why are muslim countries poor and underdeveloped?

[iceprincess]

it's such a stupid question and in no way am I trying to undermine muslim people I just wanna know some background details. the only explanation I come across is severe oppression from the west. why is it that places like Saudi Arabia and Dubai have thrived but most of the Middle East and Africa is so underdeveloped. what are some practical solutions for them to progress, what would need to happen. explain to me like I'm 5. 

[Leo Gura]

I explained this and much more in my video: How Society Evolves

[VerballyHazardous]

Geography and environmental conditions are great factors when it comes to how evolved a culture is.

[Rilles]

Corruption, constant wars, CIA operations to install dictators. 

Those are just a few factors though. 

[Raze]

2 hours ago, iceprincess said:

it's such a stupid question and in no way am I trying to undermine muslim people I just wanna know some background details. the only explanation I come across is severe oppression from the west. why is it that places like Saudi Arabia and Dubai have thrived but most of the Middle East and Africa is so underdeveloped. what are some practical solutions for them to progress, what would need to happen. explain to me like I'm 5. 

There was an islamic golden age when the muslim countries began rapidly progressing while the christian europe was in the dark ages, but during the crusades Europe collected a lot of valuable information from the muslim countries. The muslim countries got spooked by the crusades and other wars from invaders and became closed off and nationalistic and started developing slower, while Europe took the information and started rapidly developing with the renaissance. 

More recently, muslim countries have had lots of war and revolutions because they didn't develop secular democracies in the same way as the USA or Europe. The western countries discovered valuable resources in the muslim countries, and started kind of exploiting them and doing things like supporting unpopular or backwards leaders just because they give them better deals on resources. Or taking out advancing leaders because they start questioning or being hostile to their relationship with the USA. You can read analysis for Noam Chomsky on the details.

They are progressing, but their situation is precarious and they could collapse back at any time. Also it probably doesn't matter because climate change is going to cause mass suffering and chaos in those countries in the coming decades.

[Preety_India]

 

I guess not able to fight an oppressive regime. 

Oppressive governments hold people back from growth. 

So even if the local people are high on the spiral, it doesn't help because the government doesn't operate from that stage, these are red/blue governments that are very difficult to fight against. You will be in prison for a simple thing like freedom of speech, this limits the capacity of the population to bring change. Fear and authority suppresses any hope for transformation. 

 

[commie]

8 hours ago, iceprincess said:

explain to me like I'm 5. 

You can explain BS narratives on a 5 year old level (see above) but understanding real answers would require much more education.

The first step of such an investigation would be to develop a sensible object of inquiry. Many of the most wretched places on this planet are majority-Muslim but the neighboring non-Muslim-majority countries are often not much better off or even worse off. Also, most Muslims live in Asia rather than in the Mid-East and Africa. So does it make sense to investigate the development problems and opportunities of Muslim countries? I don't think so. I think you could productively look at all so-called developing countries or specific groups of Muslim countries which have common problems not shared by most Muslim countries. It depends on what you're trying to do.

That said, the most important thing any independent polity outside of Europe and North America needs to achieve in the current circumstances is a revenue stream which can not be controlled by outsiders. The technological imbalances are too great for mostly closed or mostly open economies to be options worth considering.

And Malaysia would I think be a better example of a successful Muslim country than the richest Gulf countries because very few countries have comparable mineral resources.

But realistically, the best chances most countries have (Muslim or not) is change at the global level. Out-competing your peers will never work for everyone.

[-no-person-]

I think it is because christianity is so bad. Because we have been so oppressive. Look at Turkey Erdogan is making it devout again, the nation will be beautifull! Big success!! Everytime Islam becomes important and people devout the most beautifull things happen! Marvelous!! Despite of the oppressive Europe with its christianity that is so bigotted that Turkey didn't become Europe. Right wingers did this. They are bigots.

Edited July 20, 2020 by -no-person-

[Leo Gura]

@-no-person- Banned

[Roy]

14 hours ago, iceprincess said:

why is it that places like Saudi Arabia and Dubai have thrived but most of the Middle East and Africa is so underdeveloped.

Oil and protection from the most powerful military on Earth.

[Roy]

14 hours ago, iceprincess said:

what are some practical solutions for them to progress, what would need to happen.

Peace and no more civil or wars in their proximity.

Civilization and infrastructure is developed from peace and not having to spend your countries wealth on stupid shit like bombs.

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, iceprincess said:

explain to me like I'm 5. 

