Quote:
Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Did you actually read the Diamond book, Abacab? If you did, your reading comprehension is shit.
The biggest differences were beasts of burden and the direction of trade routes. Africa and South America both have shitloads of mineral resources, but they didn't have good animals to help with physical labor and the north to south orientation of both continents made it hard to migrate with familiar crops. In contrast, Europe and Asia developed with multiple species of large domesticated mammals and the trade routes developed along longitudinal lines.
|
Woah econ professor, I don't mean to bust your balls but I'm fairly certain labor is considered a resource, and shit like oxen would fall underneath this. Only an idiot would believe that isolated villages in sub-Sahara Africa, or packs of nomads living in the cold, barren, Mongolian steppes would have had the same resource advantages as the Middle East, Central Europe, and coastal Asian countries.
You're trying to knock me for a simplistic example that only scratches 1% of the reason why certain societies by-passed others, I don't have the time to write a 110 page thesis over human progress from the stone age and on, but if you missed my point that "some areas have advantages over others" and that greatly influenced the way society was forged then the only thing you're doing right now is trolling.