Why are cold countries richer than hot countries?

[Bigboii]

So statistically speaking colder countries are richer than hotter ones (I don't wanna bore people with numbers so if you want the numbers you can check out the video he provides the numbers. )

Basically in the first half of the videos he provides stats which proves his points and explains how gulf and Singapore are outliers and not the norm. In the second half of the video he provides couple of reasons which includes people from hoter climates are more likely to indulge in warfare but people from colder countries are likely to solve their issues in a civilized manner (I don't agree with this point). Another explanation was people from colder areas have to prepare for winter so you have to be industrious in order for you to survive, people need to help each other cause they cant survive alone so they have to be hard working, industrious and innovative to survive.

In contrast life in hotter countries is easier get a mud hut and hunt for food, can even farm easily. Possible rebuttal is in olden times Egypt, Mesopotamia and almost all the great empires were from hotter countries and his answer is food in olden days food was extremely important unlike today and these civilizations could provide food unlike colder countries so they were prosperous but in modern days innovation, industrial output is more important than providing food.

So do you agree with his theory, any other reasons for this phenomenon or you don't agree with his theory

I'll start by my disagreement with one of his reasons I don't think people from colder countries are less likely to indulge in warfare just look at history white man faught almost all of the major world conflicts

 

[sweep_shot]

It is interesting. I think weather plays a minor factor.

Generally speaking, colder weather means lower population. Less people means more resources per person. That's probably the secret.

 

[last_knight]

Interesting. Has this been like it forever or there are some exceptional eras when it was the other way around ?

 

[ElRaja]

we looking at a snapshot in history by judging the last two hundred years or so, historically, for thousands of years the wealthiest nations were either temperate or much warmer, whether it be the roman and greek empires straddling the Mediterranean, the chinese, or the indian and persian empires which were far hotter than northern europe.

the most important change that happened was the industrial revolution, which is the primary reason for western europe (and its western europe and its former overseas territories) which hold the vast wealthy advantage over the so called hotter countries as europeans couldn't settle in most of the warmer countries since they had really large indigenous populations that had similar immunity patterns to the europeans.

the industrial revolution didnt unlock some supposed advantage to being a cold country, it just meant that the countries closest to england were able to ride englands coat tails on and dominate the world because western europes tech was the best, and it is the cumulative effect of those 100 to 200 years of advantage which makes western Europe, and its off shoot countries significantly wealthier than most of the world, not some intrinsic advantage of being colder (otherwise we'd have maori, inuit, sami, countries still)

the real question is why did the industrial revolution happen in england of all places (which jst so happens to be unnaturally warm for its lattitude).

TL/DR: it's the cumulative effect of western Europe having a tech advantage after the industrial revolution which allowed it to dominate the world for the last 200 years after colonising colder locations with small indigenous populations which either got wiped out or culturally westernised.

 

[Bigboii]

Interesting. Has this been like it forever or there are some exceptional eras when it was the other way around ?

Hot countries dominanated the world for 1000s of years

 

[Bigboii]

we looking at a snapshot in history by judging the last two hundred years or so, historically, for thousands of years the wealthiest nations were either temperate or much warmer, whether it be the roman and greek empires straddling the Mediterranean, the chinese, or the indian and persian empires which were far hotter than northern europe.

the most important change that happened was the industrial revolution, which is the primary reason for western europe (and its western europe and its former overseas territories) which hold the vast wealthy advantage over the so called hotter countries as europeans couldn't settle in most of the warmer countries since they had really large indigenous populations that had similar immunity patterns to the europeans.

the industrial revolution didnt unlock some supposed advantage to being a cold country, it just meant that the countries closest to england were able to ride englands coat tails on and dominate the world because western europes tech was the best, and it is the cumulative effect of those 100 to 200 years of advantage which makes western Europe, and its off shoot countries significantly wealthier than most of the world, not some intrinsic advantage of being colder (otherwise we'd have maori, inuit, sami, countries still)

the real question is why did the industrial revolution happen in england of all places (which jst so happens to be unnaturally warm for its lattitude).

TL/DR: it's the cumulative effect of western Europe having a tech advantage after the industrial revolution which allowed it to dominate the world for the last 200 years after colonising colder locations with small indigenous populations which either got wiped out or culturally westernised.

