10 ANSWERS
ASK TO ANSWER
Originally Answered: Why does poverty seem to correlate with the warmer climates near the equator?
This is a question that has fascinated many for centuries. There are a number of theories which have been put forth to explain this phenomenon. Some of them, imo, are plainly racist and some very very fanciful. It is also accepted that none of these theories are proven and that there are a number of exceptions - Malaysia, Thailand and Costa Rica straddle the Equator for instance and are not really poor.
Some of the theories include
Not sure if this helps but looking up the references may.
Some of the theories include
- Cold air makes people more vigorous, increases brain-size and therefore innovative!! I am not joking. This theory was proposed by Beals, Smith et al
- The frost made the soil more fertile away from the equator, thus improving agriculture and the rest was history!
- Diseases around the Equator make people spend more efforts on just keeping healthy leading to diminished efforts on innovations and technological progress. This also leads to a poverty trap (read Jeffrey Sachs - Geography of Poverty and Wealth)
- Early domestication of animals, improvement of agriculture and technological revolution happened away from the equator and that gave the countries a head start that they have retained argues Jared Diamond (author) in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997 book). This is a wonderful read. One does not know if this is all true, it is a theory anyway but delightfully told.
Not sure if this helps but looking up the references may.
Michael O. Church
22 upvotes by Vandio Zuccarelli, Miguel Paraz, Sella Rafaeli, David Urquhart,(more)
I don't think there's a single reason, and I think some proportion of it is coincidence. If it were 1000 AD, we'd be asking, "Why is there more poverty in countries with cold climates?"
Malaria is a big factor. There are plenty of latitude-specific diseases (dengue in the tropics, SAD, influenza, and MS in the high latitudes) but malaria seems to be The Big One. It kills at least half a million people (probably a multiple of that) and it imposes a huge lag on economic development. It's such a nasty disease that humans evolved another awful disease, of the genetic type, against it. (That's sickle-cell anemia.)
Also relevant is the "Advantage of Backwardness" theory. Egypt led the Western world, for much of that time indisputably, until Rome (and, arguably, for some time after it). However, the Mediterranean (a backwater) managed to generate a different way of thinking and organizing city-states, starting around 500 BC. That part of the world led for a while, declined a bit (although the "fall" of Rome is overstated, insofar as the Eastern Empire survived and the Catholic Church continued much of its cultural legacy) and rebounded. Then, around 1600, northern Europe (cold, wet, dark) started to take the reins from the south, which no one would have predicted in 1400 when Italy was in full Renaissance and the Netherlands and England were medieval. Then again, around 1925 we saw Canada and the U.S. (formerly backward places, outposts of the Anglo-sphere) eclipsing many of the European countries. It's not really predictable where world leadership "goes", or where it will land next-- it's clearly drifting away from the US, but without any obvious successor-- but it seems to have moved from warm to cold climates as the Advantage-of-Backwardness effect continues to iterate. There's no reason it can't move next to a warmer climate. (Australia? Singapore? Malaysia?)
I don't think the data support that hot climates produce poverty. If you look at the past 5000 years of human history, you find climatic diversity to be a massive advantage (China historically, U.S. now) but there's no obvious "hot equals poor" relationship. The argument that hot climates make people lazy, for one thing, is completely without support. People in tropical climates work as much as anyone else; however, they do tend to avoid working in midday sun.
Malaria is a big factor. There are plenty of latitude-specific diseases (dengue in the tropics, SAD, influenza, and MS in the high latitudes) but malaria seems to be The Big One. It kills at least half a million people (probably a multiple of that) and it imposes a huge lag on economic development. It's such a nasty disease that humans evolved another awful disease, of the genetic type, against it. (That's sickle-cell anemia.)
Also relevant is the "Advantage of Backwardness" theory. Egypt led the Western world, for much of that time indisputably, until Rome (and, arguably, for some time after it). However, the Mediterranean (a backwater) managed to generate a different way of thinking and organizing city-states, starting around 500 BC. That part of the world led for a while, declined a bit (although the "fall" of Rome is overstated, insofar as the Eastern Empire survived and the Catholic Church continued much of its cultural legacy) and rebounded. Then, around 1600, northern Europe (cold, wet, dark) started to take the reins from the south, which no one would have predicted in 1400 when Italy was in full Renaissance and the Netherlands and England were medieval. Then again, around 1925 we saw Canada and the U.S. (formerly backward places, outposts of the Anglo-sphere) eclipsing many of the European countries. It's not really predictable where world leadership "goes", or where it will land next-- it's clearly drifting away from the US, but without any obvious successor-- but it seems to have moved from warm to cold climates as the Advantage-of-Backwardness effect continues to iterate. There's no reason it can't move next to a warmer climate. (Australia? Singapore? Malaysia?)
I don't think the data support that hot climates produce poverty. If you look at the past 5000 years of human history, you find climatic diversity to be a massive advantage (China historically, U.S. now) but there's no obvious "hot equals poor" relationship. The argument that hot climates make people lazy, for one thing, is completely without support. People in tropical climates work as much as anyone else; however, they do tend to avoid working in midday sun.
Originally Answered: Why does poverty seem to correlate with the warmer climates near the equator?
