3
   

The relationship between climate and wealth

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 10:52 am
Remember years ago when they opened the first McDonalds in Moscow? The lines were very long - several blocks long to buy a Big Mac. When one considers that the average income in Moscow - back then was less then $100/month, that Big Mac was very expensive, but people ate Big Macs anyway. Income, purchasing power, and how people spend their money can deviate too greatly to come to any logical conclusions about income and weatlth - IMHO. BTW, that McDonalds is situated in Pushkin Sqare, and I have some idea of its location in Moscow.
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:13 pm
Got a question, that probably doesn't belong here, and is off topic. Since old Russia was brough up, it was my belief that the people were neither lived in poverty or had opportunity to make more money either. I thought that housing and medical were provided, making a paycheck substantially lower that your working poor class or blue collar type of job. I thought the standard of living was fairly equal.

Is that right?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:35 pm
Generally speaking, yes. The living standards for most Russians in big cities are/were the same no matter whether one worked in a profession or a laborer. When I visited Russia four years ago, we had professionals working on our boat as maids, bartenders, waiters/waitresses, because they were multilingual and could make over $500/month on tips, whereas their regular salary as a lawyer, doctor, or professor was about $100/month. I think it's slowly changing.
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 08:39 pm
Thank you for that information. I thought that was somewhere in the neighborhood of correct. You actually went to Russia? I'm impressed!! I would love to visit there while Communism was still strong.

If you don't mind my asking another off topic and stupid question, what was your impression of Russia and the culture? It doesn't sound like much has changed since the days of Communism, or has it? Oh, I said question, didn't I!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 09:14 pm
Wildflower, I've been to most countries on this planet, plus the highest point (flew to Mt Everest), lowest point (touched the water of the Dead Sea), and cruised to Usuahia, the southernmost city in the world. I'm also planning to visit Antarctica in the next two years. ** I'm one of those strange people that enjoys visiting all the different countries, and love all cultures. My trip was a 15 day river boat cruise from Moscow to St Petersburg, so we had the opportunity to visit many of the famous sites in both Moscow and St Petersburg. What I also enjoyed were the communities we visited on the banks of the river. There are many things to see in Russia, most notable are the Kremlin, St Basils, and the Hermitage. But there's much much more. They have two great art galleries in Moscow, the Pushkin Museum of Fine Art and the Tretyakov. I fell in love with Russian art. Yes, you must visit Russia some day soon. I highly recommend it.
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 05:27 pm
I've seen statistics regarding regions and their levels of technology, and talk to people from these areas I'm about to point out, that state that Scandinavian countries are relatively advanced when it comes to technology. I've also heard a lot of impressive things about their education system.

A Danish friend of mine always refers to Mediterranean people as lazy, ha ha. I guess the whole siesta thing is what he's talking about there.

I have also done a lot of research on Iceland, and found that there are more books per capita than any other nation... and with more writers artists and poets. I wonder if the lack of daylight, and the need for something constructive to do has attributed to these facts.

I also wonder if it is the omega-3 fatty acids they get from all the fish they eat... those fatty acids are what makes up the fat in our brains, relating to levels of memory and intelligence.

Hmmm.

And what about the hot Australia? They are wealthy Smile
0 Replies
 
tcis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 05:51 pm
Another factor may be something to do with us actually learning things quicker in colder climates.

Studies have been done that show students learn and score better in cooler rooms (~67 F) than in warmer rooms (~82 F).
0 Replies
 
tcis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 05:55 pm
One problem with this argument in the past has been its implied racism. The theory of climate affecting "progress" has been around since at least the 1800s.

But notice how most all the northern colder wealthy nations are primarily white.

Most the sub-tropical and tropical nations are primarily non-white.

So, this whole argument can get mixed up in the race thing.

Isn't it strange how so very few tropical nations are primarily white?

And vice-versa: How many nations in cold climates are primarily non-white? Admittedly, there are more of these. But still, not that many.
0 Replies
 
tcis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 05:56 pm
..
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2004 05:30 am
But isn't race more of an indicator of survival in certain climates?

I read somewhere, can't remember which book, that lighter skinned people were better at absorbing vitamin D from the sun, making it easier to survive long winter months. Lighter skinned people are also less prone to frost-bite.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 09:25 pm
Seems to me if evolution is fluid and ongoing process, it would also make sense that people nearest the equator (the hot zone) would develop more pigmentation in their skin so that they could tolerate the more direct sun better; the next layer of people as civilizations were more distant from the equator and would be brown skinned for the same reason; those furthest from the equator would be white. I'm fully aware that this theory doesn't fully hold up all around the world now, but could the races have evolved for that reason.

I think the wealthier people of more ancient times probably moved away from the snakes and mosquitos and the oppressive heat of the equator regions and settled in the more temperate regions because they could. And because they were wealthier they were probably more able to obtain an expanded education and this led to invention and industrialization. And they in turn found way to subject and oppress those of less opportunity who would be more likely those closest to the equator.

