anarchism, communism, populism, or Islamism. Where political institutions are effective, where they engender widespread legitimacy and distribute societal goods in a meaningful way, as in the UAE, these -isms hold much less sway. Consider how stable the UAE remained during the Arab Spring protests that created so much tumult in other countries. Consider, furthermore, how different a role Islam plays in politics in Asian countries like Indonesia and Singapore. The question we should be asking is what happened to politics in the Middle East, and in so many Arab countries in particular, to give extremism a chance to flourish like it has?
The answer to that question, in my mind, goes back to geography and the initial development of state institutions. Theoretically, states that grow up in harsh environments, where resources are concentrated in, say, one river valley (e.g., the Nile, Mesopotamia), will be more likely to have highly centralized authority structures, and it will be difficult for alternative power centers to rise up and challenge central authority. Check out E.L. Jones' The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia, in which he points to the dispersion of geographic resources and the diffusion of political power as principal reasons for Europe developing as successfully as it did. In the Information Age, political entrepreneurs are using extremist Islam to challenge central authority in a way not known to this point, and we see the effects of this play out on the evening news.
So, yes, Islam is a religion of peace, but don't confuse religion with politics. It would behoove us to better understand the initial conditions for political development in the Arab Middle East before we argue that Islam is to blame for so much death and destruction.
June 7, 2016
Poverty as an Information Problem
I have a friend (let's call him Z) who is much happier than he should be. He's been working as an office boy (serving tea and coffee and running errands) for four years in the UAE. He's hard-working, creative, and ambitious, but because he was born in Bangladesh instead of a "freedom country", as he calls them, he's at a severe disadvantage. His contract has ended in the UAE, and now he's gone back to his country, where he'll be forced to decide between supporting his family and getting an education. Had he been born in a rich "freedom country", he'd probably be going to graduate school right now.
If we who live in freedom countries knew people like Z and were confident that investing in their future would truly make a difference, we'd help them. You see, with only $6,000 over five years ($100 a month), Z could both support his family and go to school. While this is not a huge amount of money, it's not trivial, and none of us wants our hard earned cash to go to waste helping someone that won't put it to good use.
If there were some way to bridge this information gap, to know how to find good human investments in the developing world, we could begin to solve the poverty problem, creating an economically empowered, politically active class of people who could solve problems locally. For decades, development aid has been focused on huge, macroeconomic projects, but it's time to turn this on its head and give the most ambitious, capable people at the bottom of the pile the best chance possible to claw their way to the top.
Consider this: a peer-to-peer investment website based on a "human capital rating", funded by small donations from people in rich countries, where donors can use the rating to manage the risk of investing in someone's future. How would an individual in a developing country, a person like Z, improve their human capital rating? They would earn points by demonstrating the ability to achieve goals and developing social connections with others who achieve goals. The human capital rating would track connections on social media, as well as on the website itself. Even institutions like schools and non-governmental organizations could gain trust by improving their human capital rating over time, attracting more funding.
I'm no web designer or actuary or social media guru or international banker, but I do know that if people in freedom countries knew what was really going on in the world, they'd find a way to help. People like Z are happy and kind and loyal, even though they were born in the wrong place. It's time to give them a hand up.
What do you think? Would a human capital rating work?
If we who live in freedom countries knew people like Z and were confident that investing in their future would truly make a difference, we'd help them. You see, with only $6,000 over five years ($100 a month), Z could both support his family and go to school. While this is not a huge amount of money, it's not trivial, and none of us wants our hard earned cash to go to waste helping someone that won't put it to good use.
If there were some way to bridge this information gap, to know how to find good human investments in the developing world, we could begin to solve the poverty problem, creating an economically empowered, politically active class of people who could solve problems locally. For decades, development aid has been focused on huge, macroeconomic projects, but it's time to turn this on its head and give the most ambitious, capable people at the bottom of the pile the best chance possible to claw their way to the top.
Consider this: a peer-to-peer investment website based on a "human capital rating", funded by small donations from people in rich countries, where donors can use the rating to manage the risk of investing in someone's future. How would an individual in a developing country, a person like Z, improve their human capital rating? They would earn points by demonstrating the ability to achieve goals and developing social connections with others who achieve goals. The human capital rating would track connections on social media, as well as on the website itself. Even institutions like schools and non-governmental organizations could gain trust by improving their human capital rating over time, attracting more funding.
I'm no web designer or actuary or social media guru or international banker, but I do know that if people in freedom countries knew what was really going on in the world, they'd find a way to help. People like Z are happy and kind and loyal, even though they were born in the wrong place. It's time to give them a hand up.
What do you think? Would a human capital rating work?
