You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ARG ranks 49 in Human Development Index
- Thread starter iStar
- Start date
jp said:Geography, natural resources, a legacy of stability and trading arrangements seem more important factors than heat.
So in other words; it's just a big coincidence that north of Europe/Spain/Italy is rich and south isn't?
Is the only difference between northern and southern spain and italy the temperature? Do you think heat is the only possible explanation why there is a disparity in wealth?
I'd say the presence of strategically located cities and trading routes across major international borders were a little more important than a small variation in average temperature.
I'd say the presence of strategically located cities and trading routes across major international borders were a little more important than a small variation in average temperature.
You didn't answer my question. To answer yours; I don't think so that heat is the only possible explanation. But I don't think it's a co-incidence either.
I think industrialization has a lot to do with the disparity that we see today. If you have ever worked in an office in summer time with the air-condition broken, you will know what I mean. It's hard to concentrate when it's 35 degrees outside, and that's just typing on a keyboard. Imagine working physical labor in a factory in summer with machines giving off even more heat. That would have been the situation before the air-conditioner was invented. I believe that is the reason why south of Spain and Italy were poor peasant societies. And that I think, had a big influence on their culture today.
I have lived in both north and south of Europe and I know the mindset is very different.
I think industrialization has a lot to do with the disparity that we see today. If you have ever worked in an office in summer time with the air-condition broken, you will know what I mean. It's hard to concentrate when it's 35 degrees outside, and that's just typing on a keyboard. Imagine working physical labor in a factory in summer with machines giving off even more heat. That would have been the situation before the air-conditioner was invented. I believe that is the reason why south of Spain and Italy were poor peasant societies. And that I think, had a big influence on their culture today.
I have lived in both north and south of Europe and I know the mindset is very different.
Milan is a global business and financial center, and Italy's northern border spans France, Switzerland, Austria & Slovenia. The south of Italy lacks the cities and borders, although the southern most point is on the same latitude as Athens. How do you explain the productivity of the atheneans vs the relative rural poverty of southern Italy?
Travel a little further east and you reach Turkey, and head even further south and you reach the even hotter Arab states - cradles of civilisation and amongst the wealthiest societies in the world.
Go further east again and you'll find the major cities of India, China and Japan all at or below the same latitude as southern Italy and Spain. How does your heat theory apply to Asian nations? I just don't see it, far too many other factors at work, and heat doesn't really play a consistent role. Cities are generally located due to strategic importance - near key borders rivers, oceans, natural resources etc and countries develop in relation to their cities.
Travel a little further east and you reach Turkey, and head even further south and you reach the even hotter Arab states - cradles of civilisation and amongst the wealthiest societies in the world.
Go further east again and you'll find the major cities of India, China and Japan all at or below the same latitude as southern Italy and Spain. How does your heat theory apply to Asian nations? I just don't see it, far too many other factors at work, and heat doesn't really play a consistent role. Cities are generally located due to strategic importance - near key borders rivers, oceans, natural resources etc and countries develop in relation to their cities.
You still haven't answered my question.
Greece is not a good example as it's not as long as Italy. Had Yugoslavia and Greece been one country, I am sure you would have found the industries and the wealth in the north.
Turkey is hardly wealthy. And the only reason these Arab nations are wealthy is because of the oil. These are not good examples.
The Mexican Golf Stream makes the European countries hotter than their Asian counterparts.
I agree that several factors are at work. But you can't say that climate does not have a major impact. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a discrepancy between north and south of Europe, IMO
jp said:Milan is a global business and financial center, and Italy's northern border spans France, Switzerland, Austria & Slovenia. The south of Italy lacks the cities and borders, although the southern most point is on the same latitude as Athens. How do you explain the productivity of the atheneans vs the relative rural poverty of southern Italy?
Greece is not a good example as it's not as long as Italy. Had Yugoslavia and Greece been one country, I am sure you would have found the industries and the wealth in the north.
jp said:Travel a little further east and you reach Turkey, and head even further south and you reach the even hotter Arab states - cradles of civilisation and amongst the wealthiest societies in the world.
Turkey is hardly wealthy. And the only reason these Arab nations are wealthy is because of the oil. These are not good examples.
jp said:Go further east again and you'll find the major cities of India, China and Japan all at or below the same latitude as southern Italy and Spain. How does your heat theory apply to Asian nations?
The Mexican Golf Stream makes the European countries hotter than their Asian counterparts.
jp said:I just don't see it, far too many other factors at work, and heat doesn't really play a consistent role. Cities are generally located due to strategic importance - near key borders rivers, oceans, natural resources etc and countries develop in relation to their cities.
