# Too damn hot to produce **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2002, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859 "2002-07-14T01:24:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/1 "2002-07-14T01:24:29Z")
I was working outside yesterday, and I nearly didn’t make it through the day. I damn near failed to maintain my contribution to the Gross domestic Product of Canada We are presently going through a heat wave as the thermometer hit 25 (77 Fahrenheit). It occurred to me, that a constant hot climate could have serious implications for the economic health of a country, so I set out to verify my suspicions that the inequality issue between " north and south" so often blamed on past colonialism , politics etc. is actually a temperate zone versus tropical zone(defined by the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn) phenomenon… I located a CIA reference of GDP per capita of individual nations and territories here, [http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdppercapita.html](http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdppercapita.html) , I identified those nations in the tropics by boldface and.I edited out small island nations and coastal city states located in the tropics (because of moderating influence of oceans) . I then ranked all the remaining 174 nations according to their GDP per capita.See Table I Two avenues of comparison makes it obvious that the tropical environment (most likely the heat) is a significant deterrence to achieving wealth. In the first comparison, It can be noted that of 174 nations, not one tropical country made it into the top 50, yet the tropics is represented in 82% of the bottom 50. Keep in mind that 42% of the nations being compared are in the tropics. In the second comparison(see Table II), a look at countries adjacent to each other in the north- south direction at both the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, clearly indicates in all but one case that ranking In GDP per capita drops upon crossing into the tropics. The one exception is Pakistan/India , which are very close in ranking . This leaves me with one question. Are the tropical nations doomed forever? **Appendix** Table I Per Capita Gross domestic Product of the Worlds Nations (small island , small island groups and coastal city states omitted) (tropical countries in boldface) Rank,Country, PCGDP ``` World $7,081 ``` 1. Luxembourg $35,894 2. United States $35,831 3. Bermuda $33,069 4. San Marino $31,460 5. Switzerland $28,421 6. Norway $27,557 7. Monaco $27,322 8. Denmark $25,445 9. Belgium $25,266 10. Austria $24,905 11. Japan $24,848 12. Iceland $24,649 13. Jersey $24,619 14. Canada $24,521 15. France $24,315 16. Netherlands $24,303 17. Germany $23,317 18. Australia $23,030 19. Finland $22,856 20. United Kingdom $22,801 21. Liechtenstein $22,442 22. United Arab Emirates $22,430 23. Sweden $22,197 24. Italy $22,070 25. Ireland $21,323 26. Guernsey $20,205 27. Faroe Islands $19,929 28. Qatar $19,632 29. Greenland $19,520 30. Man, Isle of $19,050 31. Israel $18,558 32. Gibraltar $18,084 33. Spain $18,003 34. Falkland Islands $17,962 35. Andorra $17,744 36. New Zealand $17,494 37. Taiwan $17,255 38. Greece $17,122 39. Korea, South $15,961 40. Portugal $15,795 41. Bahrain $15,650 42. Bahamas, The $15,108 43. Kuwait $14,349 44. Malta $14,192 45. Cyprus $13,803 46. Czech Republic $12,899 47. Argentina $12,732 48. Slovenia $11,864 49. Hungary $11,271 50. Saint Pierre and Miquelon $10,681 51. Estonia $10,328 52. Slovakia $10,212 53. Saudi Arabia $10,195 54.\*\*Malaysia \*\* $10,063 54. Chile $9,988 55. Uruguay $9,226 56. Mexico $8,981 57. Libya $8,663 58. Poland $8,477 60 South Africa $8,466 61.Russia $7,699 59. Belarus $7,613 60. **Oman** $7,475 61. Lithuania $7,312 62. Latvia $7,253 63. \*\*Thailand \*\* $6,683 64. Turkey $6,677 65. \*\*Costa Rica \*\* $6,626 66. **Botswana** $6,557 67. **Brazil** $6,477 68. Tunisia $6,471 72 **Gabon** $6,305 73.Iran$6,245 74.Bulgaria $6,228 75.\*\*Colombia \*\* $6,196 76. **Venezuela** $6,113 77.Romania $5,925 78.\*\*Panama \*\* $5,833 79.Croatia $5,745 80.\*\*French Guiana \*\* $5,632 81. **Dominican Republic** $5,628 82.Algeria $5,388 83.Kazakhstan $5,116 84.Lebanon $5,017 85. **Guyana** $4,877 86.Georgia $4,570 87. **Paraguay** $4,569 88. **Peru** $4,475 89.Macedonia,(Yugo) $4,398 90.Turkmenistan $4,258 91. **Namibia** $4,228 92.Swaziland $3,984 93.Ukraine $3,884 94. **El Salvador** $3,848 95. **Philippines** $3,742 96. **Guatemala** $3,561 97.Egypt $3,552 98.China $3,535 99.Morocco $3,426 100. **Suriname** $3,410 101.Jordan $3,357 102. **Belize** $3,085 103.Syria $3,043 104.Azerbaijan $3,024 105.Armenia $2,998 106.Albania $2,991 107. **Indonesia** $2,863 108. **Ecuador** $2,822 109. **Nicaragua** $2,663 110. **Honduras** $2,654 111.Kyrgyzstan $2,651 112.Moldova $2,550 113. **Bolivia** $2,518 114. **Zimbabwe** $2,481 115.Iraq $2,443 116. **Papua New Guinea** $2,416 117.Uzbekistan $2,385 118.Lesotho $2,343 119.Yugoslavia $2,266 120. **India** $2,136 121. **Equatorial Guinea** $1,975 122. **Mauritania** $1,966 123.Pakistan $1,950 124. **Vietnam** $1,931 125.