Geographic Determinism

Is geographical determinism real or just a meme?

Why are countries in the higher latitudes better off than those in between the tropics?

For significant times of human history China, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey and Crete were above and beyond the capabilities of northern Europe.

Time, climate and shifts of power changes things.

Nice maymay, the Arabs were never ahead of Europe, which is why they were defeated at Tours in the West and could not defeat the Byzantines in the East.

Determinism has always been a limited framework.

But from a historical materialist perspective you could argue that the combination of geography and the technological progress of the last centuries created the conditions which made the development of the highly advanced societies in Europe and Northern America possible.

But conditions are just that, a sort of foundation. What shall be built upon these foundations is anyone's guess. But where the conditions lack, say deep in the African jungle, certain modes of development are a priori impossible.

Determinism is thus only valid in a negative sense. It only determines what will not happen, because the necessary conditions are absent.

What about Eastern Europe and Central Asia?

Gommunism bucked the trend

To a degree. Varying seasons and connections with other culture and therefore import of technology is a big plus. There's a reason the mediterranean sea was a hot spot
>sea alows to travel greater distances in less time than travelling on ground plus the possibility to carry more goods with less people required (no mountains, no other inhabitants impairing the routes, no horses to feed etc.) thus more exposure to other cultures and technology and trading possibilities
>linking ground for three different major cultural regions (Asia, Europe, Northern Africa)
>Seasons to a degree which increase problem solution skills
>Moderate weather conditions (no complete cold, no complete desert or jungle)
Countries with many rivers and different cultures experience the same
>India
>China
South American terrain also has a lot of rivers but a much more hostile fauna and flora with little to no animals to domesticate.
You'll see major cities evolving alongside rivers or close to shores due to this. Though advancing technology diminishes some disadvantages it can also increase advantages like advanced sailing, there is a reason all major colonial powers had an early access to the atlantic.

I think the OP was talking about modern times dude

It is almost always an important factor. Even between 2 neighbors in similar environments the course of rivers, coastline and broken terrain can influence economics and warfare and thus society, culture, politics and even religion.

It might seem innocuous, but if the river Jordan led into the Mediterranean it would be full of foreign merchants, John the baptist might not have been as well respected for his education by the local and Jesus might not have gained as much notoriety.

Geographic determinism is real but it's not a "be all end all"

It goes as far as to explain the basics of resource availability and the building blocks of civilization, but it's really just a framework for a larger picture.

in other words, it's real in that you can't expect Polynesia to undergo an industrial revolution because there's no iron to be mined in the Pacific islands. Or that you can't expect Sub-Saharan Africa to get that far off the ground because their native crops like Sorghum produce far less calories than crops further north like Wheat and Maize, making Sub-Saharan Africans work harder just to produce enough food to feed people, or better yet just not even try and remain nomadic gatherers because trying to grow sorghum is seen as not even worth it.