Why Are Some Countries Poor and Others Rich?

In times where fiscal importance is crucial for one's survival and happiness, it's worth asking what aspects- other than reliable institutions,& abundant resources- play a role in econ, heaven, maybe?

                   The concept of money, particularly in recent decades, has become an unequivocally of a paramount importance to virtually all individuals who are interested in living a simple, promising life. With money, as it is evident, one attains the necessary capability to purchase healthy food, decent education, a roof to live under, essential health care, in short, all aspects that draw the line between living and merely surviving. It takes no time or effort to skim through the internet to be appalled by the heartbreaking statistics that reveal the multitude of people living under severe destitution: approximately eighty percent of humanity lives on less than 10$ a day, a billion people entering the twenty-first century not knowing how to write their names or fathoming a basic book, two billion people lacking primitive sanitation, and so on of the depressing, cynicism stimulus statistics. That begs the lingering question: why are some countries poor and some rich?

                    The simplistic nature of the question possesses complex, disputable answers. Political scientists and prominent economists have come to a tentative consensus regarding the answers: from pinpointing the crucial role of reliable institutions and the abundance of resources in a particular country, to the country's able population. Nevertheless, one of the abandoned and ignored factors tend to be the most detrimental and influential-- particularly on the established institutions--, and one of those factors is, culture. However unorthodox that sounds, culture, which is heavily and conspicuously influenced by religion, holds immense gravity in determining the prosperity of a country. For instance, the likelihood of an Islamic-oriented country to be a capitalist one is relatively poor-- democracy in the Islamic doctrine is considered, according to most interpretations, an anathema. I will leave the institutions' paramount role for other writings, and the focus here is going to be poured into the role of religion and God in influencing the GDP of a country.
 

                     A baffling statistics pop out when considering the role of religion in influencing or affecting a country's affluence. Nineteen of the richest countries in the world have seventy percent or more of their population showing total indifference towards religion and believing in a higher power; on the other hand, most poor countries have a population that cherishes and cares deeply about religion. An exception of this would be the empire of the U.S.; Americans' Protestantism is an exceptional materialistic, individualistic kind--one in which individuality is viewed more favorably than the collective community. This was adequately explained by the  German sociologist, Max Weber, who studied religions, where he identified in his work,"the Protestant work ethic," Protestantism as the driving force behind western capitalism. So why religiosity seems to be in bad terms with wealth creation?

    Religiosity, promising a heavenly pleasant afterlife, requires a meticulous, fruitful time and effort allocated towards the afterlife the one should aspire to. Despite the unpleasantness nature of one's life state, an afterlife lacking any form of uncomfortableness, agony, suffering, hunger, impotency, malevolence, and death is possible and attainable-- of course, if the allocation of the effort adequately met the requirements set by God. "This is merely a test, it is an ephemeral road that reaches a more sacred end, nothing here will last, your deeds will, deeds that delight God," a pious believer contends. "Don't get too attached to this ephemeral life, with its all materialistic entities." 
 
                To clarify with an elaborative example, Islam prohibits the charging of interest; Buddhism urges its followers to resent the desire for materialistic goods; and Christianity contends, as the American theologian John Cobb observed,"man cannot serve both God and Mammon (wealth)". Nevertheless, religions vary immensely in their view of wealth and their prone to cultural influence; in that capacity, I won't turn a blind eye to all of the concrete instances where religion stimulates the economy-- when it disseminates trust among people, when it encourages living a "good life", when its followers, such as Jewish people, are for many centuries persecuted and discriminated against, and that's why attaining money (power) is necessary for protection and dominance. That's why, it is not of my keen interest to sweepingly generalize the egregious effects of the religion on economies. Nonetheless, believing in God evidently correlates with focusing on the afterlife rather than the here and now, which might urge religious followers to shy away from certain aspects that enhance the economy. And I claim that culture is not only influenced by religion, though it tends to be the strongest-- geopolitics, history, philosophy, climate, and many other factors dictates the paradigm of a culture.
 
                        Affluent countries, however, fervently and firmly believe in their limitless capacity to alter their destinies. They tend to be great advocates of the idea of actively stimulating their intellectual fortitudes; the here and now might be unbearably painful, but there is one chance to make it up, in this particular life-- because the afterlife in not only unguaranteed but undeserving the effort or time. Furthermore, it is not a mere, utter coincidence that with the diminishment of religion, materialism is on the rise. Metaphysical, supernatural spiritual rituals sit on the end of the spectrum across materialism; and with religion lacking behind to emphasis the former, the latter will emerge with all its by-products-- economic growth( physical capital and technology).

Lastly, to make it crystal clear, I'm not advocating for atheism or non-religiosity; I am merely projecting my observations as a previous religious man. As a secular humanist, I have a firm believe that religion is an astute guidance that we shall utilize and fathom. However, we should be aware of certain interpretations of religion, because not only they will affect our social and political life, but our economic and fiscal one as well.

 

Author's Note

Please ignore any reckless grammatical mistakes committed by my oblivious lack of attention. Any suggestions are highly treasured and appreciated. provide me with your insightful critiques, and I'll be eternally grateful!