Africa is underdeveloped because they have shitty soil and no arable la-

Sorry, but this is not a "special" class.
I won´t pander you for almost being able to finish a phrase.

OH you stupid cunt, have you never heard of slash and burn agriculture? What do you think trees are made out of? Fucks sake.

user, a rainforest is still a forest. Have you ever see people putting their cattle in a forest?

But it's not a forest when you burn it down

It's just useless land then.

Besides, they arent allowed to burn it down.

No.
No one grazes in the fucking jungle.

Seriously, stop being retarded.
You are getting BTFO at every point you raise.

Or better yet, if you think you have such great ideas that no one in the aeons-long history of humanity in Africa has ever thought of, go and corner the prestigious and cheap lands of deepest Africa and turn a massive profit.

Holy shit. I guess you don't know the answer when you can't even understand the question.

Your question is why dont they burn it down.

The answer is because they are not allowed.

>The area is an example of desertification, and no further growth of any type may arise for generations.

hmmm

What are you mad about?
You're learning new things you never knew before thanks to me.

Cattle don't eat ash user. You would still need to make something grow on it to feed your cattle and you would have the same fucking problem.

Ash is a widely used fertilizer

learn what?
You are the one that apparently had to learn that jungle soil is shit, and slash-and-burn is an unsustainable and idiotic practice, like everyone else in this thread.

The real reason is: niggers.

>are you fertilizing your melons with coal

Ash is a source of potassium, plant need other thing than potassium to grow so if your soil lack all the other nutriment, like the rainforest soil, you can put all the ash you want your plant won't grow.

That's what abos did to large parts of Australia as a hunting method, and look at it now.

zimbabwe as well, unfortunately its food crisis is entirely manmade

OP did you really not know jungles are horrible for agriculture? I remember reading about that as a 10 year old kid because they were teaching us about rainforest deforestation. Where are you from?

>implying africa doesn't do that
>implying it doesn't screw africa

In Brazil all the topsoil disappears and it end up looking like a badlands because all the soil was supported by the trees.

And a finite resource. They have no native species of grass to grow to graze animals on anyways.
Besides the rainforest is too resource comfy to need to change anything. Necessity is the mother of invention they say.
Anyways
Rainforests>agroindustrial society
People like you need to be eradicated before your thrirst to destroy the world we live in destroys what little we have left.
Free life
Free Africa
Yankee go home

>rainforest soil can never be fertile
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

Veeky Forums should be banned from discussing science.

...

There's a reason we don't go into stem

explain why Australia has farms despite the land being shit but Africa can't do this.

>YO BRO THIS TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONTINENT OVER HERE HAS FARMS BUT AFRICA DOESN'T
>EXPLAIN. IT'S CUS NIGGERS RIGHT?

>Abos didn't farm until the white man arrived with relatively advanced technology
>sub-Saharan Africa didn't farm until the white man arrived with relatively advanced technology

it is a mystery

Coming from an ecologist that has spent some time studying soil science, I think you are right.
Anthropogenic dark earth=/=soil that is typically found in rainforests

>anthropogenic

Why didn't africans do it?

Why does it matter?
Are you trying to imply that these thing are the result of biological determinism?
If you are consider studying biology

Red soil

>Why does it matter?
Show me on my post where I said it mattered.
Fucking brainlet biologist.

Okay then
I don't know

>"Why didn't africans do it?"
>"Show me on my post where I said it mattered."
>asking him to point to you the one sentence you wrote in that retarded post

>le niggers niggity nigger nig nog niggity nog nigger XD!!!!!

Every African society except a dozen pygmy tribes practiced agriculture, retard.

Here's some Yoruba dudes in their field. They even had a god, Oko, all about farming and the harvest.

>sub-Saharan Africa didn't farm until the white man arrived with relatively advanced technology
>sub-Saharan Africa didn't farm
wat

Aussies don't need the white mans bullshittery
>In 1770 Captain Cook wrote of the Aboriginal People he encountered.

>'From what I have said of the Nature of New-Holland they may appear to some to be the most wretched people upon the Earth, but in reality they are far more happier than we Europeans. They live in a Tranquillity that is not distrurb'd by the Inequality of Condition: The Earth and sea of their own accord furnishes them with all things necessary for life, they covet not Magnificent Houses, Household-stuff & ca, they lie in a warm and fine climate and enjoy a very wholesome Air, so they have very little need for clothing and this they seem to be fully sensible of, for many to whom we gave Cloth & ca to, left it carelessly upon the Sea beach and in the woods as a thing they had no manner of use for. In short they seem'd to set no Value upon any thing we gave them, nor would they part with any thing of their own for any one article we could offer them; this in my opinion argues that they think themselves provided with all the necessarys of Life and that they have no superfluities'.

>it's another /pol/ bait thread where /pol/tards get rekt
Comfy desu

Not really.

Literally every African kingdom, from Nigeria to Zimbabwe to the Swahili coast, had an agrarian economy.