Areas with warmer temperatures have more infections diseases such as dengue
Difficult to make long-term financial decisions
Since health in countries nearest to the equator are so volatile it is difficult to make long-term financial decisions such as whether to plant more crops or build a house, which makes breaking out of the poverty trap here more difficult
People being sick causes resources to be sucked out
When people are sick with a disease like dengue, resources that could have been used for productive investments now must be used to care for the sick. This accentuates the hand-to mouth existence of poverty
Difficult to make long-term financial decisions
Since health in countries nearest to the equator are so volatile it is difficult to make long-term financial decisions such as whether to plant more crops or build a house, which makes breaking out of the poverty trap here more difficult
People being sick causes resources to be sucked out
When people are sick with a disease like dengue, resources that could have been used for productive investments now must be used to care for the sick. This accentuates the hand-to mouth existence of poverty
I'm not highly informed in this area but I always thought the "not needing to stash/save your acorns" had some merit. In today's world the idea doesn't quite hold up but 20 thousand years ago...
In colder climates people needed to think ahead, store and prepare for the hard winters. Cold climates demanded a more resourceful, perhaps even more aggressive personal and group mentality for the sake of survival.
In hot climates, there may not have been quite such a demand. Living day by day was possible, animals didn't hibernate, fruit grew all year round and, well intense heat can be quite sedating.
There will be a lot of other factors, many probably layered upon the above basics. But the ancient absolute need to plan ahead surely gave rise to a faster development of serious economical structure.
In colder climates people needed to think ahead, store and prepare for the hard winters. Cold climates demanded a more resourceful, perhaps even more aggressive personal and group mentality for the sake of survival.
In hot climates, there may not have been quite such a demand. Living day by day was possible, animals didn't hibernate, fruit grew all year round and, well intense heat can be quite sedating.
There will be a lot of other factors, many probably layered upon the above basics. But the ancient absolute need to plan ahead surely gave rise to a faster development of serious economical structure.
If you look at all the rich countries as of today, they have been quite poor historically, while many poor countries were rich back then.
In the past, countries such as India, Perisa, China, Mesopotamia, the South East Asian region and the Aztecs were the richest. While Europe was largely a tribal area.
These rich countries, with a rich crafts heritage, provided for the entire world, and trade occurred freely.
The resaon for hot climate making them rich is obvious. The tropical climate is most suited to human beings, and their land was fertile and easy to live on. With basic fooding provided for, they could move on to higher echelons of science and philosophy.
But Europe, going through its Dark Ages, was not dead. With a six month winter, you could simply sit and think. This would have been the precursor of the industrial revolution, and suddenly a sea change happened in the way goods were produced - in large factories, though of initially lower quality.
With little scope of business within their own home countries, they set out for trade with these richer countries, and ultimately with the help of industrial backing (read production of Guns) they took hold of the richer countries.
Soon, the wealth was moved to coffers in Europe through extensive means of exploitation and taxation. Leaving the host countries with little or no means of production.
Though this situation is not bound to last forever. With technology becoming more and more available, things are once more moving in favour of the original crafts rich countries. Powered by newer technical aids, and backed by centuries of craft tradition, these countries are making a comeback on the global scene. Within our lifetimes, we will see the fall of Factory based production and the rise of crafts.
In the past, countries such as India, Perisa, China, Mesopotamia, the South East Asian region and the Aztecs were the richest. While Europe was largely a tribal area.
These rich countries, with a rich crafts heritage, provided for the entire world, and trade occurred freely.
The resaon for hot climate making them rich is obvious. The tropical climate is most suited to human beings, and their land was fertile and easy to live on. With basic fooding provided for, they could move on to higher echelons of science and philosophy.
But Europe, going through its Dark Ages, was not dead. With a six month winter, you could simply sit and think. This would have been the precursor of the industrial revolution, and suddenly a sea change happened in the way goods were produced - in large factories, though of initially lower quality.
With little scope of business within their own home countries, they set out for trade with these richer countries, and ultimately with the help of industrial backing (read production of Guns) they took hold of the richer countries.
Soon, the wealth was moved to coffers in Europe through extensive means of exploitation and taxation. Leaving the host countries with little or no means of production.
Though this situation is not bound to last forever. With technology becoming more and more available, things are once more moving in favour of the original crafts rich countries. Powered by newer technical aids, and backed by centuries of craft tradition, these countries are making a comeback on the global scene. Within our lifetimes, we will see the fall of Factory based production and the rise of crafts.
A man walking on a beautiful tropical beach came up to a fisherman, who was sitting on the porch of his small cabin, staring into the ocean. The man asked the fisherman "What are you doing?".
The fisherman replied: "why do you ask?"
- Because if I were you, I would be out there killing myself bringing as many fish as I could find.
- Why?
- So that I could grow my business and buy a bigger boat...
Then, I would expand my fleet and employ other people, use technology to increase our daily catch. With the bigger fleet, I would expand, and bring my fish directly to market, so I could increase my margins...
- Hmmm...
The fisherman replied: "why do you ask?"
- Because if I were you, I would be out there killing myself bringing as many fish as I could find.
- Why?
- So that I could grow my business and buy a bigger boat...
Then, I would expand my fleet and employ other people, use technology to increase our daily catch. With the bigger fleet, I would expand, and bring my fish directly to market, so I could increase my margins...
- Hmmm...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.