Why Did Eurasians Prosper? (Environmental Determinism).

while the Africans, south Americans


South Americans? Less advanced?



You could also ask why the Asiatic Native Americans never advanced and have IQ's the size of potatoes despite living in a temperate environment ripe for agriculture.

Also, wouldn't environmental determinism be the OPPOSITE of racialist ecology? Shouldn't Guns, Germs, and Steel posit that environment played a huge role in the determinism of civilization and not because of dsygenics or faulty genes stunting Africans or whoever?

It seems you're positing an inverse strawman by claiming that people falsely paint environmental determinism as racist to imply that any sort of critique of human lineage ought not to be studied. Which is obviously fallacious. the 'Alt-right' does this to a large extent with 'Race Realist' nonsense.

_______________________
PDBPO LEADER 

South Americans? Less advanced?

Remind me of their achievements and contributions.

Also, wouldn't environmental determinism be the OPPOSITE of racialist ecology?

You'd think... but the snowflakes have dug deep and found racism (it's there if you look hard enough). The criticisms of it as Eurocentric and racially biased are and have been plentiful in academic circles for a long time (notably Carl Sauer - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_O._Sauer).

Recently our friends, the SJW's have found reasons to debunk it as highly racially motivated (and you know that in their hierarchy of oppressed, they tend to toe the line lest they be judged as inferior warriors by their peers so expect more of this in the coming years - https://youtu.be/9mGvZXvRNLs).

It seems you're positing an inverse strawman by claiming that people falsely paint environmental determinism as racist

See above.

to imply that any sort of critique of human lineage ought not to be studied. Which is obviously fallacious. the 'Alt-right' does this to a large extent with 'Race Realist' nonsense.

I'm making no such assertions; I'm simply asking for your opinion on the OP question whilst bringing to light the FACT that environmental determinism does not currently sit well with many among the (increasingly) influential warriorist left.

Remind me of their achievements and contributions.




https://www.google.com/#q=mayan+contributions


You'd think... but the snowflakes have dug deep and found racism (it's there if you look hard enough). The criticisms of it as Eurocentric and racially biased are and have been plentiful in academic circles for a long time (notably Carl Sauer - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_O._Sauer).

Recently our friends, the SJW's have found reasons to debunk it as highly racially motivated (and you know that in their hierarchy of oppressed, they tend to toe the line lest they be judged as inferior warriors by their peers so expect more of this in the coming years - https://youtu.be/9mGvZXvRNLs).



It doesn't matter what the SJW loons or the equally loony Neo-Reactionaries / right-wingers think. What matters is the evidence. Also, just because one side of the equation exaggerates accusations towards the middle-ground doesn't' mean the other side is automatically right.

kind of a stupid video, though.


I'm making no such assertions; I'm simply asking for your opinion on the OP question whilst bringing to light the FACT that environmental determinism does not currently sit well with many among the (increasingly) influential warriorist left.


I think the issue also might be a half-rooted truth. Environment pertaining to JUST geography then obviously that wouldn't sit well. but culture and environment working hand in hand is a strong possibility and we see it all the time in human history. You also have to include in the malleability of unpredictable psychology in the factor, spurious of genetical intelligence.

Ie: Native Americans kept to their nomadic culture despite living in a temperate zone ripe for agriculture and agrarianism. But they consciously chose their lifestyle by means of spiritual [religious / cultural] necessity or simple lack of desire.

Or Eskimo's retaining their unique culture in an uber-unique arctic environment.

Roman's and Italic civilizations were objectively superior to the Gallic and Germanic tribes. As were the Inca's to the surrounding Tribes, etc.

You can't measure environment by the merits of geography but also by the extensions of macro psychology / culture. Culture effects the levity of environment just as it is vice-versa.

_______________________
PDBPO LEADER 

Remind me of their achievements and contributions.
Well, we can start with the Mayan calendar, far advanced over European calendars of that time.
Moving on to Chichén Itzá and other great South and Central American structures.
The Nazca lines.

Arguably most of these are not technological advances, but mathematical. Mayans also developed the concept of zero about the same time as their European counterparts.

As far as environment having an impact - A culture will develop whatever technology needed to survive and prosper using whatever natural resources are available. If life is easy enough, no more development is needed. Harsher climates demand more advancement.

This is to be taken with a grain of salt, however, as there are exceptions to every rule.

Ie: Native Americans kept to their nomadic culture despite living in a temperate zone ripe for agriculture and agrarianism. But they consciously chose their lifestyle by means of spiritual [religious / cultural] necessity or simple lack of desire.
Eastern North Native Americans were well-versed in Agriculture, because they lacked the abundant herds of buffalo which made the Western Indians pretty well-off.

Environment and natural resources are everything.

Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
 +  = 

Interesting. But of course this begs the question as to why didn't the Western Native Americans advance as their European counterparts?

_______________________
PDBPO LEADER 

Interesting. But of course this begs the question as to why didn't the Western Native Americans advance as their European counterparts?

If only someone had started a thread on the subject. 

And I'm still not seeing anything that would place South American culture anywhere near the heights of European, Chinese or Asian as far as ideas and technology propelling humanity forward is concerned.

Let's take the wheel for example: the common argument is that the Americas had no large (domesticated) animals to pull carriages so were not compelled to pursue the technology (despite showing signs of approaching it) but this is surely contradicted by the benefits of a horse pulled vehicle.

Could it be a lack of general competitiveness through lack of state building?

Is there an alternative to environmental determinism as a explanation that has any traction?

Interesting. But of course this begs the question as to why didn't the Western Native Americans advance as their European counterparts?
One reason is that they didn't have iron, or the tools to mine, melt and fabricate tools.
In fact, they only had softer metals, like gold and copper.

Stone tools were adequate for their survival, and flakable stone for weaponry was in some ways even superior to iron.
Other types of softer igneous stone were used for food preparation. Life was good, not hard, why change it? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
 +  = 

Interesting, edison. thank you. another question, but are there any theories as to why most of Sub-Sahara Africa never thrived the way the European/Eurasians did? From an environmental POV? It seems only North Africa really became civilized. Any theories as to why?

_______________________
PDBPO LEADER 