\*\*Ghana \*\* $1,880 126. **Haiti** $1,824 127.Mongolia $1,770 128. **Cuba** $1,717 129. **Central African Republic** $1,705 130.Bosnia and Herzegovina $1,657 131. **Cameroon** $1,645 132. **Cote d’Ivoire** $1,598 133. **Laos** $1,597 134. **Senegal** $1,556 135. **Bangladesh** $1,546 136. **Burma** $1,517 137.West Bank $1,483 138. **Kenya** $1,482 139. **Togo** $1,417 140.Nepal $1,333 141. **Guinea** $1,313 142. **Cambodia** $1,289 143.\*\*Djibouti \*\* $1,246 144.Bhutan $1,122 145.Tajikistan $1,110 146. **Uganda** $1,092 147. **Congo, Republic of the** $1,071 148. **Gambia** $1,063 149. **Liberia** $1,038 150Korea, North $1,001 151.\*\*Benin \*\* $1,001 152. **Sudan** $989 153. **Mozambique** $986 69. **Burkina Faso** $978 155. **Angola** $974 156. **Niger** $966 157Gaza Strip $942 158. **Chad** $930 159. **Nigeria** $924 160. **Malawi** $891 161.\*\*Rwanda \*\*$875 162. **Zambia** $870 163. **Guinea-Bissau** $836 164. **Mali** $827 165. **Yemen** $797 166.Afghanistan $783 167. **Madagascar** $770 168. **Burundi** $707 169. **Tanzania** $693 170. **Eritrea** $675 171. **Ethiopia** $595 172.\*\*Congo, Democratic Republic of the \*\* $578 173. **Somalia** $574 174. **Sierra Leone** $498 Table II Relative Ranking of Adjacent countries at the Tropic of Cancer, North to South (2)USA…(57)Mexico…(96)Guatemala/(102)Belize (99)Morocco…(122)Mauritania (82)Algeria…(164)Mali/(156)Niger (58)Libya…(156)Niger/(158)Chad (97)Egypt…(152)Sudan (53)Saudi Arabia…(163)Yemen/(63)Oman (120)India…(123)Pakistan (98)China…(120)India/(136)Burma/(133)Laos/(124)Vietnam Relative Ranking of Adjacent countries at the Tropic of Capricorn, North to South (88)Peru…(55)Chile (113)Bolivia…(47)Argentina/(87)Paraguay (70)Brazil…(56)Uraguay (69)Botswanna/(114)Zimbabwe/(153)Mozambique…(60)South Africa (107)Indonesia/116 Papua New jGuinea…(18)Australia Table III Discarded tropical island and city state nations (Rankings from a previous,obsolete total list). 1. Aruba $28,569 2. Cayman Islands $26,144 10.Singapore $25,532 13 Hong Kong $25,102 3. Guam $20,310 4. Macau $17,235 5. Brunei $17,168 6. British Virgin Islands $14,943 7. Virgin Islands $14,729 8. New Caledonia $14,644 9. Barbados $14,528 10. Northern Mariana Islands $12,062 11. Netherlands Antilles $11,309 12. Martinique $10,491 65.Mauritius $10,338 13. French Polynesia $10,256 14. Puerto Rico $9,905 15. Trinidad and Tobago $9,575 16. Guadeloupe $8,581 17. Antigua and Barbuda $7,959 18. Anguilla $7,913 19. Seychelles $7,652 20. American Samoa $7,453 21. Saint Kitts and Nevis $7,070 22. Turks and Caicos Islands $7,063 23. Fiji $6,988 24. Palau $6,757 112Nauru $4,881 114.Cook Islands $4,852 115.Reunion $4,641 119.Saint Lucia $4,425 120.Grenada $4,416 124.Dominica $4,097 125.Montserrat $4,093 131.Jamaica $3,639 138.Sri Lanka $3,231 139.Samoa $3,189 147.Saint Vincent and the Grenadines $2,777 154.Saint Helena $2,477 160.Tonga $2,159 171.Niue $2,119 174.Micronesia$1,954 176.Wallis and Futuna $1,944 178.Maldives $1,911 180.Solomon Islands $1,873 186.Cape Verde $1,654 193.Marshall Islands $1,483 200.Vanuatu $1,270 205.Sao Tome and Principe $1,079 208.Tuvalu $1,055 209.Tokelau $1,038 225.Kiribati$807 230.Comoros $703 236.Mayotte $520 ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/2 "2002-07-14T01:39:10Z")
I guess I ought to invest in Antarctica, then. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/3 "2002-07-14T03:40:53Z")
Of course, for climate to be the great determinant, we have to recognze that the Aztecs and Mayans actually came from Nova Scotia and Vancouver Island, only moving their buildings down to the tropics at the point where they realized that their civilizations were doomed. No civilization has ever arisen in India. The Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian, empires never really happened and Rome and Byzantium were merely southern outposts of the true rulers of Western Eurasia, the Laplanders. No great artifacts of physical culture can be found in the jungles near the imaginary Angkor Wat. Siam/Thailand has never payed a role in Southeast Asian history, and the repeated stories of Viet empires are on a par with the Seven Cities of Cibola. Sorry for the irony. My point, however, is that extrapolating the future from current events, particularly out of context, can get one in trouble. I think your obvservation is noteworthy. Given the _historical_ record, I suspect that we might need to look at a different source for the causes of the current observation. One pure guess off the top of my head (meaning I have given this no thought, but throw it out as an alternative explanation): When Europe erupted over the world, its temperate-zoned inhabitants tended to make the most permanent settlements in temperate zones and, when they engaged in colonization of the local populations, they did so in ways that caused those temperate locations to enter the 21st century in an advanced mode, while they treated the tropical regions as simply