Africa is covered in farmland. Historically, the African economy was dominated by subsistence farming... just like preindustrial Europe and Asia.

Retards, there is nothing wrong with african soil, slash and burn on rain forests works perfectly, when soil is depleted.then you leave it fallow and cycle to another plot.

Its just ooga boogas cant develop land for agriculture.

Slash and burn has worked fine for Africa for thousands of years. While some people have always fallen through the cracks and starved to death, this was just as true in medieval England as it was of premodern Africa.

We saw major famines in the 19th and 20th centuries during the clumsy transition to national urban economy. Instead of every village producing different foods for everybody to eat, governments and foreign corporations developed economic sectors. Farmers in one area were incentivized to produce whichever crop was most suited to the local environment, which they would trade in exchange for products from other regions or even other countries.

In stable societies this would be no problem, but because Africa is prone to civil wars, the interruption of these new trade networks meant that certain regions of a country could have no means of acquiring food. While it's not uncommon for wars to cause famine, the general underdeveloped of the African continent and the inability for governments and NGOs to provide disaster relief to remote places means that nearly every war in Africa will interrupt trade networks and cause some people to starve.

Wrong.

What's so great about industrial agriculture?
It's seems to bring nothing but suffering to everyone except for the very wealthy. You want Africans to lose everything that they have for what? To grow palm and canola oil? Fuck yourself. All the good things about Africa have to do with its wildness.
What about it makes Africans your lessers?I think you are just an asshole.

Read the thread to save some time on me explaining to you why you are retarded.

>a fucking jungle is good soil
you are retarded

>What's so great about industrial agriculture?
Food

>It's seems to bring nothing but suffering to everyone except for the very wealthy. You want Africans to lose everything that they have for what?
Yeah, I dunno why they keep fucking starving Fucking white mans fault.

thats still not fertilizing babby poltard, go back to your safeplace

> A 2012 study used population growth models, physiological data, and ethnographic data to examine pre-colonial agricultural practices and isolate the effects of the fly. A "tsetse suitability index" was developed from insect population growth, climate and geospatial data to simulate the fly's population steady state. Results suggest that the tsetse decimated livestock populations, forcing early states to rely on slave labor to clear land for farming, and preventing farmers from taking advantage of natural animal fertilizers to increase crop production. These long-term effects may have kept population density low and discouraged cooperation between small scale communities, thus preventing stronger nations from forming.

Brasil is doing it with good results, the cattle will shat in the ground and fertilize it, the bad thing is than they are burning the amazon for that.
And a fuck load of civs from the Maya to nearly all SEA prospered in the jungles, making massive cities of stone and stuff, the Amazone for example had lots of them until they died.

>until they died
Gee, I wonder why?

>Indus Valley people create some of the greatest civilization of their time with the worst possible land
>Africa still has many regions with great, fertile land, and they manage nothing

nono no, you are just a liberal, "niggers" obviously cant cultivate land

>what is the Nile valley

considering applying for a mental institution, not alot successfull endevours are ahead of you with that nut for a brain of yours

>Worst possible land
There seems to be quite a bit of medium-medium and even medium-high in that area though

Netherlands stole land to the sea since medieval times and were food exporters at around the 18th century, draining swamps etc. Lots of the now high lying soil was forest until the medieval times in Yurop for example, and the same can be said of lots of places (minus USA, where the buffaloes were the reason the fly over states had such a good soil) where the soil has been cultivated for millenia. Friggin Australia it's a hell hole for the most part because the native only knew how to slash and burn, doing that until the soil couldn't recover more (to kill mega komodo dragons so it's partly understandable).

>People like you need to be eradicated before your thrirst to destroy the world we live in destroys what little we have left.
>Free life
>Free Africa
>Yankee go home

Classical /her/ post. Can't wait until your useless pseudoscientific humanities degree gets you unemployed vor working for Starbucks.

Honka honka , libshit.

I don't really give a shit about these studies anymore because they will always find a reason as to why people in sub-saharan African didn't manage to form comparable societies to the rest of the world and will never cross into anything that isn't environmental determinism.

It's politically incorrect to even entertain the notion of genetic determinism even if you don't believe it.

Disaes.

>I don't really give a shit about facts

We know, you emotionally driven child.

>Or better yet, if you think you have such great ideas that no one in the aeons-long history of humanity in Africa has ever thought of

I have one, it's called the wheel.

Sub-saharans having an IQ on the verge of mental retardation is also a fact but pointing that out makes me a racist which is literally an emotionally driven response.

Yeah, whatever, it was flies that stumped the African civilization.

>could habe would habe

Meanwhile Romans exterminated Malaria in Europe completely by draining every single swamp via manual labor.

>IQ

IQ's a fucking meme, the vast majority of americans during the 1900s would be literally legally retarded due to flynn effect if they took modern day IQ tests.

It remerged from time to time too, even in England, but thank god they did that.

