3 ms·

15th century actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism Climatic Determinism: "Au

15th century actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism Climatic Determinism: "Australia, for example, has a higher level of economic development than Indonesia. The paradox also applies within countries — the northern U.S. states are more developed than the southern U.S. states. Singapore is a notable counter-example: it is located at 1.22° N and is one of the world's most prosperous countries. This prosperity is based on its position as a port. Other exceptions to the paradox tend to have large natural resources. (Although Singapore's strict and no-nonsense government system matches the "strict and authoritarian" system that Montesquieu cited as being necessary for a country in warmer areas to succeed by counteracting the environmental complacency of the tropics with human-induced strictures. Saudi Arabia is a good example.)" Montesquieu: 18 January 1689 – February 1755 Not being racist or imperialist. In fact, I'm one of those affected, and I don't think it is strongly genetic, but rather mostly behavioral. I see it in my family and culture. Not really laziness, but slowness compared to those from colder climates. There are exceptions, but heat slows people down.

kaybe 14y ago
I'd say the Greeks.. Freely translated from a slide of a lecture I heard: Aristoteles ("The Policy"): "The peoples in the cold areas and in Europe might be courageous, but have little intellectual and artistic potential and thus easier claim their freedom, but are unable to create nations and to dominate their neighbours. The asian peoples [probably Middle East from his perspective] have a bright and artistic but fright fearful mind, and thus are always servants and slaves. The greeks however have access to the advantages of both and are thus courageous and intelligent at the same time. Therefore they are always in possession of freedom and the best institutions of state and would be able to rule over all nations if only the greeks would band together to one single nation." It's quite clear what he is trying to do here: Give a reason why his people are better than others, and most of the old lines of reason had that goal. The lecture I heard led it to a new concept, possibilism (which does not seem to translate well, I'm sorry). The difference between Determinism and Possibilism is that in the second case the environment is seen as only boundary conditions, but humans are free to develop anyway. This new idea was created in the beginning of the 20th century, and it was stated that social facts can only be explained by social circumstances. It seems to be the accepted theory at the moment (not exactly my field of study).
fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
Right, that's why the pyramids were build during a cold snap. And we know how much more developed Norther Europe was during the classical age than Greece, Persia, Egypt, etc. And this is also why Russia has always been one of the most developed and wealthiest countries in the world. And why Hokkaido is the wealthiest part of Japan. Etc. Or maybe even a pile of anecdotes, like most of the developed world happens to be in the north today, does not actually mean anything.

kaybe 14y ago

I'd say the Greeks.. Freely translated from a slide of a lecture I heard: Aristoteles ("The Policy"): "The peoples in the cold areas and in Europe might be courageous, but have little intellectual and artistic potential and thus easier claim their freedom, but are unable to create nations and to dominate their neighbours. The asian peoples [probably Middle East from his perspective] have a bright and artistic but fright fearful mind, and thus are always servants and slaves. The greeks however have access to the advantages of both and are thus courageous and intelligent at the same time. Therefore they are always in possession of freedom and the best institutions of state and would be able to rule over all nations if only the greeks would band together to one single nation." It's quite clear what he is trying to do here: Give a reason why his people are better than others, and most of the old lines of reason had that goal. The lecture I heard led it to a new concept, possibilism (which does not seem to translate well, I'm sorry). The difference between Determinism and Possibilism is that in the second case the environment is seen as only boundary conditions, but humans are free to develop anyway. This new idea was created in the beginning of the 20th century, and it was stated that social facts can only be explained by social circumstances. It seems to be the accepted theory at the moment (not exactly my field of study).

fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago

Right, that's why the pyramids were build during a cold snap. And we know how much more developed Norther Europe was during the classical age than Greece, Persia, Egypt, etc. And this is also why Russia has always been one of the most developed and wealthiest countries in the world. And why Hokkaido is the wealthiest part of Japan. Etc. Or maybe even a pile of anecdotes, like most of the developed world happens to be in the north today, does not actually mean anything.