Interesting observation I wasn't expecting this England argument tbh nice!

And you know you are not that off maybe England was the reason for this

As far as your question I think coal and I am saying massive amounts of it, ports everywhere, natural protection from enemies unlike other countries in Europe

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Interesting observation I wasn't expecting this England argument tbh nice!

And you know you are not that off maybe England was the reason for this

As far as your question I think coal and I am saying massive amounts of it, ports everywhere, natural protection from enemies unlike other countries in Europe

Not maybe, definitely. Before the industrial revolution England was inferior to lets say the Ottoman Empire at the time in riches.

Industrial revolution spawned the military might of England, and Germany, France followed. The US had its own revolution in the 1920’s after Henry Ford set up the world’s first production line for his cars (1913). This had its own snowball effect in relation to other innovations and policies. Since then, the United States centralized economic power and shared it with its ally states (largely European). These innovations had nothing to do with the weather.

During this same time period, places that were coincidentally hotter like Africa, subcontinent, East Asia, were suppressed under colonial rule, choking economic growth.

There is a clear cause and effect. Putting it down to the temperature trivializes a very complex phenomenon of economic growth and innovations in production methods, which had nothing to do with the weather.

Finally, correlation does not equal causation.

 

[PetroDollars]

Its actually just a modern phenomena, the real secret is having interconnectivity and peach between neighbours and having a pool of resources.

Today its europe, because they have established peace and built connectivity between each other and can pool there resources togeher, its been like this for a few hundred years in europe and its led to its rise.

Before that you had the ottoman empire, in hot climate, that was able to control a number of territories and pool all there resources and create connectivity between them.

If you look into the past and see all empires you will realise its just pooling of resources and connectivity rather than climate.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Not maybe, definitely. Before the industrial revolution England was inferior to lets say the Ottoman Empire at the time in riches.

Industrial revolution spawned the military might of England, and Germany, France followed. The US had its own revolution in the 1920’s after Henry Ford set up the world’s first production line for his cars (1913). This had its own snowball effect in relation to other innovations and policies. Since then, the United States centralized economic power and shared it with its ally states (largely European). These innovations had nothing to do with the weather.

During this same time period, places that were coincidentally hotter like Africa, subcontinent, East Asia, were suppressed under colonial rule, choking economic growth.

There is a clear cause and effect. Putting it down to the temperature trivializes a very complex phenomenon of economic growth and innovations in production methods, which had nothing to do with the weather.

Finally, correlation does not equal causation.

Building on this. Modern revolution is of computers. Due to aforementioned riches and ability to nurture science, aforementioned countries and in particular the US were at the forefront of developing electricity first and then computers and now the internet.

Countries that already had money were able to set up the infrastructure to adopt these technologies quickly.

Countries that didn’t have the money were unable to cash in on the new technology in time to generate economic growth.

In other words, the rich have an advantage to stay rich and the poor a disadvantage which keeps them poor. This is a chain that has continued since the first big revolution of the modern era (industrial revolution by Britain).

The biggest revolutions before that were spaced far apart. Writing and gunpowder, I would say.

It’s just a coincidence that the first big recent revolution happened to be in a cold European country, which set off a chain of events and other revolutions that we continued to witness over the last 200 years.

 

[Bigboii]

Not maybe, definitely. Before the industrial revolution England was inferior to lets say the Ottoman Empire at the time in riches.

Industrial revolution spawned the military might of England, and Germany, France followed. The US had its own revolution in the 1920’s after Henry Ford set up the world’s first production line for his cars (1913). This had its own snowball effect in relation to other innovations and policies. Since then, the United States centralized economic power and shared it with its ally states (largely European). These innovations had nothing to do with the weather.

During this same time period, places that were coincidentally hotter like Africa, subcontinent, East Asia, were suppressed under colonial rule, choking economic growth.

There is a clear cause and effect. Putting it down to the temperature trivializes a very complex phenomenon of economic growth and innovations in production methods, which had nothing to do with the weather.

Finally, correlation does not equal causation.

