Can you refute the hypothesis that differences in development between Eurasia and the rest of the world (Africa, Oceania, and The Americas) are solely due to environmental factors, namely geography, and have nothing to do with the inherent qualities of such peoples?
his Easter Island (Rapa Nui) “ecocide” story in Collapse: he presents it as a mostly self-inflicted collapse driven by deforestation/statue-building before Europeans arrived. A lot of later work argues that’s too clean and too early—recent ancient-DNA work, for example, rejects a big pre-contact population collapse in the 1600s (the specific dramatic “they crashed themselves” timeline), and stresses that the genomic data can’t be used to “prove ecocide,” while historical disruption in the 1800s (notably slave raids and disease after contact) lines up with the catastrophic demographic hit we can actually document, yes his famous treeless eastern island cut down to make the face statues
I was in an orbit above the Earth and time jumped through the periods. All the lights in Africa go out first before the rest.
>>16881540No he's right but he doesn't go far enough.That's the real problem.This locational advantage gets written into our genes meaning our environment changes us over generational time scales producing people with ability levels optimised to explot that environment.
It's due to culture. Why is this so hard for you mutts to understand different people have different cultures and ideas about development? Building big houses and roads and infrastructure might be progress for one culture while another culture prioritizes fealty, morality, social cohesion, religion at the expense of everything else. It's why you get low birth rates in the west while the third world continues breeding. And cultures are extremely resistant to change, so what people attribute to intelligence and iq and all other manner of contrived excuses is always explained by culture. I mean look at china, almost first world but with 3rd world culture because mao decided their old culture had to die, look at korea, manufactured american culture, look at japan, original culture, all countries within a 100 km radius with completely different cultures yet all of them are manufacturing powerhouses because they continue to maintain one part of their old cultures, which is confucianism, everything else is different.
>>16881540His book was debunked years ago. It's based mostly based on outdated information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFECyeihuZYBTW, did you know Jared is Jewish?>>16881561>cultureHuman beings are genes expressed in an environment. Genes affect temperament as anyone who deal with animal breeds can see and hence behavioral tendencies and culture is just the sum total of behaviors of a group, you cannot exclude genes from culture. Culture is the result of the feedback loop of genetic expression in an environment. Either the group eventually develops a culture that is both compatible with their temperament and the environment they're in or they decide to migrate to a better area for their temperament. This is not excluding a single family in another culture beginning to adopt some of the aspects of that culture. However even in that case there are both relatively subtle and noticeable differences in how people of certain backgrounds adopt elements in their culture. They often certain form somewhat divergent subcultures if there are enough of that ethnicity especially when enough of them are there to form an enclave. >korea, manufactured american cultureKorean still has a very different culture from the US. Don't be blinded by the pop music or Starcraft. >manufacturing powerhousesIgnorance of recent history. They became manufacturing powerhouses because in the 70's, 80's, and so on, American companies started to open plants there to take advantage of the cheap labor and lack of environmental regulations. Japan in particular is nowhere close to the manufacturing powerhouse it was before. It's businessmen have also moved many of their factories to China or India to take advantage of cheap labor and lax environmental regulations.
>>16881571I don't buy this gene argument because it's not falsifiable. Culture is the best explanation we have because humans are already born into it, you can't point at a human and explain their behaviour due to a particular gene or set of genes in any reproducible or meaningful way, heck you can't even do this with animals. You can say that pitt bulls are more aggressive than german shepherds but can't point to any gene that expresses this, its a heuristic that encourages positive feedback. On the other hand you can point to the environment and the upbringing and trace an individual's behaviour. And the thing about culture is that its powerful enough to change individuals. I mean look at what humans do with pets, forcing cats and dogs to live with each other, that is cultural and trumps your gene argument. Inb4 dogs and cats don't live with each other very well, again that a cultural issue and speaks to level of skill in building culture among certain families and individuals. The only thing I will say about genes is that we have enough of them that as mammals, we can adapt to any situation by building meaningful cultures around it.
>>16881561I found it strange and peculiar they were building these 'big houses' for people to bunch up because of the current state of energy technology. May as well go back to having separate housing with some farming without all the carbon costs of transport for the final energy in rest calculation with the Earth.
>>16881571>Video unavailable>This video contains content from Paramount Global (INTL), who has blocked it in your country on copyright groundsWhose channel was it?
>>16881540>Can you refute the hypothesis that differences in development between Eurasia and the rest of the world (Africa, Oceania, and The Americas) are solely due to environmental factors, namely geography, and have nothing to do with the inherent qualities of such peoples?Yes. Considering the complexity of human development, already beginning with variations in steroid hormones in the mother's womb contributing to nervous system development, and the complexity of environmental factors, any theory singling out specific factors without taking the multitude of factors at play into account, is not sufficiently falsifiable.
>>16881540the entire world is developing, in a century there will be no differences. Check how you have to use the term Eurasia since writing Europe would feel outdated.
>>16881542What lights?
>>16881540
>>16882326All the city lights shine above the Earth and are clearly visible to a soul floating out there when they orbit. Once energy run low, then the lights would dim out everywhere. But I've gone through many entry points into the future, like on the ground, to get an overall view of things.
>>16882368You are from a parallel universe where Wakanda is real.It's a meme in this one.
>>16881575horseshit slop lol
>>16881575>genetics is hard>therefore i get to pretend it doesnt exitwtf sort of retarded argument is that even supposed to be?>>16881561you explain why culture is part of the equation, but do not see that1. as >>16881571 points out, genes are inseparable from culture and2. this sort of cultural determinism reverses cause and effect; it's people that shape culture just as much if not more than culture that shapes people3. what prevents a people from progressing beyond the middle ages is the weakest link in the chain, which can be one of several factors including but not limited to genetics, culture and politics, almost all of which influence each other.
