The relationship between climate and wealth

Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 12:45 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:

What temperate regions in the southern hemisphere do you speak of? If you name them, you will probably be able to soon see the reasons why (remembering, as I tire of saying, that climate is not the be-all-end all).

There is not a lot of southern-hemisphere temperate land, and the parts that are tend to be more industrialized and wealthy than the others.

See Australia and New Zealand, see north of Brazil vs south of Brazil.

I have lived in each of those places I just mentioned (including in both the northeast of Brazil and various places to the South of São Paulo) and would be happy to comment on the industrial and cultural differences.

To put it really simply, in Brazil, the most industrialized regions start just about where the tropical zone ends.

There are always exceptions, of course, but do you have any of them in mind?

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.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 01:01 pm
neil wrote:
Hi John/nyc: I don't disagree, but tell us about concensus type comunities other than antient Athens Greece and early USA.

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."
0 Replies
Craven de Kere
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 11:56 pm
john/nyc wrote:
That is, I was trying to speak to industrialization itself.

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.

I was trying to get at "first causes."

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.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2004 01:09 am
Re: The relationship between climate and wealth
Craven de Kere wrote:
In my life one of the topics I have most frequently discussed was the relationship between climate (specifically temperature) and a culture's wealth. While it's blatantly obvious that temperature is not the singular relevant factor I maintain that it is one of relevance nonetheless. Success as a nation is clearly influenced by millions (literally) of factors and I do not pose the following as a rule with no exceptions. …. What say you?

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) )
0 Replies
Craven de Kere
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:11 pm
Re: The relationship between climate and wealth
nipok wrote:

.... was climate 1000 years ago a factor in which countries developed into third world countries and which ones developed into "first" world countries?


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.
0 Replies
Algis Kemezys
Reply Thu 7 Oct, 2004 06:16 pm
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.
0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 09:52:57