9 replies to this topic

[CyberMisterBeauty]

It's been a long time I wanna know about that...there must be a reason why the countries in high latitude are much wealthier and prosperous than those near the equator(exception Ausralia,of course).Is there a connection between hot/cold climate and whealthy?

Edited by CyberMisterBeauty, 23 March 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[Raklian]

There is more land mass in high latitudes than there is in the lower ones, so it makes more sense that there is greater weatlh concentration up there. This is just one variable out of many, but large nonetheless.

[Logically Irrational]

I would recommend reading Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0393317552

[Zeitgeist123]

i dont think it has to do with geography. i think it has to do with the climate and the culture that aroused from the environmental pressure. if you think about it, tropical countries have more natural resources (e.g. brazil) than those in cold countries (e.g. switzerland) yet you'll be surprised that most of the wealthier regions are from the cold countries. that's because during our hunter-gatherer stage, people from cold countries has to work half of the year to work their butts off hunting and collecting food so they can survive during winter. people from the tropics, on the other hand, almost always have good weather all year round. the hunter-gathering tribes from the jungles of borneo dont have to work as hard as their scandinavian counterparts as they could get by and survive just hanging around a tree all afternoon, barefooted and naked while collecting berries or eggs or catching squirrels to eat without minimun effort. hunter-gathering scandinavians dont have that luxury or they will die. this in turn, eventually become a part of a culture as the society develops. the scandinavians learned to make the most gathering resources during spring and summer to make way for the winter. as time goes by, these resources and hard work turned to surpluses and then to wealth and technology. while the tribe from the tropics would simply just go around their usual routine of hunting-gathering without much effort to go beyond that as resources arent scarce. fast forward to the present time and you'll see white/european/north asian capitalists trying to dominate the planet and whatever is left of the natural resources of the thrid world nations while brown island people try to immigrate to these wealthy european countries doing all menial jobs. moral of the story: read the turtle and the hare.

disclaimer: im not white, im one of those brown island people.

[Zeitgeist123]

heres a simple diagram:

blue: people near the equator; contentists
red: people from cold climate; wantists

[truthiness]

I think Zeitgeist makes some excellent points, but I'd add that over the broad stroke of history its only relatively recently that the northerners have become as dominant as they are. The first empires in Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt, ancient Greece, and Rome might all qualify as southerners easily dominating over the (then still mostly primitive and tribal) northerners throughout the rest of Europe and West Asia. The early Han Chinese developed in a climate that wasn't too dissimilar from that of the southeast coast of the USA (though they were eventually crushed, in turn, by the Mongolians, Manchurians, and the Japanese, all from the north). In the Americas the only very significant empires that ever really flowered were all in the south - the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Inca. I might tweak that graph to bring the "contentists" into a global early lead up until the exploration and expansion of commerce, where the "wantists" would start to pull ahead (after all, why would a "contentist" need to trade with anyone?). I think this is backed up by history. It isn't until the 1500s that the Europeans really become a world power to match the Islamic or Chinese empires. The rest of the north (America, Japan, and Russia) each don't really rise until the late 1800s or early 1900s.

[Nick1984]

Having a superior culture is the main reason.

People in well off countries had more freedoms, we're more competitive, and more open to science.

[Zeitgeist123]

i dont know what constitutes a superior culture. i mean the warmongering romans adapted greek culture. alexander the great might as well have adapted the superior persian culture after winning the war againts xerxes if he wasnt too drunk and burned the whole persian empire down. i think it has to do with how a culture values a certain virtue. for example, the virtue of hard work is ingrained in the protestant american/europe and all confucian society (china, japan, korea) vs the culture where poverty is regarded as a virtue (e.g. roman catholic countries, india)

Edited by Zeitgeist123, 26 March 2012 - 02:31 AM.

[Zeitgeist123]

I think Zeitgeist makes some excellent points, but I'd add that over the broad stroke of history its only relatively recently that the northerners have become as dominant as they are. The first empires in Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt, ancient Greece, and Rome might all qualify as southerners easily dominating over the (then still mostly primitive and tribal) northerners throughout the rest of Europe and West Asia. The early Han Chinese developed in a climate that wasn't too dissimilar from that of the southeast coast of the USA (though they were eventually crushed, in turn, by the Mongolians, Manchurians, and the Japanese, all from the north). In the Americas the only very significant empires that ever really flowered were all in the south - the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Inca. I might tweak that graph to bring the "contentists" into a global early lead up until the exploration and expansion of commerce, where the "wantists" would start to pull ahead (after all, why would a "contentist" need to trade with anyone?). I think this is backed up by history. It isn't until the 1500s that the Europeans really become a world power to match the Islamic or Chinese empires. The rest of the north (America, Japan, and Russia) each don't really rise until the late 1800s or early 1900s.

thats true, but in a society/culture where scarcity is the norm, the wantists culture dominates in the end. the contentists dont get to see it coming.

[xisnotx]

Superior culture?

Thanks to your "superior culture" humans have the capability to completely blow themselves up...and not just your own culture, but every culture out there. That's your culture's responsibility to deal with...your culture's legacy. I can think of many better...and few worse...but maybe that's just me. At this point in human history, I'd rather not be associated with that..

I have roots in one of the presumed "inferior cultures" and there is a sort of social grace that those cultures posses. There are mock wars...where no one is ever seriously hurt of killed....presumably because those cultures long ago realized the inherent valueless-ness of war. They partake in it, not because they have to but because they recognize it is a fact of human existence that needs to be exercised. Thus they do so in probably the most humane way possible. Yet a person from a culture that has participated in numerous wars killing thousands in the last couple years is referring to us as inferior....the irony.

Having said that, you would need to define "wealth". Those superior cultures tend to think of "wealth" in largely materialistic ways...certainly a measure. But, where I'm from, having all the material possessions in the world won't make you stand out as any superior ( to an extent). They are largely concerned with values and ideologies that would seem completely uncivilized if your measure of civilization is the possession of materials.

But that's the rub, isn't it. All this stuff we have, and for what? The ability to get more stuff?

Edited by xisnotx, 26 March 2012 - 12:09 PM.