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.
In my opinion, the "streams of influence" are not opposite (polarized) but rather are conflating (combined into a whole). How is that nonsensical?
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 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!!!!
Well, while the issue of free market economies is not directly related to climate, I put out a hypothesis on how the bulk of free market economies wound up in the more temperate zones.
Both Debra and Craven disputed that free market (free trade) economies are the reason for most of the current world's wealth.
Am I understanding you correctly? If say Nepal adopting a U.S-like constitution today and moved to a free market economy complete with improved human rights, you are saying they could not necessarily expect to see increased wealth anytime soon?
I decided to stop by your thread and test the climate. I'm not pouting any more--well, not much.
I still want you to admit the verbosity of your sentence and acknowledge that those who are unfamiliar with your jargon might pause for a moment and ponder the meaning of "opposite streams of influence" within the context of your 37-word sentence.
I also want you to acknowledge that your realm of knowledge might be different from other people's realm of knowledge, but that doesn't make the observer and prober of the deep waters a muddied, nonsensical thinker incapable of comprehending the view.
This is the tough one, but I also want you to acknowledge that you display a somewhat snobbish, intellectually-superior-than-thou countenance that probably prevents you from getting laid much...I mean, lucky in the art of persuasion.
I mean, look at the way you tromped all over me and foxfyre with your disdain-dripping quips.
Do you really want to play in your threads all by yourself?
I'm not pouting any more--well, not much.
Debra, I have no distain for you. Quite frankly, I think you are 'neat'. Now if your objections to my tone cause you to cease to speak to me that will be lamentable, but I will simply have to learn to live with it, just as I'll simply have to live with the objections I have to yours should you not decide to do so.
This is but a sampling of the reasons that lead me to believe that cold climates are more conducive to industrialized economy. It forces more technology (to fight the elements), it generates more commerce (think winter clothes), it helps fight pathogens that can cripple a society, it forces man to prepare and plan (and planning helps success), and possibly the most important is the immediate effect on the human body. Eating a heavy meal in strong heat can knock one out as well as can a few beers. I think these factors are reflected in the comparative wealth of cultures while not being the only factor of course.
The anecdotal evidence for this is overwhelming. There are few rich and tropical nations. Many nations are richer in the colder areas and poorer in the hot areas. Many nations have their industrial base in the colder land while leaving less economically productive things like agriculture to the warmer terrain. Note that the many other factors of wealth make this a trend and not an rule without exception. fbaezer (the only person I have discussed this with who seems to disagree that climate effects wealth) notes that there is anecdotal evidence in Mexico that would not support this (in comparison to my anecdotal evidence from Brazil that does).
Does anyone know if the temperate zones in the southern hemisphere were industrialized, or beginning to be, at the time the industrial revolution began?
My point was to say that the temperate zones in the southern hemisphere did not industrialize and become wealthy. Therefore, enculturation may be a more important factor then climate. I believe that the nations that industrialized and grew wealthy were those nations that were enculturated to a hierarchal community. Kings and knights and such.
john/nyc wrote:My point was to say that the temperate zones in the southern hemisphere did not industrialize and become wealthy. Therefore, enculturation may be a more important factor then climate. I believe that the nations that industrialized and grew wealthy were those nations that were enculturated to a hierarchal community. Kings and knights and such.
This is one of those chickens before the egg arguments.
There is strong evidence that hierarchal nations were forced to become that way due to the harsher environment. If a community is struggling, and a member of that community discovers a new way of gathering or growing food, that member becomes all-powerful. In the southern hemisphere, where food was easy to obtain, there was no need for political power struggles, at least to the extent that they occured in the north.
A society that consists of members who possess more then others will be become political. Extrapolate that over 100 generations, and a hierarchal society develops......