The relationship between climate and wealth

Australia, New Zealand, et al, have their industralization because it was "exported" from the nations that colonized them. They are just extensions of the industrialized Europe. I was trying to get at "first causes." (Also, I may have misunderstood what you meant by temperate. Therefore I was refering to that entire area between the Tropic of Capricorn and Antarctic Circle: as opposed to temperate biomes.) That is, I was trying to speak to industrialization itself.

Native American comes to mind (both north and south continent). The original Australians. Those Africans that lived north of the Antarctic Circle but south of the Tropic of Capricorn. Didn't research this so I'm going on "impressions."

You seem to be using "industrialization" and "the industrial revolution" interchangeably.

IMO, that is the wrong way to go about it. Revolutions tend to spread and where they start will tell you little about this thesis as it would be reflected as a trend and not an absolute.



But this thesis isn't about "first causes".

Use this analogy:

Althetes who train in altitudes do so in an atmosphere condusive to certain athletic improvements. This does not mean the atmosphere is the root cause of the athletic ability, just that it may lend itself to certain developmental trends.

Also note that Europe tried to export to less temperate regions as well.

Re: The relationship between climate and wealth


Read earlier parts of the thread before and finally decided to read the thread in more depth. As one of many items that could dictate the evolution of every country's economy I would agree that climate may have played a hand in the evolution of economy. But I think that we can't use our modern civilization as a basis. What we have now is a global economy that is dictated by many different facets but to your point, was climate 1000 years ago a factor in which countries developed into third world countries and which ones developed into "first" world countries?

I think that agriculture in general was a driving force because of climate. Where agriculture flourishes the need to deal in goods in services was not needed as much. Where agriculture was seasonal or very limited they had to rely more on goods and services, and trade to get by which led towards more materialistic economies. Those areas where agriculture flourished there was an abundance of food so needs and wants were minimal and the desire to better ones self was likewise stifled. So to that end maybe it is the struggle to survive that drove cultures to adopt more materialistic views and ambitions. So climate affected agriculture which in my eyes 2000-3000 years ago affected the struggle to survive which I think played a large part in how societies evolved.

So yes I can see climate being a large factor with many ancillary reasons why more temperate climates in general evolved their economies more similarly.

(actually only decided to reply to the thread because it was the only one of the top 10 I wasn't the last one to submit to and it was in the middle of the other threads. (pretty lame excuse for a post if you ask me) )

Re: The relationship between climate and wealth


Perhaps.

If climate influenced culture and said culture influenced economic development.

But I'm not sure why you seem to consider climate to be a factor only that long ago.

But funny as it is, most of the inventors are scottish from a rather cold place.I feel much of my creativity is from my scottish genes.