raw resources to be exploited without investing in an infrastructure that could be developed into a 21st century economy. > [@](#): > > Keep in mind that 42% of the nations being compared are in the tropics. Keep in mind that just six nations, Russia, Canada, the U.S., China, South Africa, and Australia dominate so much of the temperate zone, (while only two nations, Brazil and India, compete for the status of size in the tropics) that any list of nations will find large groups in the tropics. (I’m also unclear as to the justification of eliminating Aruba, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Guam, each of which does substantially better than quite a few temperate zone candidates–particularly if you allow Bermuda, San Marino, Monaco, Iceland, Jersey!, and Liechtenstein to remain in the list to skew the temperate numbers.) ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/4 "2002-07-14T03:53:29Z")
To point out the obvious…It is hot in the tropics. Nice while you at the beach, not so nice when in a factory. Factories here in MI get hot in the winter, so imagine how hot similiar plants in Brazil become. (Very, without AC) To keep the temperatures roughly the same, you need to spend more energy in the tropics, which means more money, which means less profit. If you don’t keep the temp within reason, people simply cannot work as hard, which means lower productivity, which means less profit. Or not. No cites for the above, just connecting the dots. BTW, I would guess that Bermuda and a few other high-rankers on the list are a fluke, due to foreign corps. homing there for the nice tax laws. So while technically they have 3rd highest GDP, most of that money never touched Bermuda, I bet. Also, Croatia is not dead last! Huzzah! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/5 "2002-07-14T04:52:14Z")
Statistics … blah, blah, blah … thoughtful response … blah, blah, blah. 77 F for a HIGH Temp!!! Good Goddess, man, you must be freezing your nipples off. In Texas we pray for a cold front so the temps will be under 80 at 2 a.m. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/6 "2002-07-14T07:32:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Homebrew \* > **77 F for a HIGH Temp!!! Good Goddess, man, you must be freezing your nipples off.** That was my initial response, too. 🙂 As a Native Californian, 77 is almost long-sleeve weather. I think the discrepancy comes from the fact that the temperate nations (Europe, specifically) were the first ones to develop imerialism, and developed a large enough economy and technological base to sail round the world, rape the less advanced civilizations of their natural resources, and leave them with guilt and syphillis. 😃 (apologies to Robin Williams) Climate definitely played a role in Europe becoming the top dog, but there were many, many other factors also involved. Read _Guns, Germs & Steel_ by Jared Diamond (one of the BEST books I’ve ever seen recommended on this board, thank you guys!!) ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/7 "2002-07-14T08:06:17Z")
This theory is as old as European imperialism. As Europeans were developing various racist theories, they also came up with the idea that hot weather makes people lazy (as well as sexually promiscuous). It never made any sense to me, since temperatures under 70 make me want to stay curled up under the covers all day. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/8 "2002-07-14T15:36:27Z")
> [@](#): > > This theory is as old as European imperialism. As Europeans were developing various racist theories, they also came up with the idea that hot weather makes people lazy (as well as sexually promiscuous). Well, European imperialism (16th century) is quite a bit older than the “lazy, oversexed people from hot lands” theory (19th century). It should also be noted, before this thread gets too far off track, that **grienspace** did not make any claim or association between the heat and the _character_ of the people in the Tropics. He noted an issue of wealth and wondered about the affects of heat on individuals and productivity. While both views start with a similar observation, they are not coming to the same conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/9 "2002-07-14T16:21:41Z")
Last time I checked, the Tropic of Capricorn cuts right across Australia, effectively splitting it in half. Perhaps you need to revise your figures and determine the Australian GDP with respect to part of the country in the tropics vs the rest of the country. Perhaps comparing population centers in Australia is sufficient. Perhaps state tax revenues might lend some help. Then again, beer consumption in and out of the tropics is _not_ a good indicator. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/10 "2002-07-14T16:55:53Z")
I think we should be able to find some more context here. For example, did the productivity of the American south increase with the advent of air conditioning? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/11 "2002-07-14T17:03:25Z")
