So says Hans Hermann Hoppe in lecture five of "Economy, History and Society". Here are the reasons Hinduism is detrimental to prosperity.
- human sacrifices mean human life is not valued as much
- strict vegetarianism limits capacity for entrepreneuship
- caste system undermines division of labor (you can't choose your job)
- belief in reincarnation increases tolerance for governmental abuse
- outright prohibition on the use of certain plants and animals like cows
Sounds sensible.
Standard population theory I got from environmental science class:
Population is supposed to follow movements in economic growth. More economic growth increases population until demand for labor pulls women into the workforce which makes it more profitable NOT to have children. Population growth then plateaus and begins to decline. I don't know if population will decline in a free market. Making babies would probably be completely independent of economic incentives in a free market.
India, because of religion, never had a chance to be prosperous. Private property, even in one's own body, was given little respect and the 'cultural regulations' were not friendly to capital accumulation. Or am I missing something here? Does their culture place a premium on making babies?
So why does India have the largest population?
There is an essential information you are missing here.
India once had a very scanty population. Very scanty.
We are talking about a population smaller than European countries living in the entire South Asian region.
My school textbooks showed that population growth rates were even negative during the median years and later years of colonial rule. And low life expectancy, high rates of mortality and disease, and frequent famines have been the case in Mughal days and in the distant past before.
It was not until the 1960s that improvements in medical care, gradual shift to food surpluses, and general improvement in sanitary conditions led to an increasing population.
Now remember, just because population is scanty does not mean that people are living far apart. On the contrary, poverty used to force people into much closer proximity, with far more people under one small household, so that all necessary things were within even reach. And hence, the squalor was even greater, with more congestion and less sanitation. There would be only one toilet for hundreds of people.
As population increased in the 1960s, the population densities of Indian villages, towns, and cities decreased, as people could afford to move further apart, and live separately. It further contributed to reductions in unsanitary conditions, and thus increasing population. It is a misleading figure cited here that the poor got poorer in the 1970s. Rather, the poor started living longer and healthier lives and started coming out of poverty, and another generation of poor could also live longer and plan further for their family's future as their savings accumulated.
I am personally glad that I am not from Hindu background. My parents originate from the forest-dwelling peoples of Jharkhand, who were not part of the authoritarian Hindu culture practiced in towns and villages. Furthermore my mother had a Christian upbringing in a Catholic school, and my father went to militantly secular army school. We were saved from Hinduism. You will notice that the only groups highly successful in Indian society are non-Hindu minorities - from Marwars to Chettairs to Parsis to Shi'ia Muslims. Parsis used to be the complete business class of India, apart from being high level political leaders in the British government. Marwars and Chettairs created business empires across South East Asia and Africa. Muslims are disproportionately highly represented in Indian entertainment industry. Hindus destroyed themselves in achievement. And the only Hindus who achieved much were Kashmiri Brahmins like Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, who only served to further ruin the nation, and were just career politicians with greedy agendas without the enterprising spirit of Marwars and Parsis.
Christian Western Civilization is the greatest thing to happen on Earth. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. If you don't believe it from the mouths of Western chauvinists, do believe it from the mouth of someone who saw what happened in the world outside Christian Western Civilization.
an interesting chart?
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/popgrowthsince_1500.jpg
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Nir Graham, you might note the steep population fall in the 1940s?
It looks like a fall of 20 million people from 400 million to 380 million. That's a 5% fall in population across a decade.
Hinduism is very interesting, but I'm looking at the spiritual context of it. Now, if I practice Hinduism am I detrimental to capitalism?
I don't know if human sacrifices are still done in modern Hindu cultures, do Christians still do sacrifices?
How does vegetarianism limit capacity for entrepreneuship? I've been a vegetarian for 3 1/2 years, this has not limited my financial progress.
I've read into the caste system on a spiritual level and I understood it, but if the caste system is, let's say, government enforced or by law, that's different than people not associating with who they may view as "lower" (in whatever way). If this caste system is one's own personal persuasion, and its carried by many individuals, isn't that the right to association?
Belief in rebirth doesn't lead to more government abuse. Why would you want to keep being reborn if everytime you come back you have an authoritarian government is controlling you?
Again, if this is not forced by law, and is of personal and cultural persuasion, I don't see anything wrong with people not using certain plants or cows. I'm sure you have a couple hundred people in the United States who practice Hinduism. Yet, the meat industry persist.
>>It looks like a fall of 20 million people from 400 million to 380 million. That's a 5% fall in population across a decade.
indeed. a big drop, no doubt about it
More economic growth increases population until demand for labor pulls women into the workforce which makes it more profitable NOT to have children.
Hmm.... So the whole point of children was for profit, but then sacrificing child rearing became more profitable? Not sure if I buy into that bit completely.
...do Christians still do sacrifices?
You are joking right?
