This is true, but while hot, Mesopotamia is certainly not a tropical region, it’s still well within the temperate zone. Looking at a map, the “developed / non-developed” split seems to match with “tropical / non-tropical”.
Yes, but we are talking here about the effect of temperature, not the zones the area is in. If Egypt is as warm as many tropical zones yet fertile then the idea that it’'s temperature that is the culprit is falsified.
And of course PNG is tropical, as is the Brazilian cerrados and so forth. Temperature or position in the tropics =/= poor soils, nor does position outside the tropics = fertile soils. Inn fact I doubt that, after the effect of glaciation on soil production is excluded, warm tropical soils are any less fertile than cool temperate.
Yes but we aren’t discussing developed/non-developed, rather the hypothesised link between soil fertility and temperature, which simply doesn’t match at all nor does it map onto development. The super-fertile soils of warm, tropical PNG do not make that region developed nor do the infertile, cold soils of Alaska make it undeveloped.
No.
We’re discussing possible links between geography (region) and economic development. One of the discussions which spun-off was the spurious link between temperature and soil quality.
Differentiating factors between tropical and non tropical regions include the degree to which seasons are differentiated (need for cyclical planning, astronomy etc.), different crop types, different fauna etc. All worthy of attention.
No, I was demosntarting thatit was easy to falisfy the hypoithesised link between temperature and soil quality and you were criticising that debunking. That is all. The criticism was unwarrented because it has no relevance whatsoever to the hyothesis.
Just on a quick read of this thread, there is an aspect of colonialism /settlement / migration that I don’t think has been addressed, and it’s one about which I’ve always been curious. Let’s say, for example, that the more advanced societies for some reason decided to all look inwards, burn their ships, and be content to stay at home (much as China did at one point). What would have happened to the less advanced societies?
Two questions, in a way:
- Did the arrival of more developed science and technology in a given place effectively “freeze” the local technology’s further development, as the new was adopted and the old discarded (giving us no way of knowing what might have been)?
- Given that the several thousand years in which most of the various civilisations sprang up from a hunter gatherer existence is probably a small part of total human exiastence on this planet, could we fairly describe the race towards advanced civilisation, and the time difference in civilisation developing between places like Rome, China, Egypt etc as so close to a tie that it’s too close to call, and ( refering back to point one), would the underdeveloped societies, had they been left to their own devices, also have made a competent showing in the race towards technological culture? Would an Australian Aborigine, if first contact came in the middle of the next millennium instead of the last, be found driving an indiginous car, or using a computer?
Ive often wondered if the temperature has a more direct effect. In the tropics, it is often just to darned hot/humid to work unless one has lots of slaves as ancient egypt did. A “decent” tropical society without slavery would seen unlikely to get as much done during the day?
In the case of ancient eqypt, the climate may have been milder too - wasn’t there forests in the Sahara around the then?
p.s and dont forget the devastating tropical diseases that flourish in Africa - sleeping sickness, malaria. Bilharzia etc
The arrival of new and better technology did often lead to the older technology being discarded of course. That’s hardly surprising since people until very recently have mostly been fighting just to survive, so any inferior technology that was available was usually rapidly adopted.
Yes that makes it impossible to know what might have been. However the mere knowledge of existence of new technology by itself makes that impossible. Once doctors in Japan for example knew that formalised scientific medicine existed they rapidly started to strive toward sit independently. Their independent attempts were clumsy, but the fact that they tried means that we can never know if they would ever have managed that by themselves. As it was within a generation the country was opened up and western medicine became the norm anyway, but even if it hadn’t been so the knowledge of alternative technology interfered with the indigenous knowledge all by itself. The only way to know what a culture can really produce on its own is to keep it perfectly isolated.
The difference in time frames between Rome, China and Egypt are indeed small. However it’s probable that agriculture and civilisation spread from a common starting point for those three so that is hardly surprising. For areas where agriculture and civilisation probably developed independently such as Melanesia or Central America it’s still a relatively small time separating the events from the origin, no more than 10, 000 years. As you say that’s tiny compared to the 100, 000+ years spent as HGs. It does seem to imply that humans developing agriculture and civilisation was inevitable once some critical change occurred.
That change was probably linked to the same change that brought about the ‘great leap forward’ of around 40, 000 years ago. Whether the GLF was the result of biological or social change sin humans it seems to have propagated fast and led to massive change sin lifestyle and means of thought and it seems that within a few thousand years of that event it was inevitable that people would develop civilisations if conditions were suitable.
