The relationship between climate and wealth

Yes I did. I used "wealthy" in the same sense and definition that you did earlier. I was merely pointing out that that is an incomplete definition and kind of wondering if it is possible to quantify everything that goes into a person or a country's definition of "wealth".

As an economic indicater no doubt you are correct. But IMO we could use another "standard of wealth". One that would more likley to include the other facters that I have mentioned ad-nauseum. Best, M.

Yes, and ad absurdiam and ad off topicum.

All of you here are certainly a fine swift kick in the ass. (that would be a good thing)
Fun, entertaining, amusing and even educational.
Utmost unexpectedness.
Thanks
keep it up!

I think that in summation, what the author of this thread is proposing is the old saying that necessity is the mother of invention and that living in could climates thus necessitates more intellectual and physical stimulation that living in hot climates. The problem and potential fallacy of this proposition resides in the temporal snap shot or window used to form the bases of observable evidence.

I would note to the author that civilization was born in Mesopotamia or some other WARM and HOT climate and NOT in the cold climate of Europe, were people were still living in caves. Egypt dominated the world economically and scientifically for centuries, while people inhabiting cold areas were living contemporaneously in a state of primitiveness.

Thus, expand the temporal scope of historical evidence and one sees this theory not holding water.

This theory very specifically relates to the modern economy. It's no damn wonder that if you look outside the scope of the modern economy you see conflict with the theory.

In short, it addresses the effect of climate on the industrial revolution and modern economy, which you should do as well if you'd like to comment on it (as opposed to making non-sensical blather about how a theory about modern economy does not reconcile with ignoring the time frame and exploring tangents).

Contrary to your rebuttal is the simple law of existence that creates the present from the summations of the past…with a slight mutation that makes the present unique and different. Thus, the wealth that fueled the industrial revolution was created from and in the agrarian era. European exploration, colonization, subjugation and exploitation of others people energy, land and resources (from hot and cold climates) created much wealth, which in turn financed the industrial revolution and the new economy.

Your rebuttal assumes that the new modern economy was created from scratch and did not inherit any wealth and capital from the “Old Economy” and that is a spurious proposition at best.

The fact is that there has been a historical shift of the centers of world economics (and civilization, which is related) from warmer regions to colder ones. From Mesopotamia and Egypt to the Mediterranean basin to Northern Europe and North America.

At a certain level of development, cold climates are just too harsh to live in, people are mostly interested in survival. Survival is easier is warmer climates, and lead the way for the Ancient civilizations.
But after this level of development was passed, then it became true that "necessity is the mother of invention", mostly in terms of societal organization. Thus, having it "too easy" became a cultural handicap for future economical and technological development (not necessarily for enjoying a good life).
I think we have reached the stage in technological development, in which climate counts only as a historical element which helped some nations to be richer than others. In other words, the difference today is of societal organization, at regional, national and world levels.

It does not, in any way, assume "that the new modern economy was created from scratch".

"That is a spurious proposition at best".

I understand the Darwin theory of natural selection and how environment resistance actually strengthens and enhances ability via mutation and adaptation of offspring. That is very plausible and probable, but there is no evidence of that having manifested in the time between Mesopotamia and now. Usually, human mutation takes 20,000 years, before the manifest as common traits in an isolated population. There was simply not enough time for this to have occurred between the time of the Egyptians and now. If your theory is correct, then Europe should have advanced before the Egyptians and humans had been living in Europe for some 20,000 years before the Great Egyptian civilization.

What is more plausible is born from the fact each generation of humanity inherits and then improves upon the knowledge base created in the past. Thus, The Egyptians inherited knowledge from Mesopotamia and Nubians. When the Egyptians were conquered, their conquers thus inherited and built off that knowledge. When the Greek era of dominance faded, the Romans thus inherited that knowledge base for the Greeks. When Roman declined, Western Europe then inherited this knowledge base and augmented it. The USA then inherited this knowledge base and augmented it as well.

It is really military imperialism and dominance, which is a bigger factor here than is climate.

Agreed, but note the relation between military strength and indutrialization. Note the relation between industrialization and climate.

I note the coincidence, but I do not note a correlation. The Soviet Union had much military strength, but not a lot of wealth and it is a cold climate. Military acumen is primarily the consequence of doing a lot of fighting or living in threat or fear of being conquered. Necessity being the mother of invention, war like people developed better fighting instruments and techniques over time.

If one has not fought much in life, they could be easily beat up by a person who grew up fighting often. Those peoples who lived in areas of constant warfare, thus evolved a need evolve better fighting techniques. Once these types of people began to explore the world, then conquered lands and peoples who had less of a necessity to advance militarily, due to less fighting and more resources as they lived more in harmony with nature as opposed to trying to exploit and dominate nature and its fruits of survival.

