There are many different theory's about why certain civilizations do better than others. I believe that the key to a successful nation is the both location and resources. Take a native group of people. The main job for the people is to gather food. Food is of the highest importance in their eyes. So, every day, the men would go out hunting and the women may go collect food from crops. Simple. imagine though if in their area, they had an extremely high amount of food. By having more food, the tribe doesn't spend as much time getting food. So, what happens then is the population goes up because of the vast amount of food. Once there are a lot of people, that is when progress starts happening because there is no need for every person has to get food. So people start having new jobs like making weapons or creating tools for people to use. As the population becomes bigger and people start making new things, the basis for a thriving civilization comes into play. Technology. So by that point countless number of people are making new things. It is easy to see what happens next after that. So, what I'm saying is that the reason for groups of people being more advanced then others, starts with the amount of resources their nation had when it was created.
3 comments:
You simplified this. A lot. Your theory makes a ton of sense, but that’s just it. Theoretically it makes sense. I think a lot of people would argue that America is one of the most fertile places in the world, with our naturally lush Midwest. Or even take the Amazon Basin, one of the single most fertile pieces of land on Earth. You couldn’t walk five feet through the Amazon rainforest without finding something of us on the ground. But then why did Europe, a dry, mountainous, very cold region, thrive, while the indigenous people of North and South America lagged hundreds of years behind? What other factors do you think come into play?
Jackie you should read "Guns germs and steel" by Jarod diamond, in the book diamond agrees with jack's thesis that certain bodies of lands were destined to hold great civilations. He also goes on to explain why Africa isnt a world power, and diamond explains that its because of the vast diseases that occur in Africa.
Okay, I'm going to read that book, becuase I swear, you're like the eighth person who has told me to read that book.
I think another huge factor, something that I think the book also argues, is this idea of the pleistocene overkill and its results. This mass extinction of majority of North and South America's large mammals was a huge deal in the long run, and I think that the fact Europe and Asia had cattle and horses actually played a huge role in their developement
Post a Comment