Uh, I’m in Canada, and it’s very hot here. But I’d DREAM of it being 25. Friday it was 37 here in Edmonton (about 97F). In the interior of BC it got up to 42, or about 104F. What’s this 25 stuff? That’s a nice, average, summer day. Back to the OP. Temperate zones are certainly nice in the summer. But how about the effect on productivity of an 8-month winter? Canada and the Northern U.S. can have winters so brutal that before we had the wealth to build and clear roadds and provide cars to everyone, the country pretty much shut down. In the 1800’s, something like 90% of the population was involved in agriculture, and in Canada there IS no agriculture during a good half of the year. So during the ‘developing’ phase of a country, I’d think that tropical zones would have an advantage. Civilization sprung up in Egypt for a reason - because the area was warm and fertile enough that people could spend resources on civilization rather than just working to stay alive. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/12 "2002-07-14T19:19:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course, for climate to be the great determinant, we have to recognze that the Aztecs and Mayans actually came from Nova Scotia and Vancouver Island, only moving their buildings down to the tropics at the point where they realized that their civilizations were doomed. Thankyou (and others) for engaging me on this topic. with reference to the quote above, **tomndebb** , I’m not suggesting that creativity and “advanced” social structure is limited in the tropics. However, disbursement of skills and knowledge neccessary to survive in a densely populated region were not readily transferable at the time. Indeed, did the Amerindians outside of the great New World even want or need to practice the intensive agriculture that is usually associated with the ancient civilizations. Finally, although we have the lithic evidence of these civilization, that does not mean that the other Amerindians of the time were not producing goods and services with great industry. In terms of wealth, I’d much prefer pre-columbian North-Pacific coast with the wealth of structural timber, salmon, territory and game, than hoe the fields of Central America. > [@](#): > > Of course, for climate to be the great determinant…No civilization has ever arisen in India. > > The Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian, empires never really happened and Rome and Byzantium were merely southern outposts of the true rulers of Western Eurasia, the Laplanders. I’m not sure what you are getting at here. These empires were not tropical. > [@](#): > > Sorry for the irony. My point, however, is that extrapolating the future from current events, particularly out of context, can get one in trouble. > > I think your obvservation is noteworthy. Given the historical record, I suspect that we might need to look at a different source for the causes of the current observation. I think that the current situation is far more relevant to the future than the past is. In the 17th century, very few people had the technology to make guns and large ships, the great determinants for dominance at the time. transfer of this technology was not readily available either. Today, information and transportation technologies, so vital for success in the modern age are available everywhere. The means to produce wealth is available through many agencies. > [@](#): > > One pure guess off the top of my head (meaning I have given this no thought, but throw it out as an alternative explanation): > When Europe erupted over the world, its temperate-zoned inhabitants tended to make the most permanent settlements in temperate zones and, when they engaged in colonization of the local populations, they did so in ways that caused those temperate locations to enter the 21st century in an advanced mode, while they treated the tropical regions as simply raw resources to be exploited without investing in an infrastructure that could be developed into a 21st century economy. Yes, but that does not explain the USA, abandoned in the 18th century, Greenland mostly ignored, or China and Japan. > [@](#): > > Keep in mind that just six nations, Russia, Canada, the U.S., China, South Africa, and Australia dominate so much of the temperate zone, (while only two nations, Brazil and India, compete for the status of size in the tropics) that any list of nations will find large groups in the tropics. I’m not sure as to the releveance of geographic size that you intended to point out. > [@](#): > > (I’m also unclear as to the justification of eliminating Aruba, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Guam, each of which does substantially better than quite a few temperate zone candidates–particularly if you allow Bermuda, San Marino, Monaco, Iceland, Jersey!, and Liechtenstein to remain in the list to skew the temperate numbers.) I eliminated the small islands and _coastal_ city states in the tropics, because their climates are moderated by virtue of their overall