Since the age of exploration, the world has been wondering what catapulted the nations of western Europe to global dominance. We have come up with several theories, explanations for the narrative of modern history, and the fruits of those stories are evident to those who will take the time to delve further than the coasting observer. Reading the book 'Discipling Nations: The Power of Truth to Transform Cultures', I feel I finally have an answer to this enduring question which makes the most logical sense.
First, let's examine the other answers which have been submitted though, for sake of comparison. No doubt those who have lent credence will assume that my understanding of these theories from the readable books meant for the layperson are insufficient, but I ask for your toleration my amateurish philosophising. In decades past, the primary candidate for white supremacy was a biological superiority. The nations of Europe represented the cream of the human crop, the apex of evolutionary development. The Japhethites took their place in the great chain of being and had the right to exercise their ascendancy to accelerate the natural current of mother nature. We observe the terrible fruit of such a story, with hundreds of native peoples being treated as less than human, studied to determine if they represented the fabled missing link, roped into slavery and exploited as if they were included as objects of Genesis 1:28.
The ripening of this cogitative mode was in Nazism and other similar ideologies, which seized upon the pseudoscience of nature in red tooth and claw to justify unprecedented genocides and launch a eugenics program. Now we deal with a tamed version of evolution, still distorting the way we understand the world, but not to the extreme degree which it once did. Any suggestion that human development is linked to evolutionary advantages is now met with extreme aversion, and certainly not deemed politically correct.
So now we look for alternatives, and one that had appealed to me before was suggested by Jared Diamond in 'Guns, Germs and Steel' and further elucidated by Ian Morris in 'Why the West Rules: For Now'. Their suggestions about the influence of geography and biogeography, I feel, still cannot be entirely disqualified, and have much merit. The argument, in very general brushes, is that all societies have the same baseline humans; there are no biological advantages or handicaps as a whole, and certainly not be race. It is almost the antithesis of the toxic racial theory that was once so dominant in its aversion to any mention of genetic differences among
Homo sapiens.
Instead, what shaped our societies is put down to geographical differences. Europe fostered competing nation states which existed separately because of natural geographical barriers while China had long been unified because of the comparative lack of such features in the landscape. Domesticable species were far more common in the old world than the new world. The old world's horizontal axis was far more facilitative of cross pollination of ideas, inventions and trade routes than the latitudinal variation in the new world. They are really good, thoughtful books, I do recommend them.
Recently, a third perspective has helped me to understand this issue with a different take, which I figure is far more holistic than either of the last two theories. Some may take offence at the idea that biblical truth is what transforms nations and generates wealth, but the facts rather speak for themselves. Loren Cunningham's 'The Book that Transforms Nations' offers a brief overview while 'Discipling Nations' offers a heftier elucidation. This idea in essence, suggests that God intended for societies to arise, and designed them to function in a certain way. Societies that function according to those principles; such as honest government, concern for the poor, valuing individuals and so on, will thrive, in the same way that a body that is respected by being fed the right food and well exercised will be healthy. God made societies, and knows how they should work better than any of us could, and He has graciously revealed His principles for a successful society in His word. This view holds that there is an absolute truth and an absolute standard which we can either choose to abide by, or abandon.
The advantage of this view over the second is that it gives us hope. The second view is ultimately deterministic, as much of the rest of the modern cosmological evolutionary account is. It diminishes the epic turns of history and the brilliant impact of artists, inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs and missionaries on this world by attributing them, indirectly, to probabilistic chance. No doubt
Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus, but we ought to be wary of going overly fatalistic. The second view encourages us to think that nations which are underdeveloped will never be able to change, and so those who are more advanced have also diminished their sense of responsibility to share the blessings and wealth they have obtained.
What we believe about the how we relate to God and how we relate to the rest of material creation affects the attitude we have about our purpose and potential. The fact remains that the answers God has given are the only ones which enable us to see the perfect balance between divine providence and our responsibility to subdue the earth.
The stories we tell ourselves either create death, destruction and poverty or life, vibrancy and abundance. Either development or devolution in our societies. The stories we tell about our societies shape how we view the outcomes of success or failure, and the solutions we try to implement in order to pursue further prosperity.