I think poverty now is more based on the form of government and free trade than is based on any other factor. Generally, the more free the people, and the more free trade is implemented, the higher the standard of living.

And as we seem to find more democratic/free trade governments in the temperate zones and mostly oppressive authoritarian governments in the equator regions, all this would follow the original theory though not perfectly of course. Or am I misreading the picture?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 12:22 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm fully aware that this theory doesn't fully hold up all around the world now, but could the races have evolved for that reason.


I think it's very implausible.

Quote:
I think the wealthier people of more ancient times probably moved away from the snakes and mosquitos and the oppressive heat of the equator regions and settled in the more temperate regions because they could.


I don't think you pay much attention to the mobility of the ancients, or that humans, on average, tend to prefer warm climates.


Quote:
And because they were wealthier they were probably more able to obtain an expanded education and this led to invention and industrialization.


At this point in the timeline familiarizing oneself with history would eliminate the need for such inaccurate guesses.

Quote:
I think poverty now is more based on the form of government and free trade than is based on any other factor.


You think incorrectly.

Quote:
Generally, the more free the people, and the more free trade is implemented, the higher the standard of living.


This is untrue in many macro and micro scales, furthermore it ignores that the degree of poverty is often a contributive cause toward freedoms and the lack of it, etherby mitigating against the opposite stream of influence.

Frankly, I think this statement is pretty much a falsehood, but would love to see evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
And as we seem to find more democratic/free trade governments in the temperate zones and mostly oppressive authoritarian governments in the equator regions, all this would follow the original theory though not perfectly of course. Or am I misreading the picture?


Consider just one thing before you evaluate whether you have misread the picture or not.

How much thought have you given to the possibility that poverty has as much influence on governance as governance on poverty?

If you'd like, I will explain.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 01:15 am
Huh?
Craven de Kere wrote:
This is untrue in many macro and micro scales, furthermore it ignores that the degree of poverty is often a contributive cause toward freedoms and the lack of it, etherby mitigating against the opposite stream of influence.


Ostentatious verbosity and pedantry obfuscate rudimentary manifestations.

In other words, huh?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 01:32 am
Sometimes it's murky as opposed to deep, other times the jargon perfectly describes the sentiment and the incomprehension owes to deficiencies in sight on the part of the water's observer.

But I'll expound, and by using more words (verbosity) perhaps clarify it for you.

Do note that exounding would be moving toward verbosity, as opposed to the more succinct original.

See, verbosity has to do with the volume of words, and not their length or complexity of sentence construction. So the difficulty in understanding a concise and presice useage of words is really your complaint about couching it in, perhaps, sesquipedalian or polysyllabic words and not verbosity.

Using words with precision is important to me. My post was succinct, and not verbose. Perhaps it was sesquipedalian but did not represent logorrhea.

I recommend that you look up the true meaning of the word you used (verbosity). This is important not only for proper use of words but also for improved understanding of them.

Lastly, the sentence is easy to understand, as you should see when I expound on ot, making it more verbose.

Craven de Kere wrote:
This is untrue in many macro and micro scales


Foxfyre's statement is contradicted on small scales (e.g. individual examples of increased freedoms in trade and governance not making significant headway against poverty).

It is also untrue on larger scales, as the overwhelming majority of democratic free-markets are not among the wealthy.

Quote:
furthermore it ignores that the degree of poverty is often a contributive cause toward freedoms and the lack of it


In addition, Foxfyre's assertion is not giving enough consideration to the fact that poverty can be a cause of forms of markets and governance as much as forms of governance and market freedom can affect poverty.


Quote:
etherby mitigating against the opposite stream of influence.


"etherby" is a special spelling of "thereby" that I introduce for immediate worldwide adoption.

This part of the sentence is a continuation of the point about considering the converse cause/effect relationship and stream of influence.

I include this helpful (if perghaps more verbose) text illustration of stream of influence.

Form of government + Market = effect on poverty
Poverty = effect on form of government and market

Note that the cause/effect relationship can go both ways, and this is what I succinctly referenced.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 02:03 am
Technically challenged
Craven:

I feel like Denzel Washington's character in Philadelphia when he was addressing Tom Hanks' character and said, "Please talk to me like I'm a 4-year-old." I'm still trying to deconstruct that sentence and put it back together in a manner that I can understand.

I want to debate your position. Heck. I'll go for it anyway.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I don't think the "opposite stream of influence" mitigates against poverty as a contributive cause toward freedoms and the lack thereof. The streams of influence are not polarized but rather are conflating, in my humble opinion. What we have is a less than a straight-forward conflux. I think your statement ignores the multi-directional nature concerning ripples (rather than streams) of influence.

