8 ms·
Historically, equatorial countries in Africa, South and South East Asia were colonies. I think we can also assume each country weights equally on the regression
by mediumdeviation 9y ago
Historically, equatorial countries in Africa, South and South East Asia were colonies. I think we can also assume each country weights equally on the regression line, even though they vary greatly in population - this favors latitudes with lots of small wealthy countries, which Europe is.
- k__ 9y agoOn the other hand, I'd like to know how much the colder climate in the north enabled people to colonialise the people in the south in the first place
- caseymarquis 9y ago"Guns, Germs, and Steel" is probably the closest you'll get to that.
- k__ 9y agoThat's what they used in the end, but what led them to have these things?
- lorenzfx 9y agoIt's a (somewhat controversial) book. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
- theWatcher37 9y agoGJ&S’s primary argument is that whoever discovered (by accident!) agriculture first made all the later stages inevitable.
- k__ 9y agoSeems reasonable. If someone can feed 10 people instead of 1 person, the rest has enough time at their hands to do other things.
- int_19h 9y agoIt's rather more complicated than that. Its primary argument is that certain species of wild plants can be domesticated easier than others, and can be pushed to more productive yields through cultivation (e.g. wheat, rice), while others are more lacking (e.g. soghrum). Similarly, with animals, some regions don't have any suitable wild ones that can be domesticated as beasts of burden or food animals, others have some (e.g. pigs, alpacas), and still others scored big time (sheep, cows, horses). Once discovered, of course, these spread around, but it takes time, and is limited by climate and geographic features. So the theory goes that Middle East and East Asia basically were the lucky ones to get that bootstrap, and other bordering regions (e.g. Europe) got it from there; while Africa, Australia and the Americas were not so lucky, and by the time they got all those things, they came on ships alongside some technologically advanced and well-armed people who weren't exactly on a humanitarian mission to spread the riches.
- k__ 9y agoA bit like the oil some countries have, right? Most of them would already went down the drain without all that money.
- akhatri_aus 9y agoAustralia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, Japan (of the few I can name) don't match up to this theory.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]