Yes, but I guess the point and sarcasm failed to get across, but really, do Christian still practice sacrifices? Not to my knowledge. Yet, if we want to go through the Bible and the long forgotten history we can find sacrifices. How is Hinduism any more detrimental to prosperiety than Christianity or any other religion? The whole idea is bollocks.
It is impossible to be a Christian and practice sacrifices by any reasonable definition of the word (and Christian is a very obscure near useless word, particularly in America). Any sacrifice performed in "The Bible" (another fairly useless term) is not done by Christians in the New Testement, the sacrifices are part of the Old Covenant. Just picking up the Bible and wildly reading through without any context or frame of reference is bound to end with an inferior understanding of any of the texts contained. It takes much work and effort to get a decent understanding of complex ancient texts.
As for the other Hoppe assertions, some (such as the vegetarianism) seem more like ad hoc culture biases or unimaginative narratives to conform to some "human truth" that simply doesn't exist.
It's not so much that children were for profit, but a combination of things:
There are incentives to have less children as living standards rise, that's the real solution to the overpopulation scare.
"I don't know if human sacrifices are still done in modern Hindu cultures, do Christians still do sacrifices?"
This is taken out of context. The lecture examined how Hindu culture affected material prosperity of India from the outset.
"How does vegetarianism limit capacity for entrepreneuship? I've been a vegetarian for 3 1/2 years, this has not limited my financial progress."
Meat consumption is very essential for a robust body structure and brain development. Without meat consumption, mankind's ability to transform the cubic meters of the earth into capital goods would be hampered. You also cannot compare modern vegetarianism with institutionalized vegetarianism that existed for hundreds of years.
"but if the caste system is, let's say, government enforced or by law, that's different than people not associating with who they may view as "lower" (in whatever way). If this caste system is one's own personal persuasion, and its carried by many individuals, isn't that the right to association?"
This is besides the point. A society that voluntarily chooses to limit progress in science and technology is still a society that limits science and technology. Whether or not that makes individuals 'happier' is irrelevant. We are talking about material prosperity.
"Belief in rebirth doesn't lead to more government abuse."
I never said rebirth leads to more government abuse. I said rebirth makes people more resistant to government abuse.
"Why would you want to keep being reborn if everytime you come back you have an authoritarian government is controlling you?"
Because you can be reborn in a higher caste if you obey the government in your present life.
although, culture bears some realtion to the making of wealth, I cannot help but believe that the actual natural resources play a necessary role too, no matter what may be said about culture.
Indeed, in some instances natural resources might play an even greater part.
For instance, even if I believe in free trade, if I'm living in a socialist country or a desert moon, my belief in markets will not make me wealthy and certainly not wealthier than the raja ruling his kingdom.
Curious, I wonder if either of these views -that wealth is a function of ideas or a function of both material and ideal factors -imply anything praxeological?
Perhaps in a way, Hoppe could say that ideas are means towards the creation of wealth. Mises once wrote though, that ideas or formulas, are not matters of human action, what does this mean? And secondly, if ideas are means towards the creation of wealth, then there aren't some ideas (like socialism for instance) that are means towards poverty. Yet this latter statement seems in some way impermissible.
All the richer countries have been bemoaning for decades that their birth rates have been decreasing and they're not producing even a replacement population. My understanding is that farming families (of lesser or undeveloped countries) produced many more children than needed becuase the death rates of birth, infants, and children was so high. Farming familes needed enough children to help with the farm work; also people want to carry forward their own family line. Improved medical practices allowed families to produce only the number of offspring that they wished to end up with.
I've recently read that Harvard has proven that you can have any two of the following three: 1) fully integrated global trade and economics, 2) nation states, 3) democracies. But I did not see any references as to why this is found to be true. Does anyone know.
It seems to me that free and open immigration oppose normal human cultures that mostly prefer to maintain all the same cultures. Now I know of many current exceptions, please don't tell me. I'm speaking here of long periods of history. Also of all the recent ethnic cleansing in eastern europe. Even in the Austro-Hungarian empire, which was based on language, not race or ethnicity, open immigration was not permitted; and they had no specific borders as they are understood today. Birds of a feather flock together sort of thing.
"Human sacrifices mean human life is not valued as much" - what I wrote on sacrifices seems to be in context with this point.
I suppose I do not have a robust body or brain development, and that my ability to transform the cubic meters of the earth into capital goods is hampered. How do you differ modern and institutionalized vegetarianism when the diets are the same?
Are you trying to undermine their own subjective value preferences on what they view is more valuable? You are trying to compare arbitrary material prosperity with their own spiritual prosperity, and claiming that the material prosperity is more important.
"Belief in reincarnation (rebirth) increases tolerance (less resistant) for governmental abuse." If you said "intolerance", then yes.
Obeying the government is not the same as leading a "good" or "evil" life, essentially when the government is "evil".