Anybody have maps like has, but throughout the ages? Soil fertility and workability change over time right? Like what has happened to the fertile crescent?

>IQ is a meme
But you're wrong and butthurt because it contradicts your world view.

>the vast majority of americans during the 1900s would be literally legally retarded due to flynn effect if they took modern day IQ tests.
But that's also wrong, you're completely ignoring the bell curve. The higher end distribution of IQ didn't change, the lower end did. Meaning dumb people are less dumb while the proportion of high IQ individuals remains the same. IQ is highly hereditary, like mental illness, and NOT the product of the environment, its only influenced by the environment. Thus you have blacks in raised in the same circumstance as whites but you still have an IQ gap present because they inherited lower IQ's to begin with.

IQ is also heavily correlated with violent crime, more so than socioeconomics. Rings a bell?

Oh fucking stop already

What is it with the 14year olds from /Pol/ the last says?

IQ can be significantly changed by environmental factors. What people don't talk about is that it's almost always temporary. Education if I remember correctly tends to account for about a 10 point difference, which is huge, but disappears after like a year. Widespread education will make the general population on average more intelligent if only because more people are in that transient period. The most important things to remember are that IQ is heritable and brain plasticity is a thing. Pretty much explains most of the topic on its own.

Also worth noting for everyone out there clutching their pearls that when we talk about IQ we're talking about statistics, and that yes, public policy is based on statistics and NOT anecdotes. That said, it's still wrong to treat people different on a personal basis due to some statistic concerning a group they're a part of. As long as you actually have the option to get to know them, at the very least.

>Sub-saharans having an IQ on the verge of mental retardation
False

Correct

Makes no sense. Pretty much all of SEA is swamp and forest. They made a civilization out of it and is on the verge of being developed.

There's also this
>socsci.ox.ac.uk/news/early-humans-adapted-to-living-in-rainforests-much-sooner-than-thought

Also, if any country were given a landmass the size of Africa and told "only" 10% of is rainforest, there is no country on earth that wouldn't take this deal.

Except the conditions for malaria in the Mediterranean is not the same as tsetse and malaria in the true tropics.

This is a really stupid false equivalency.

>Meanwhile Romans exterminated Malaria in Europe completely by draining every single swamp via manual labor.

Lol what?

Malaria was still widespread in the North East Italy and Sardinia until the mid XXth century

prove it.

Southeast Asian Civilization formed as a result of having the oldest maritime culture on Earth the facilitated broad technological, cultural and demographic shifts without the pitfalls of tsetse and most other tropical illnesses found in Central Africa effecting animal husbandry.

You're also ignoring the fact that Africans are not a tropical people, they are a woodland people who lived in the edges. They did not go into the forest until the Banana was introduced because African agricultural crops formed in the semi-arid and semi-tropic regions of the continent

Google the Statistic yourself. There are countries with an average of 60 under them

Africa was connected via trade to both India and the Romans.

What is "good land" changes in Africa every few years, they don't have a regular climate, and you can't have a huge city that can rely on the land around it.
People moved as the climate changed, all the animals did too, chasing the good weather.

Read the other posts which explain how jungle soil is shit and even more useless without the jungle on top of it to support it.

show me

>Sub-saharans having an IQ on the verge of mental retardation

Not genetic limitation though.
If you eat bad as a child, your brain doesn't develop -> low IQ.
If you aren't stimulated as a child (like living in a hovel, not hearing any foreign language ever, not meeting many people, not hearing music, not playing with 3D building toys, etc), your brain doesn't develop -> low IQ.

Genetics will determine your IQ potential, but your environment will determine if you achieve that potential.
Example, if you never learn to speak, despite your genetically high IQ potential, you will be horrible at everything, including solving IQ tests.

So stop with the genetic determinism. It is a factor, but not as large a factor as you and your tribe insist.

Why are people allowed to start such horrible threads here? Half a sentence, a played out shitmeme and talking about "African soil" despite Africa being a fucking huge place? Could OP be any more of a stupid pointless faggot if he tried? Yet the thread has 90+ replies. Fucking Veeky Forums you goddam retards. Kill all yourselves.

Your explanation as to why the two are in no way comparable largely consists of a big block of blabla giving descriptive information in how SEA developped and Africans refused to.

>
You're also ignoring the fact that Africans are not a tropical people, they are a woodland people who lived in the edges.

And Brits are not a steppe people, so they adapted while colonializing the Americas. See , what I meant?your defence tries to explain using mere descriptive retrospectives, as if they themselves were not a result of a different factor.

Except the Trans-Sahara trade was only around 2kya with the introduction of Camel and the Roman trade was primarily in the north.

The majority of African populations and regions have about 2k years of sporadic interaction and engagement.

Even then with more persistent contact the effects while explosive were not direct.

The banana changed the trajectory of Africa but that's not the same as say the Chola Dynasty

t. african who lives on black soil

>and talking about "African soil" despite Africa being a fucking huge place?

Thank the wildly praised author of guns germs and steel for that