Soviet wealth was dilluted by their societal structure and many other factors. What makes you think that climate is being proposed as an absolute? It's being forwarded as an influencing factor and finding an exception in terms of an absolute influence does nothing to address it's less than absolute effect.

I will again quote from the very first post on this thread.



The "aha, I found an exception" games might be fun, but they are also irrelevant as this was not once posited as having no exceptions nor being the most influential factor.

If you want to argue against positions of your own creation feel free to do so, but you are in no way remotely addressing my position, despite your penchant for ascribing said positions of your own tangential creation to me.

This is not about debunking the argument with exceptions to the general rule; this is about the fallacious construction of a conclusion from the snapshot or photo of the present, while ignoring the temporal continuum. It is tantamount to trying to infer a truth from a still photo as opposed to a video capturing the actions and reactions up to the even in the photo.

Furthermore, one will think that Eskimos would be the most advanced civilization on earth by now, given the ridiculous premise of this argument. To me, it is simply another way of attempting to rationalize white supremacy as white people inhabited cold climates and not white people inhabited the tropics. One appears less racist by postulating climate superiority as opposed to racial superiority.

I've not ignored the "temporal continuum". Please try to substantiate that assertion.



In that case you'd do well to read the "ridiculous" argument and note that extremities of climate were addressed in my second post and that you are exhibiting a reading deficiency.



I can't be faulted for your lapses in reading comprehension and the subsequent straw men you construct.



LOLOLOLOL

Funny.

Imperialism exists. Let be no doubt about it.
It helps imperialist nations get richer at a faster pace. It blocks nations under the imperialist yoke to get richer at a faster pace.

Now, that been said, it's really naïve to blame imperialism for just about everything.
It doesn't explain why the power relationship was uneven in the first place.
It doesn't explain why the rich societies got originally rich and became empires (rape and plunder is NOT the answer).
It doesn't explain why the non-imperialist societies grow at different paces.
The use of the term "imperialism" has served as an alibi to "explain" a lot of things without thinking. If we are poor, it's easier to damn the yankees and the multinational corporations than to understand what are the ills of our society.
It's easy to identify the enemy with a flag or a logo. Much easier than finding deep reasons.

No one here has said climate is the main factor in the riches of a country. No one has dared to make an equation between mean temperature and per capita national product. And only a sick mind can imagine an equation betweeen average national melanine and per capita national product.
So there's no argument there.

To me, it is simply another way of attempting to rationalize white supremacy as white people inhabited cold climates and not white people inhabited the tropics. One appears less racist by postulating climate superiority as opposed to racial superiority."

what the .... ?? some issues there..
______________________________________________

heh well craven pretty sure you dont exactly like me nor my opinions heh but anyways ill present them anyways j/k sure you'd look at them no matter what i said in the other post.

I have read several of the main posts including the originating post and i understand you are speaking more along the lines of productivity, of how humans thrive or dont according to their environment. But I am curious on your opinion about looking at more of a basal philosophy about climates affect on the origin of life.

Some of the theories I have read about evolution have stated a series of events that appear SO VERY delicate that if one minute variable was off key we'd never have existed at all. Using one theory for example: Oxygen was harmful to the organization of first simple molecules which combined to form the first proteins. The Oxygen, however, was absorbed by (according to this well backed theory) certain pumice stones and was not allowed at the time to reign free as it does today. (it would have destroyed all possibility of protein formation at the time)

heh i wont draw out the next point because i dont think your going to like my post (assumptive i know) because I am a bit off of your original topic so i dont know how you'll react so anyways what i am getting at is that both looking at your seaming 'evolution of the economy due to temperature' and the 'evolution of our life due to environmental changes' (because as it so happen that the protein formed into more complex 'life' which needed oxygen around the time when oxygen was being formed faster than it could be absorbed)

I am saying that it appears organisms change to the environment (elementary i know) but my end question I am getting to (even though my previous rabble is probably incomprehensible in its entropy) is do you think that the ability for biological adaptation will be enough, because our industry and culture itself is changing the climate.. we are seemingly dependant upon machines which produce carbon monoxide and other currently 'harmful' by-products do you think we can evolve as a species into using these and other gases such as a white moth turns black to blend into a soot ridden tree?

you missed the point sir.. however below is not 'clarifying the point' of craven.. its my own rant against what you just said..

i want to reply to this entire silly post.. first it is MOST EVIDENT that eskimos must live to survive this is common sense.. it is much like how you can look at (and i am going to include in this reply what your limited mind threw in as race, i say anyone who flagrently defines between different shades of the same race of 'human' is a racist) but a white family living it up doing good middle class intellegent as can be. mother is the provider (to step furthur away from any stereotypes whatsoever ill use the matriarchal view point) she loses her job to irrelevent, to this postulate, circumstances. Now this at one point thriving white family must live to survive and can no longer spend time using any quip of their time to thrive and explore ideas.