Think of a country like a biological organism that is trying to survive. Countries are shaped by the environment they grow up in and the inheritance of their ancestors. Different environments have different geography, climate, access to resources, dangers from predators (other more powerful countries) etc.. Each environment favors some survival strategies over others. A harsh environment favors harsh survival strategies.

The countries are also subjected to random events that could favor some countries over others despite living in similar environments (natural disasters, wars, slavery etc.). The countries that are more well-off today than other countries were the lucky ones who grew up in the good environments and were at the right place at the right time in history. The less well-off countries are therefore stuck with less developed survival strategies that suit their conditions.

The solution is to change their environment so they can start to evolve naturally towards higher states of development. Fortunately, the more developed countries get increasingly better at manipulating their environment, and that will help out the less developed countries in the long run as the world becomes more interconnected.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Heart of Space]

The recent geopolitical history of the middle east is one of the greatest modern tragedies.  I think future civilizations will talk about the oil wars and the geopolitical chess match that's taken place the region in a similar vein as we talk about the holocaust now.  It's mass death and suffering as a cost for the prize global economic hegemony that the US currently enjoys.  

Anways, I'm almost off topic, I just felt like adding that in because I've been thinking about it quite a bit lately.  

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, Heart of Space said:

The recent geopolitical history of the middle east is one of the greatest modern tragedies.  I think future civilizations will talk about the oil wars and the geopolitical chess match that's taken place the region in a similar vein as we talk about the holocaust now.  It's mass death and suffering as a cost for the prize global economic hegemony that the US currently enjoys.  

Anways, I'm almost off topic, I just felt like adding that in because I've been thinking about it quite a bit lately.  

It can't fundamentally be blamed on the US.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, etc would all still be Purple/Red countries even if the US stayed out of their affairs entirely.

If the US didn't invade Iraq, Saddam and his psychopathic sons would still be in power.

[Heart of Space]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

It can't all be blamed on the US.

If Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, etc would all still be Purple/Red countries even if the US stayed out of their affairs entirely.

You're absolutely right.  I didn't mean to cartoonishly vilify the US.  It's the consequence of the actions of many governments.  The US just enjoys the most benefit from all the conflict.  

[Rilles]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It can't fundamentally be blamed on the US.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, etc would all still be Purple/Red countries even if the US stayed out of their affairs entirely.

If the US didn't invade Iraq, Saddam and his psychopathic sons would still be in power.

What makes you so sure about that? 

[Gesundheit]

Most of them are underdeveloped, true. BUT many of them are very rich, probably richer than most other countries. See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

You'll see a majority of Muslim countries in the top 20, with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran in the top 5 countries, the former two which are very similar countries historically, logistically, geographically (albeit not very much), and basically in most other areas. The difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq today is that one chose to cooperats with the US ages ago while the other refused. So that's the main factor for why these two particular countries are very different. It's different to assess each other Muslim country. It's very difficult and it requires deep research. But still, even Saudi Arabia and Dubai are not that much evolved. Blue/Orange at best. They buy experts from all over the world with their money. In a sense they're utilizing their money in a good way but they still have got long ways to go as people.

Also, leadership is a crucial factor. Saddam for example was in a constant war with neighbouring countries like Quwait and Iran while Saudi Arabia was more peaceful which made them progress relatively better.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Gesundheit

[remember]

@iceprincess i‘d say it’s mainly a structural and ideological difference - historical development had three major turning points which boosted the development of some countries.

1. colonialisation which is represented until today in language and trade networks
2. western enlightenment and the development of a more rational mind. secularisation.
3. industrialization and the development of emancipated work.

if you look exactly, only the first point was the point where the west really influenced and started to exploit - the two others are the missing of a structural change - if you compare that to spiraldynamics it explains why they are still mostly in blue which are hierarchical authoritatarian structures often religiously backed. these aspects are really technical ones not philosophical ones. without socialistic ideas there would be no west like we know it. there would be no statue of liberty.

one of the most interesting dynamics though in world history is: first i get rid of my enslavement then i enslave myself - the way you do the second, makes the difference.

Edited July 21, 2020 by remember

[Epikur]

One perspective could be that the push comes mostly from nordic nations. The climate in nordic nations are "fascist". There is no room for mistakes. 

If the nordic countries became muslims they would have changed it to their needs to make it more effective like they did it with christianity.

To some degree you could see it with the nordic muslims the turcs. They were the only real danger to Europe.

The advantage of the nordic nations may be equalized with time though.







 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

BUT many of them are very rich, probably richer than most other countries.

But they are only that rich because Western countries buy from them.

There would not be Middle Eastern wealth without the industrialized West.

When was the last time you bought a product made in the Middle East other than a gallon of gas?