you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Gaslov 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One problem with the theory of climate and discomfort driving industry and advanced society is that the Americas had similar climates but those people didn't develop much further than the Africas. China, on the other hand, has a lot of tropics, yet developed comparably, if not better, than Europeans for most of history, such as reaching the crossbow and gunpowder use long ahead of Europeans.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

China is a very huge country and has any number of different climates. But it also has the geography and climate for large scale agriculture which is what drove civilization there. Most of China is subtropical and has fairly strong seasonal changes and doesn't really classify as a tropical climate. The main difference between China and Europe I think is that in China they largely developed inland due to their trading routes being primarily overland and never developed the naval traditions of Europe due to the lack of a Mediterranean equivalent which caused their society to begin to lag behind the west when mercantilism was adopted.

The Americans had several well developed civilizations including the development of writing with the Maya which is a very significant step in the formation of an advanced civilization. But they didn't develop technologically equivalent to Europe for a number of reasons. One is simply time. American civilization was far younger because it took far longer for people to get there, and then since it was a relatively few people who crossed the land bridge before it sank, it took a considerable amount of time to build a population necessary for the creation of large complex civilizations.

They were well on their way at the time of European colonization however. There were some truly impressive architectural feats as well as irrigation and land reclamation projects. But they had several disadvantages compared to Europe as well. One being the total lack of large domestic animals for labor. There was the Llama in south America but they aren't very strong. And I believe dogs were domesticated, but that's it. No oxen or horses. Buffalo were never domesticated.

Then there was also the lack of the wheel which is a truly bizzare case of technological divergence. And there was the lack of genetic diversity that made the American aboriginals somewhat susceptible to plagues which further hindered societal development. It's theorized that even before the smallpox epidemic a different plague had decimated the North American population.

It's interesting to think about how North American society would have developed if there had never been European contact. I suspect they'd have a largely medieval level of technology at the present day and you'd see the Maya be the dominant cultural force likely colonizing and subduing the planes indians.

Though it's worth noting that there were some relatively sophisticated cultures in North America as well. Whomever built the Mesa Verde and other indian "castles" in the south west for example. Though these people had vanished by the time Europeans arrived and they left nothing of their culture behind since they never developed writing besides their domiciles and pottery. I suspect plague or climate shift making their agriculture fail.