Archtypical (to me) genius Ghandi born and raised in a place where the british constantly harrassed his world, he was in a stringent situation to thrive or die.. he had NEED to rise intellectually to overcome his supressors.

Both of these examples and many thousands more can be givin to show that situation dictates outcome. its how people deal with it that is important. If all they can do is barely survivie if that how they MUST deal with it then they will grow in their lives of surviving. If they are in an environment where everything is working nicly and they can live to thrive rather than live to survive, they will be MUCH more productive.
heh call me a racist i dare you <--- me being very childish..

intelligence, wealth, climate...
I haven't read all the replies, but wanted to post anyway before I went to bed. I'm just going to paste in what I was typing... sorry for the disorganization... too tired to care at this point in time. The topic is interesting... and I have some thoughts that are on target and some that are off. I hope I don't offend anybody too much. Thoughts below:


I shouldn't type this without actual test scores in hand, but was told by a teacher years ago that Eskimos test with a high IQ. Is it because of shape recognition? Is it b/c have to be
smart or harder working in super cold hostile place to survive?

In hot south (of US), your goal in life may be to live long and happy by working less and
spending more time hanging with friends/family. If you take a step back from what
is commonly considered the smart way to live, you may realize that having a home that is paid for, food on the table, and people who love you around is the key to happiness and/or richness. Sometimes it's hard to see when you get caught up in the rat race and the material world.

More free time = more intellectual thought = more art, math, philosophy, creativity, etc. So more free time in hot places with plenty of food. But higher IQ in harsh places to survive??? IQ measures alert vs laziness more than brain power? Or more learn and remember than creativity?

The topic was that industrial society/ monetary wealth is related to weather. Yeah, I think that is true in many places at least today. But if someone from the cold north got rich, where would they retire to? The hot south, you bet.

If I honestly answered this question, everyone would call me a racist. Should I give it a shot? I have not read other posts, just the question and my own thoughts about relationship of climate and wealth.

People who live in desert or ice like climates don't get a break at all. They utilize strict survival mechanisms, where males are absolutely needed for physical strength provide, which today exist as male dominated cultures. Women, of many generations of past, cannot contribute much beyond meeting the needs of the provider who gave them and their children survival. That's why there are Eskimo women, with age, that have teeth worn down to nothing biting their mates footwear to make it easier soft for their hunting while they waited for food with a child to care for.

There isn't too much to bank on living in a desert either. These extreme type of conditions require immediate survival thinking and remain male dominant societies today because of need of survival only. To this day, they are not future oriented and don't bank on much besides immediate needs of today.

You have people in more friendly environments. Their adaptation to the many diseases this warm climate brings is to have more children, not less, as people in colder and harsher climates do to preserve life. There is an abundance of easy food available. There is also disease that kills. They may have to have five children for one to survive because bacteria doesn't do well in ice or a waterless desert climate.

People of wealth appear to be in the middle of extremely harsh environment and tropical. These people had just enough of a struggle for life and preservation of family. It struck a balance between nature and analytical skill needed without extreme pressure to survive on a day to day basis or danger of early death due to disease in more tropical environments.

People of extreme climates have not fared so well, financially today. It was either too easy or too hard to just live for them to have to adapt to analytical ability. It took eons of generations of people, with natural selection and survival of the fittest, in each climate. These differ greatly.

It really is no secret who holds global wealth. People of wealth are white skinned. It's easy to figure out the climate of origin. It isn't so hard to figure out natural adaptation. They had it hard enough to force their brain to work, but not so hard that they were forced into strict survival mode only.

Was that racist? I didn't intend it to be, but stated the obvious, as I see it. We all are not equal with race. We are born with different survival traits that took a zillion years to develop. We all know what makes financial success today, the ability to plan for the future. Is it really surprising light skinned people are more successful financially? I don't think it is. I am speaking of large groups only, not individuals and intend no insult to any race.

This has very little to do with race, and looking at the actual climates will show you that (though preconceived stereotypes might get in the way).

The distribution of wealth shares a greater relationship with climate than it does race, despite the obsession with race here in America making Americans try to make a race issue out of it.