I agree that several factors are at work. But you can't say that climate does not have a major impact. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a discrepancy between north and south of Europe, IMO
I don't know what your question is...
Its irrelevant that greece isn't as long as Italy. If the conditions in southern Italy were so harsh that they stifled development, how did the same conditions a few hundred miles away spawn one the greatest civilisations of all time?
Turkey has historically had one of the most advanced civilisations in the world, and the ottoman empire was one of the greatest in history. A few centuries ago Turkey was more powerful than most northern european nations. Why is your heat theory only relevant in the last century?
Some Arab states may be rich due to oil wealth, but so what? Plenty of nations are wealthy due to their ability to trade a valuable natural resource. Norway is built on oil wealth. Aside from this, Iraq and Iran are two of the oldest civilisations on the planet, and have been significant throughout history. The main problem with these examples is that they don't follow your "heat" theory.
Yes I can, because I can point out countries around the world, and civilisations throughout history which contradict your theory. Besides, which northern european countries and which southern european countries are you using to illustrate your theory? Poland vs. Portugal? Lithuania vs. Greece? Why is there such a discrepancy between east and west? Why not suggest that longitude and latitude have a major impact?
Its irrelevant that greece isn't as long as Italy. If the conditions in southern Italy were so harsh that they stifled development, how did the same conditions a few hundred miles away spawn one the greatest civilisations of all time?
Turkey has historically had one of the most advanced civilisations in the world, and the ottoman empire was one of the greatest in history. A few centuries ago Turkey was more powerful than most northern european nations. Why is your heat theory only relevant in the last century?
Some Arab states may be rich due to oil wealth, but so what? Plenty of nations are wealthy due to their ability to trade a valuable natural resource. Norway is built on oil wealth. Aside from this, Iraq and Iran are two of the oldest civilisations on the planet, and have been significant throughout history. The main problem with these examples is that they don't follow your "heat" theory.
But you can't say that climate does not have a major impact. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a discrepancy between north and south of Europe, IMO
Yes I can, because I can point out countries around the world, and civilisations throughout history which contradict your theory. Besides, which northern european countries and which southern european countries are you using to illustrate your theory? Poland vs. Portugal? Lithuania vs. Greece? Why is there such a discrepancy between east and west? Why not suggest that longitude and latitude have a major impact?
Diskosis said:The prosperous Australia we see today was built largely on the hard work of immigrants after WWII, mainly from countries like Greece and Italy. Nothing to do with English culture.
United Kingdom 1,153,264
Italy 220,469
Greece 125,849
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia#Country_of_Birth_of_Australian_Residents
Ten Pound Poms attracted over one million British migrants between 1945 and 1972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Pound_Poms
Nothing to do with England huh?
jp said:I don't know what your question is...
So in other words; it's just a big coincidence that north of Europe/Spain/Italy is rich and south isn't?
jp said:Its irrelevant that greece isn't as long as Italy. If the conditions in southern Italy were so harsh that they stifled development, how did the same conditions a few hundred miles away spawn one the greatest civilisations of all time?
I believe the Roman Empire was the greatest. But again, I am talking about contemporary history. Why are they not as rich as the north-western European countries? That is the main point I am trying to make.
It is totally irrelevant what civilizations were greater before as that has nothing to do with capitalism today.
jp said:Turkey has historically had one of the most advanced civilisations in the world, and the ottoman empire was one of the greatest in history. A few centuries ago Turkey was more powerful than most northern european nations. Why is your heat theory only relevant in the last century?
Because of industrialization. That is what I think caused the disparity. And working in a factory and killing on a battle field are two very distinct things.
jp said:Some Arab states may be rich due to oil wealth, but so what? Plenty of nations are wealthy due to their ability to trade a valuable natural resource. Norway is built on oil wealth. Aside from this, Iraq and Iran are two of the oldest civilisations on the planet, and have been significant throughout history. The main problem with these examples is that they don't follow your "heat" theory.
Like I said, there are several reasons why countries are rich. You mentioned natural resources before. I believe that falls into that category.
You can explain why Norway is rich country due to oil, but then Sweden and Finland shouldn't be as they have none.
jp said:Yes I can, because I can point out countries around the world, and civilisations throughout history which contradict your theory. Besides, which northern european countries and which southern european countries are you using to illustrate your theory? Poland vs. Portugal? Lithuania vs. Greece? Why is there such a discrepancy between east and west? Why not suggest that longitude and latitude have a major impact?
Obviously the western ones as the eastern did not develop the same way due to the Soviet Union. Are you seriously suggesting I have to point out why there is a discrepancy between east and west Europe?
And you haven't pointed out a single country, all you have done is mentioned different civilizations which has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make.
