In high school I had to read a book called Guns, Germs and Steel. The author's arguement was basically the success of people is based on the geography of where they're born and not their DNA or intellect.
Of course most of the class agreed with the teacher and the author. I quickly pointed out that life began in Africa and its the most resource abundant place on earth but when it was rediscovered people where still living in huts.
Rome was built on swamp and England is on rock yet they managed to conquer the known world despite not having the resources African countries had.
The author was correct, but he didn't say the quiet part out loud. Geographies that were hard to live in selected for people with higher intellect and more work ethic. Lazy and stupid people tend to die off in harsh conditions.
Over the many years you had a population of highly conscientious smart people in low-resource environments and stupid lazy demographics in high-resource environments, all segregated by geographical boundaries.
We are genetically separate because of our geography.
I’ve never read the book, but isn’t there one part where the author says the animals in Africa weren’t as cooperative? Like zebras were too skittish to make into cavalry? Seems kinda silly to me.
Zebra are not horses, was the point. They're extremely individualistic so you can't get a herd to follow a single leader like you can with horses, and they're also way more aggressive than horses, so you can't really break them.
However, an even larger effect on people is the fact that Europe has extremely harsh winters compared to Africa. That makes quite the difference on the selection process.
I should have made my point a little clearer. Sub Saharan countries should have prospered given their resources. South Africa used to feed most of the British Empire.
In high school I had to read a book called Guns, Germs and Steel. The author's arguement was basically the success of people is based on the geography of where they're born and not their DNA or intellect.
Of course most of the class agreed with the teacher and the author. I quickly pointed out that life began in Africa and its the most resource abundant place on earth but when it was rediscovered people where still living in huts.
Rome was built on swamp and England is on rock yet they managed to conquer the known world despite not having the resources African countries had.
The author was correct, but he didn't say the quiet part out loud. Geographies that were hard to live in selected for people with higher intellect and more work ethic. Lazy and stupid people tend to die off in harsh conditions.
Over the many years you had a population of highly conscientious smart people in low-resource environments and stupid lazy demographics in high-resource environments, all segregated by geographical boundaries.
We are genetically separate because of our geography.
So few people understand this.
Winter has a way of selecting people with foresight and strong work ethics.
Because winter will fucking kill everyone else.
Wait that fits with everything they tell us about evolution how could that possibly be true?
Lefties love science and evolution until you start discussing how it impacts humans and racial disparities.
Australia: a prison island that's at least half desert.
And they evolved into the seal team six of shit posting on the chan's.
When they are not busy having counting accidents on Comms.
Lol
I’ve never read the book, but isn’t there one part where the author says the animals in Africa weren’t as cooperative? Like zebras were too skittish to make into cavalry? Seems kinda silly to me.
Zebra are not horses, was the point. They're extremely individualistic so you can't get a herd to follow a single leader like you can with horses, and they're also way more aggressive than horses, so you can't really break them.
However, an even larger effect on people is the fact that Europe has extremely harsh winters compared to Africa. That makes quite the difference on the selection process.
Africa did have huge civilizations tho, just in different periods of time, Egypt for example.
I should have made my point a little clearer. Sub Saharan countries should have prospered given their resources. South Africa used to feed most of the British Empire.
They did just at different periods of time https://www.history.com/news/7-influential-african-empires
I mean, this whole thread is just blind speculation and generalization.
Yeah, that describess a lot of the threads in general.