Know I am not saying temperature is solely the reason ofcourse not (N Korea and tons of other countries) but I think it has a "part" to play we cannot totally ignore it

I mean why didn't middle east or SC or any other hot country just copy pasted the industrial revolution just like SK or Japan or even China for that matter
Let's just ignore it for a while cause you can have reasons for it that different countries different problems ok for the sake of the argument. Just look at US for the longest time Northeastern US was industrialized even Midwest(Michigan area) become industrialized later on and they're both cold, California (a hot state atleast in the southern California where most of the population lives) wasn't known for industries people moved there for the gold rush and mostly just farmed (the Cesar Chavez farming movement started in California I think if memories from my middle school SS class serve me correctly ) so even in the 60s or 70s when US was producing for itself and the NAFTA didn't happen California was mostly into service and agriculture industry and also the hot south was also mostly into farming with Service economy
Why were they doing that because cold parts couldn't farm that much so they built up their industries (they couldn't survive otherwise) and with that money they bought food from the south
so the hot parts didn't have to industrialized they could get profits by just farming (they had an incentive to not industrialize)
but since they were in a union North covered for them (but still south is poorer than North) and California was helped because of Natural resources and also being part of a super power country (mostly built by Northeastern states cause of its industrialization) I don't think California would be able to prosper with Mexico or even independently without US's help

So if I boil this theory down to the most basic level
You live in hot place you no incentive to be innovative you want food farm or hunt, you want house get the the earth and build one for yourself that extra food you get with farming go and sell it in the market know if you have life's basics covered you wouldn't be that innovative

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It is all down to British values. You can just look at the richest countries in the world, all of them have a connection to Britain. Australia, America, Canada...aren't these the destinations which many third world immigrants dream of?

Even though this is a cold and wet country for most of the year, still people will leave their sunshine states to try to achieve the prize of being a British citizen.

 

[Giannis]

Is he going to ignore Australia one of the hottest countries in the world? What about the American south - the sunbelt, is extremely hot yet it has the fastest growing economy in America. Texas, Florida, and California far wealthier than the colder northern parts of America.

 

[Giannis]

So since Pakistan is almost entirely out of the tropics then wouldn't it be the wealthiest country in South Asia?

 

[Rayyman]

Is he going to ignore Australia one of the hottest countries in the world? What about the American south - the sunbelt, is extremely hot yet it has the fastest growing economy in America. Texas, Florida, and California far wealthier than the colder northern parts of America.

Bro the NorthEast drives the U.S. economy

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So since Pakistan is almost entirely out of the tropics then wouldn't it be the wealthiest country in South Asia?

It is obviously nothing to do with climate. As I said previously, it is British values which underpin the wealth of the most desirable countries to live in. As someone who understands both countries, I sometimes curse Pakistanis for their obstinate self beilef in their own sense of superiority, but it is misplaced. Indians understand their place in the world much better, but ironically, their lack of self belief makes them much less like the British than Pakistanis.

 

[Mesozoic]

Makes absolutely no sense. Australia is arguably the hottest country on earth and look where they are. It all depends on competence, resources and most importantly.... circumstances.

For example Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE and Pakistan have pretty much the same weather conditions. While the former three are doing good or okay for themselves, the latter is relying on foreign bailouts to survive.

 

[ElRaja]

It is all down to British values. You can just look at the richest countries in the world, all of them have a connection to Britain. Australia, America, Canada...aren't these the destinations which many third world immigrants dream of?

heard a lot of arguments around how the schism between Catholicism and Protestantism, and the difference in focus on "ceremony and traditions" in Catholicism versus more worldly concerns of "frugality and industry" in certain protestant sects would explain why western europe, mainly the uk, scandanevia and germany had much higher levels of economic development (however in germany the richest parts of the country are more catholic than protestant) than the catholic south of europe.

 

[Giannis]

Makes absolutely no sense. Australia is arguably the hottest country on earth and look where they are. It all depends on competence, resources and most importantly.... circumstances.

For example Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE and Pakistan have pretty much the same weather conditions. While the former three are doing good or okay for themselves, the latter is relying on foreign bailouts to survive.

Lolwut? Pakistan's weather is nothing like the sahara desert , Pakistan is outside the tropics but it isn't a desert either. Even the desert parts of Sindh and Balochistan are much cooler and recieve more rain than the sahara. You're clearly butt hurt.