Whew. I hate linguistic misunderstandings, don't you? But I think this post has cleared everything up.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 02:24 am
Re: Technically challenged
Debra_Law wrote:

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I don't think the "opposite stream of influence" mitigates against poverty as a contributive cause toward freedoms and the lack thereof.


It may not eliminate but it certainly does mitigate.

A causative assertion is less clear when its converse is also true.

Establishment of causative links is a tough logical nut to crack, and without examination of all the facets one runs the risk of constructing a cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) argument that is false. In legal terms this would be a weak argument with its basis being merely circumstantial evidence.

See, if the cause is, even just in part, caused by the cause's alledged effect the relationship alledged is more nuanced and the cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument subsequently weakened.

Quote:
The streams of influence are not polarized but rather are conflating, in my humble opinion.


This is nonsensical. Not misunderstood but nonsensical. Feel free to attempt to lend sense, at which point I'll illustrate why it is nonsensical.

Quote:
What we have is a less than a straight-forward conflux.


In other words a pedestrian scienario common to life's complexities.

Quote:
I think your statement ignores the multi-directional nature concerning ripples (rather than streams) of influence.


I think this argument has more to do with retaliatory (not vindictive, but retributive) mirroring of an argument than any veracity.

As evidence for my accessment is your inability to demonstrate how the "multi-directional nature" is missing from anything I said.

In other words, this is a more eloquent version of the "I know you are but what am I?" family of arguments that simply ape an earlier assertion.

This accessment is reinforced by the disjointed writing you are clearly forcing out in what is more apery.

Quote:
Whew. I hate linguistic misunderstandings, don't you?


Not really, but this may have to do with which end of said lacking understanding one finds one's self on.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 02:49 am
Verbose?
Craven de Kere wrote:
Sometimes it's murky as opposed to deep, other times the jargon perfectly describes the sentiment and the incomprehension owes to deficiencies in sight on the part of the water's observer.


Aha. My defective acuity is blameworthy . . .


Craven de Kere wrote:
But I'll expound, and by using more words (verbosity) perhaps clarify it for you.

Do note that exounding would be moving toward verbosity, as opposed to the more succinct original.

See, verbosity has to do with the volume of words, and not their length or complexity of sentence construction. So the difficulty in understanding a concise and presice useage of words is really your complaint about couching it in, perhaps, sesquipedalian or polysyllabic words and not verbosity....


but, you must admit that your sentence was lengthy. None of the words you used were difficult to understand--you just used so many of them in a long incomprehensible string. (Again, the incomprehension can be blamed on my defective acuity and unfamiliarity with your jargon.) I counted the words. The sentence was 37 words long. You call it succinct; I call it verbose. No problem there. We can agree to disagree....

Now when do we make up? Where are the kisses and hugs?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 02:59 am
Making up is only possible if there is a falling out, I don't think there was (at least not on my part).

Perhaps you seize upon any excuse to frolic amorously with me? I am qpartial to that accessment.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 03:45 am
Re: Technically challenged
What? I was ready to kiss and make-up and now you snuck in this long post placing me in the defensive position. Gee whiz. Offense, defense, offense, defense. Gee whiz.

What is opposite of poverty? maybe wealth? Are the two categories completely polarized? do they run in opposing streams of influence on the issue of individual freedoms? Again, my acuity might not be great--but I'm here on this earth to learn. But, we agree on this:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Establishment of causative links is a tough logical nut to crack, and without examination of all the facets one runs the risk of constructing a cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) argument that is false.


Perhaps I misconstrued your use of the phrase, "opposite stream of influence." I cannot envision opposite streams of influence representing polar opposites on issues affecting people without also recognizing the existence of "all the facets" in between.

In my opinion, the "streams of influence" are not opposite (polarized) but rather are conflating (combined into a whole). How is that nonsensical?

The streams of influence, and all facets (ripples) (identifiable and unidentifiable facets pushing and pulling in many directions) within the stream, combine and blend together to establish "cause" for freedoms or the lack of freedoms within a country. With identifiable and unidentifiable factors (ripples) influencing the progress of a country, we may never know for sure all the "causes" in a straight-forward manner that flow together (in a conflux) to reach or create a particular result.

You can call that nonsensical thinking, but I call that logical.

I was just playing on your "stream" analogy and having fun. I hope you were having fun too.

Is this where I jump up and down, screech like an ape, and scratch under my armpits? I really don't want to do that; you know I'm self-conscious about my underarm flab.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 03:58 am
nonsensical
I can't believe Craven called my written words "nonsensical."

I'm still pouting. No kissing tonight Craven. If you don't know how long a woman can pout, start a thread entitled, "How long can a woman pout." I'm sure there are some here who will respond: YEARS!

Oh well. I'm going to pop over to the Semen Thread and see if Gus has answered my question....Gus knows how to treat an A2K woman, right girls!!!!
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 0.03 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 09:20:17