That sort of brings us to your last question. Aborigines lives in Australia since before the GLF and they never developed agriculture. Compare that the tohe Americas where agriculture seems to have developed within 10, 000 years of people arriving in suitable areas. Diamond makes a case that this was largely because of lack of opportunity and although the argument has some serious holes it’s probably mostly true. There simply isn’t any real basis for agriculture in Australia. No domesticable animals, unreliable weather, poor soils and so forth. In around 60, 000 years the closest Aborigines came to agriculture were some semi-permanent fish traps. That’s a good start but by itself it’s not a basis for civilisation because of a complete lack of storage ability. It’s very doubtful based on the evidence that Aborigines would ever have had the opportunity to develop a civilisation on their own, conditions simply were not favourable.
Well this is GQ and not IMHO so can we have a reference for that? Are you implying that all the work ever done in Brazil, Australia, South Africa etc is done by slaves?
Sorry but as someone who has lived and worked in the tropics this statement is just nonsense. Yes it gets hot but nowhere is it so hot that it’s impossible to work at least 10 hours a day. Remember tropical summer days are looooong. Even if it is so hot that work is impossible from 10-2 (an extreme rarity, acclimatised people can do even heavy physical work until the temperature gets above 40oC provided they have water) you make up for that by starting at say 5am and finishing at 7pm which.
Again, this is nonsense. There is far less productivity lost to heat in the tropics than there is to snow and frost in temperate regions.
There were and there still are. They are called gallery forests and they grow along rivers well into the desert. There are fewer now but the fact that they still exist tell us they shrank because eof people cutting them down and grazing them, not because of climate. The same is true of the savannas.
Bilharzia and malaria are not solely tropical diseases. They extend or extended well into Europe.
And don’t forget the devastating temperate diseases that flourish where people are forced to spend long periods confined together in closed, heated rooms: measles, smallpox, typhoid, polio.
Different regions have different amounts of different diseases. The tropics aren’t; particularly more prone. Wilderness areas with large numbers of wild animals to act as hosts also encourage zoonoses like sleeping sickness but that results from the areas not being civilised and closely settled, it’s not a primary cause of it.
Many interesting theories here, but I think, ultimately, it’s all a factor of survival and the fact that necessity truly is the mother of invention.
In equatorial regions, food and adequate shelter was more easily obtained than in colder climes. In areas that felt the full force of winter, shelter (at least that which will last for an extended period) had to be more substantial, which in turn challenged people to build better and better protection from cold, wind, snow, etc.
Also, when the growing season is short, long term planning becomes a most valuable tool. This leads to more and more efficeint ways to grow and store food and to hunt for different animals in different conditions.
But in addition to people being “challenged” by climate, another ingredient necessary for them to have become more advanced than other people, was the degree to which they were resource-rich. The way the Inuits or the Aleuts were able to carve out societies in barren lands is a testament to man’s inventiveness and problem solving ability. But the more resources a people has at its disposal, the more solutions it will generate. The more solutions it generates, the greater the likelihood that some of those solutions will be so good that they will be adopted by neighbors and spread throughout a region.
This leads to another factor as well, i.e., relevance. Igloos are are brilliant solution, but they are a good idea well outside temperate zones.
There is a book I’m finally going to crack that I think explores the issue originally posted: Sailing the Wine Dark Sea, by (I think) Thomas Cahill.
Two problems.
- Egypt, Mesopotamia etc aren’t exactly frigid zones, nor is Southern China, yet these are the earliest centres of civilisation. Kinda hard to say that temperature plays much of a role.
- Tasmania is pretty chilly in winter and gets regular snows over most of the island yet the people there lacked substantial shelter, clothes and even the ability to make fire.
Once again I could point to Australia or almost all of South America as area that are immensely resource rich yet never advanced beyond the stone age. And indeed those are both good examples of places where good solutions failed to spread and indeed often vanished altogether.
It’s not just the richness of resources. Apparently an area that is frightfully resource poor yet has exactly the right resources available will always be ahead of area that are resource rich yet lacking in precisely the necessary resources.
I agree. Good distinction.
All of the Cradles of Civilization have appeared in river valleys.
Could this be significant in the argument?
I was speaking from my experience with my trips to the tropics. However, I agree that I probably was never there long enough to get acclimatised.
Your other points are taken though.