 

[Mesozoic]

Lolwut? Pakistan's weather is nothing like the sahara desert , Pakistan is outside the tropics but it isn't a desert either. Even the desert parts of Sindh and Balochistan are much cooler and recieve more rain than the sahara. You're clearly butt hurt.

Dude! Sahara desert ? Seriously ?

 

[Bigboii]

Guys according to his theory weather has a "part" to play it's not a rule like gravity

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

It has nothing to do with the weather. Imagine if everyone leaves the subcontinent and white people from Germany and UK, and France settle here. They would make it prosperous even though the weather is humid here. And vice versa if all Europeans left Europe, and people from the subcontinent went there they would ruin it. It would be dirty, corrupt, poor.

 

[Bigboii]

Is he going to ignore Australia one of the hottest countries in the world? What about the American south - the sunbelt, is extremely hot yet it has the fastest growing economy in America. Texas, Florida, and California far wealthier than the colder northern parts of America.

Watch the video he mentions Australia

 

[Kianig89]

Work ethics professionalism integrity etc etc in subcontinent most of ppl are looking for gimmickry

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

heard a lot of arguments around how the schism between Catholicism and Protestantism, and the difference in focus on "ceremony and traditions" in Catholicism versus more worldly concerns of "frugality and industry" in certain protestant sects would explain why western europe, mainly the uk, scandanevia and germany had much higher levels of economic development (however in germany the richest parts of the country are more catholic than protestant) than the catholic south of europe.

Germany is a very well run country, but interesting that they are not part of the Five Eyes network which binds those leading countries with a British heritage.

 

[ElRaja]

Germany is a very well run country, but interesting that they are not part of the Five Eyes network which binds those leading countries with a British heritage.

britain is, in some ways, the runaway child of a common ancestor germany, britain then spent its teenage years shacked up with with the french around from the 11th century. as with most distant cousins with rumours of behaviour unbecoming of the family, distances increase over time.

the German people didn't have an empire of note too, which is why their politics is so euro-centric now. also the geman flag would break the nice uniformity of flags that only have either red, blue or white

 

[Buffet]

It has nothing to do with the weather. Imagine if everyone leaves the subcontinent and white people from Germany and UK, and France settle here. They would make it prosperous even though the weather is humid here. And vice versa if all Europeans left Europe, and people from the subcontinent went there they would ruin it. It would be dirty, corrupt, poor.

Very little to do with white people vs people of color. This generalization shouldn't be done based on recent history where industrialization happened in certain part of world.

Current world order exist in current time , but human history is a lot older than 400 years old. There used to be many great civilizations in warmer climates, including Pakistan.

World is constantly changing. Since our lifespan is less than 100 years, we may deduce a conclusion based on current time, but it won't be a right conclusion in long history.

 

[Buffet]

Going back to OP,

You may find the book - Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies written by Jared M. Diamond an interesting take on certain things happening in certain ways in our world. Climate did play a part in human history and how world developed, but very little to do with white vs non-whites.

 

[the Great Khan]

TL/DR: it's the cumulative effect of western Europe having a tech advantage after the industrial revolution which allowed it to dominate the world for the last 200 years after colonising colder locations with small indigenous populations which either got wiped out or culturally westernised.

and how was the industrial revolution funded? how could a foggy little island where the majority of men drank alcohol to avoid getting ill by drinking water, suddenly become a power? A country that's sanitation involved throwing raw sewage onto the cobble stone streets of London.

Simple. they took a big risk and reaped the rewards. they gambled. Gambled, stole, cheated , murdered and did everything in their power to take from others to enrich themselves. End of.

 

[JaDed]

When that video came out I had shared that to my cousins along with this comment from the video :

Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, thought air conditioning was the secret to his country’s success.

 

[JaDed]

Initially because of need of storage and preparing for 6 months ahead is why Europe overtook, there is a reason why Scandinavian countries are doing extremely well.

I do believe genetics get affected over the years esp w.r.t Europeans, in south Asia climate has been favorable which is why agriculture was massive to economy but ease of doing it didn't inspire other forms of innovation.

I think Australia is an anomaly because Canned food was already in place when the current common wealth system took place.