1. Countries in colder climate are generally more economically prosperous. South Korea is colder (though hot in summer) than S/E Asian countries.
2. South Koreans have always been overzealous about education.
3. South Korea is ethnically more homogenous than S/E Asian countries. People have been comfortable with idea of putting interests of the large group (i.e. nation) before that of the individuals.
russia is one of the wealthiest nation on earth and their economy is one of the strongest in the world because not related to inflated bubbles like tech or healthcare but to raw materials, natural resources, engineering, steel and other hard materials production.
the war was supposed to sink them according to european leaders and yet they are stronger than ever.
just look at the euro/ruble please and try to explain that we are winning. this war sole purpose is to destroy europe. america doesn't care about russia they care about a weakened europe.
I'm curious to know more. Sure, they're not well-tested theories and never will be, given their nature, but broadly it seems to track. The powerful forces of climate and geography on a people's culture and the effect of that culture compounded over generations seem at least an adequate explanation between the wealth gap of equatorial countries and those in colder climes.
but the wealth gap only started in the last 600 years or so. why didn't it "track" the other 6000 years between 5000BC and 1000-1300AD when science, philosophy, and literature were dominated by the mesopotamians, egyptians, indians, chinese, ummayads, persians, byzantines, ottomans?
Most of the societies you mentioned formed in places with four seasons and winters that you couldn't grow anything in, so you're actually furthering my point. The theory being, of course, that such climates force people to need to prepare to survive through the winter and that forcing function has positive effects on their advancement.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that this factor is conducive to forming empires, not just cultures. Of the four classical cradles of civilization (China, Egypt, India, Mesopotamia), only half fit this winter criterion, so it's clearly not a prohibitive factor for the formation of a civilization; perhaps just for its technological development and dominion over others.
Comments
There are probably several factors at play:
1. Countries in colder climate are generally more economically prosperous. South Korea is colder (though hot in summer) than S/E Asian countries.
2. South Koreans have always been overzealous about education.
3. South Korea is ethnically more homogenous than S/E Asian countries. People have been comfortable with idea of putting interests of the large group (i.e. nation) before that of the individuals.
I'd be interested in any research that backs up your point 1. Russia is not all that economically prosperous. Neither is Mongolia.
Singapore and Taiwan are very much so. And Singapore is right on the equator.
I thought it was a fairly well established link, but sure.
https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/BurkeHsiangMiguel_F...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8477297/Why-colder-...
russia is one of the wealthiest nation on earth and their economy is one of the strongest in the world because not related to inflated bubbles like tech or healthcare but to raw materials, natural resources, engineering, steel and other hard materials production.
the war was supposed to sink them according to european leaders and yet they are stronger than ever.
Yeah, all those dead soldiers and destroyed war machines, that’s all good for Russia… somehow.
Grade A copium here
copium of what? europe is sinking thanks to biden policies and russia is thriving.
Do you live in bizarro world? Get all your news from Facebook or telegram?
just look at the euro/ruble please and try to explain that we are winning. this war sole purpose is to destroy europe. america doesn't care about russia they care about a weakened europe.
Seek mental help
Environmental determinism hardly stood the test of time, as far as theories go.
I'm curious to know more. Sure, they're not well-tested theories and never will be, given their nature, but broadly it seems to track. The powerful forces of climate and geography on a people's culture and the effect of that culture compounded over generations seem at least an adequate explanation between the wealth gap of equatorial countries and those in colder climes.
but the wealth gap only started in the last 600 years or so. why didn't it "track" the other 6000 years between 5000BC and 1000-1300AD when science, philosophy, and literature were dominated by the mesopotamians, egyptians, indians, chinese, ummayads, persians, byzantines, ottomans?
Most of the societies you mentioned formed in places with four seasons and winters that you couldn't grow anything in, so you're actually furthering my point. The theory being, of course, that such climates force people to need to prepare to survive through the winter and that forcing function has positive effects on their advancement.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that this factor is conducive to forming empires, not just cultures. Of the four classical cradles of civilization (China, Egypt, India, Mesopotamia), only half fit this winter criterion, so it's clearly not a prohibitive factor for the formation of a civilization; perhaps just for its technological development and dominion over others.