proximity to the influence of the ocean. After all, I’m focusing on those countries dominated year round by oppressive heat. I did leave in the larger island countries of Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic with substantial interior territory. I saw no reason to eliminate their counterparts outside the tropics, because they are not anomolous in this regard to the non-tropics , and because they are few in number. > [@](#): > > _KGS_ > That was my initial response, too. As a Native Californian, 77 is almost long-sleeve weather. > > I think the discrepancy comes from the fact that the temperate nations (Europe, specifically) were the first ones to develop imerialism, and developed a large enough economy and technological base to sail round the world, rape the less advanced civilizations of their natural resources Japan is an example of a country that has very little in the way of natural resources. Canada has way more than the States in terms of natural resources and yet is way behind in GDP per capita. In fact,( not saying you’re wrong), but can you name a resource that has been depleted during the colonial era to the detriment of the current third world economy? > [@](#): > > _Duckster_ > Last time I checked, the Tropic of Capricorn cuts right across Australia, effectively splitting it in half. > > Perhaps you need to revise your figures and determine the Australian GDP with respect to part of the country in the tropics vs the rest of the country. To classify Australia as tropical would be like classifying Canada as polar. Both northern regions are described as territories due to their dearth of population. I want to add that I’m not suggesting that the further away from the tropics you go the wealthier you become. What I am suggesting is that there is a _year round_ climate that is just too oppressive to sustain an equivalent(to temperate regions) industrial effort of its people. That is why throughout the world a rising gradient of annual per capita wealth generation occurs crossing out of the tropics as I’ve shown. A longitudinal GDPpc gradient within the tropics from the equater, or a longitudinal GDPpc gradient outside the tropics can not be established with any degree of regularity as one travels around the world on a latitude. > [@](#): > > _erislover_ > I think we should be able to find some more context here. For example, did the productivity of the American south increase with the advent of air conditioning? I met a guy on a cruise in the Carribean,1981, from Texas, originally New England, who was making a fortune marketing and installing air conditioners in Texas. If I recall correctly, this was also the time when the south were sucking mega manufacturing jobs from the north. **Sam Stone** , fortunately for you summer doesn’t last very long. Its the mosquitos that bug me as well on the praire. In any event, you bring up a perception problem equating wealth with GDP. Are we wealthy in Canada because a significant proportion of our GNP is connected to staying warm and surviving the winter as well as providing for an expensive transportation network in such a vast country as ours? But that is another topic. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/13 "2002-07-14T22:42:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > > In the 17th century, very few people had the technology to make guns and large ships, the great determinants for dominance at the time. transfer of this technology was not readily available either. This is actually incorrect. By the 17th century ( especially the late 17th ) the difference between Western and Eastern naval technologies was negligible and transfer of Western technology was very widely disseminated… See Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean:_An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750_, by K.N. Chaudhuri ( Cambridge University Press, 1985 ). Chpts. 6 and 7 in particular. > [@](#): > > What I am suggesting is that there is a _year round_ climate that is just too oppressive to sustain an equivalent(to temperate regions) industrial effort of its people. That is why throughout the world a rising gradient of annual per capita wealth generation occurs crossing out of the tropics as I’ve shown. A longitudinal GDPpc gradient within the tropics from the equater, or a longitudinal GDPpc gradient outside the tropics can not be established with any degree of regularity as one travels around the world on a latitude. Long a contention of the Victorian Age British Empire in particular, though they took it a step farther and assigned tempermental characteristics based on ‘the ennervating affects of tropical climes.’ Unfortunately it was based on the response of northern Europe-acclimated physiologies to the affect of tropical heat, rather than that of the adapted natives. It also revolved around politics ( centering on the the fallout of the Great Sepoy Mutiny of the mid-19th century ) and the “scientific racism” that was in vogue. But I’m afraid I have to agree with **tomndeb** that history invalidates your contention to some extent. A number of productive and sophisticated tropical empires have arisen over the course of history - Given the significant monuments they left behind, it doesn’t seem that labor and industry ( which produced the wealth that made possible the construction ) was impedeed in any way for those earlier states. If you want a modern example, I’ll note that tropical south India has become the center of an industrial boom in the area of IT. The ( quite tropical ) city of Bangalore is referred to as the “Silicon Valley of India” and all by its lonesome produces 30% of India’s software production and exports. Mysore is also a significant producer. In the same state ( Karnataka ) the steel and cement induistry is also apparently thriving. In adjoining, lowland Tamil Nadu the city of Trichy is a fast-growing industrial center as well. etc. The current plight of the tropics does have something to do with geography to some extent ( see Jared Diamond ), plus some bad luck. But the climate does not seem to be an insurmountable problem in terms of production. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/14 "2002-07-15T01:02:15Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you are getting at here. These empires were not tropical. Egypt borders the Tropic of Cancer and the Mesopotamian empires were located in areas of very high temperatures (your originally posited factor to depress industry). India certainly is Tropical in the South. Of the cities most familiar to Europeans, only Delhi and Lucknow are (marginally) outside the tropics. Bombay, Goa, Calcutta, Bangalore, and Hyderabad are all tropical cities. All of the land controlled by the Viet, Khmer, and Thai empires are all tropical, as are the Mayan lands and most of the Aztec lands–including all their principal cities. > [@](#): > > Finally, although we have the lithic evidence of these civilization, that does not mean that the other Amerindians of the time were not producing goods and services with great industry. In terms of wealth, I’d much prefer pre-columbian North-Pacific coast with the wealth of structural timber, salmon, territory and game, than hoe the fields of Central America. As someone who suffers when the temperature exceeds 70° F/21° C and who has actually performed (and hated) stoop-and-squat agriculture, I would agree that I would also prefer the Pacific Northwest over Central America. However, the discussion is whether the climate impedes industry. Whether or not the people of the Pacific Northwest had some adequate level of industry, the people of Meso-America _demonstrated_ more. One cannot build large monuments if one does not have sufficient food surplus to feed the workers while they build. The inhabitants of Meso America clearly had the sustained agriculture to create enormous stone cities. They also had sufficient agriculture to support a leisure class who could develop writing, extended mathematics, astronomy, and other scientific endeavors. Without suggesting that the peoples of the Pacific Northwest could not do the same, in fact they did not. > [@](#): > > Yes, but that does not explain the USA, abandoned in the 18th century, Greenland mostly ignored, or China and Japan. The U.S. was not abandoned. Beginning long before the War for Independence and continuing for years after, the American colonies and then States received a lot of technology transfer from Europe in the form of large numbers of skilled immigrants coming to North America looking for financial opportunity and bringing their existing skills. Japan was actively encouraged to modernize with Britain and the U.S. engaging in a (mostly) friendly rivalry to see who could make the most money by investing in Japanese industry. After the initial threat of Perry’s trade mission, the Japanese government was left alone to develop in whatever way they found most promising. China was, indeed, seriously disrupted by successive assaults by the British, French, (the U.S. to a lesser extent), and the Japanese. However, China had extrensive industry prior to the colonial invasions and they received a lot of aid following WWII to rebuild., first from the U.S. and later from the U.S.S.R. Greenland is a virtually uninhabited anomaly for which the real numbers are masked by the fact that Denmark continues to subsidize 50% of the government expenses. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/15 "2002-07-15T22:44:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > **Japan is an example of a country that has very little in the way of natural resources. Canada has way more than the States in terms of natural resources and yet is way behind in GDP per capita. In fact,( not saying you’re wrong), but can you name a resource that has been depleted during the colonial era to the detriment of the current third world economy?