LS, you commented that, according to the article, economics seemed to be at the base of this Isamic war. -- The author sort of made this paragraph as an aside, -- but I think it needs more emphasis. -- I see this war to be about much more than just material concerns. --- This will be a cultural clash, if it goes global.
Almost authoritarian vs libertarian in the FR sense. -- And, - if I understand the author correctly, he says much the same here: --
----- "The Industrial Revolution was the economic expression of a much more general transformation, a radical new form of social order whose defining feature was the embrace of open-ended discovery:
open-endedness in the pursuit of knowledge (provisional and refutable hypotheses supplanting revelation and authority),
open-endedness in economic life (innovation and free-floating market transactions in place of tradition and the "just price"),
open-endedness in politics (power emerging from the people rather than the divine right of kings and hereditary aristocracies),
and open-endedness in life paths (following your dreams instead of knowing your place).
In short, industrialization both advanced and reflected a larger dynamic of liberalization — a dramatic and qualitative shift in the dimensions of social freedom."
I agree it's not about material concerns, but I think it's the result of material disparities. Those of theological bent would assert that material success often undermines Man's spirituality. It's a chicken or egg question which I would answer differently: Material deprivation drives Man to seek purpose and meaning outside the material realm. The less hope that exists in this world the greater the motivation to believe justification will be found in the next.
This will be a cultural clash, if it goes global.
Yes, cultural in its present manifestation, but economic at its core, IMO. The cultural differences wouldn't exist -- at least they would not be so severe -- without the economic disparities. Resentment born of the disparity is rationalized by the resenters to other causes: religious, cultural, moral, societal. Those on the short end of the stick almost universally feel their lot is the result of being victimized and/or unwilling to commit the "evils" which they believe have led to the material success of the resented.
The matter of "open-endedness" can be stated as chicken or egg as well, but perhaps more likely is a self-feeding progession. No question that there's a tendency to fear change, and to fear it most when the nature and extent of it is unknown (open-ended). The less security (confidence? self-sufficiency?) an individual or group believes it has, the more likely he/she/it will be driven by fear to pay a high price trying to achieve it. Sometimes the price is mere gold; sometimes it is freedom; usually it is both.