** Hmm…how about all that gold from the Inca empire, which the Spaniards helped themselves to in the 1500’s or so? I’d say that’s a pretty significant depletion. As for “renewable” resources – such as coffee, tea, slaves, etc. – the money flow was definitely going OUT of the 3rd world countries, into the coffers of Euro-American nobility and corporations. This is one reason why all Western European countries still hold so much economic dominance despite the loss of ALL of their imperial land holdings. You also have to consider what we left behind. For example, a country like the Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) has plenty of mineral resources to support a strong economy…if they can ever get their sociopolitical act together. The reason for the strife? Not 100% sure, but I’m positive that our “imports” of disease, religion, and monolithic political structure had SOMETHING to do with it! ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2002, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/16 "2002-07-16T01:26:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KGS \* > > Hmm…how about all that gold from the Inca empire, which the Spaniards helped themselves to in the 1500’s or so? I’d say that’s a pretty significant depletion. Minor nitpick, which doesn’t in any way invalidate your point :). Although a great deal of gold was initially removed from the accumulated treasury of the Incas, the real mineral boom in Spanish America was silver. Potosi and associated mines in Peru and mines in Zacatecas ( Mexico ) in the 16th century, then, later ( latter half of the 18th century ), during the period of Bourbon reform, a second even larger boom in Mexico ( Zacatecas and Guanajuato ) again. The big gold boom was in Portuguese Brazil ( Minas Gerais ), starting in the 1690’s, accelerating after 1715, and then trailing off rapidly in the latter half of the century ( somewhat contemporaneously with the start of the second Spanish silver boom ). It’s not widely known, but during this period the wealthiest monarch in Europe was John V the Magnanimous of Portugal ( r.1706-1750 ), for just this reason. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2002, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/17 "2002-07-16T01:34:59Z")
Oh another minor nitpick - **Grienspace** - Just noticed that you have Taiwan, ranked at #37 just ahead of Portugal and Greece, as a non-tropical country. However I believe the island is bisected by the Tropic of Cancer :). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2002, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/18 "2002-07-16T02:26:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > To classify Australia as tropical would be like classifying Canada as polar. Both northern regions are described as territories due to their dearth of population. But you forget that the _overwhelming_ population of Australia lives along its coasts, _because the rest of the country, on either side of the Tropic of Capricorn_ is just too desolate and damned hot/humid for most of the year. Using the political distinction of territories vs states is dangerous, especially if you do not understand the significance of the designations. Are there any significant population centers in Canada’s Yukon Territory? In Australia, the Northern Territory has Darwin. But let’s not forget the state of Queensland, most of it within the tropics. And QLD has a sizeable population. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2002, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/19 "2002-07-16T02:49:24Z")
> [@](#): > > _Both_ northern regions are described as territories due to their dearth of population. So-o-o-omebody forgot Nunavut! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2002, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859/20 "2002-07-16T03:17:49Z")
> [@](#): > > As for “renewable” resources – such as coffee, tea, slaves, etc. – the money flow was definitely going OUT of the 3rd world countries, into the coffers of Euro-American nobility and corporations. This is one reason why all Western European countries still hold so much economic dominance despite the loss of ALL of their imperial land holdings. Cite? Guys, trying to assign geographic or climatorial reasons for the relative wealth of countries is a losing game. Whatever intrinsic differences countries have in this regard are completely swamped by the most important factors, which are political stability and sound economic policy. Hong Kong has no natural resources, hideously expensive land, and a strong industrial economy. The Soviets took the most resource-intensive, liveable land and made a near-3rd world country out of it. The Ukraine went from being “The Breadbasket of Europe” to being a net importer of food. Cuba is an economic basket case despite huge natural assets. The problem is political instability and/or poor economic policy, not who stole what in the 1600’s or how much more expensive it is to make certain products in one country vs another. Every country has some natural liabilities. It’s how you cope with them that matters. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/too-damn-hot-to-produce/118859.md?page=2)