Why are countries with warm climates generally less successful than ones with a colder climate...

>Japan
>tropical
Nigger what

scientificamerican.com/article/warm-weather-makes-it-hard-think-straight/
>Recent research suggests that warm weather impairs our ability to make complex decisions—and even causes us to shy away from making these decisions in the first place.

Is /pol/ even trying anymore

Jesus Christ, people.

Not OP, but here's what the image is showing: an economic (and political/cultural) divide. The point is that economically and politically developed countries tend to be clustered in the global north, with a few exceptions in East Asia and Oceania. You can quibble about whether any of the countries in OP's image are mislabeled (bear in mind we're not JUST talking about economics here but also shared culture and political values) and that's fair but the point is broadly true. It's a famous concept. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-South_divide

The OP map is obviously not claiming that Singapore and Australia are cold, or that Mongolia is hot. OP is making a separate point which is that many of the countries in the global south are hot, ergo hot countries = less successful on average. You can certainly make arguments about how their climate and geography influenced their development, though it's worth bearing in mind that there's less land in the southern hemisphere, so most "southern" countries lie close to the tropics. A north-south divide is going to look a lot like a hot-cold one by necessity.

>developed countries
>Ukraine

Just making shit up here, but it's easy to survive in hot areas. All you have to do is eat and drink, you can be lazy otherwise. In cold areas there are more incentives to develop and work with others.

>You can quibble about whether any of the countries in OP's image are mislabeled and that's fair but the point is broadly true
>bear in mind we're not JUST talking about economics here
Read the fucking post before you reply, dude.

Please understand that I'm not arguing about Ukraine. Not interested in arguing about Ukraine, maybe somebody is, but not me, so please don't reply with all the reasons Ukraine is an undeveloped shithole. There are several countries on that map that are arguable which is why there's no one canonical map of the north-south divide. Try googling it, you'll get different ones. But the differences between the maps are fairly slight.

I don't care faggot. Half the countries are bullshit.

Good post.

Dunno about you bot hot weather makes me lazy as fuck and unwilling to do basically anything.

australia has warm climate and 2nd highest HDI

That map tells you nothing

This is the correct map. Notice green/yellow areas all are the most successful in their respective areas. This is because temperate/oceanic climates keep people energized and focused.

>Surely it should be the other way around.

No it shouldn't . Temperate and Mediterranean climates are the best for civilization. Actual tropical and equatorial ones are shit.
Pampered people living in Northern areas like in Scandinavia or Canada think all warm areas are like the tropical resorts they spend 2 or 3 days in and concluded that must be paradise.
It isn't. Humidity, heat, bad soil, thick vegetation disease .....make those areas hard to develop.

>muh Paul

Huh weird I noticed something else this image doesn't just correlate to temperature but also to skin color lol oh well I'm sure it means nothing let's just file that one away lmao wew

>Notice green/yellow areas all are the most successful in their respective areas.
No, not really. If anything, there are significantly more counterexamples than in the OP's map.

The map doesn't take into account natural resources (Gulf States for example), or geography which can do a lot (Egypt) but all the yellow/green areas have, generally, produced more successful civilization than anything in red (desert) or Af/Am (tropical). Places like Iraq and Syria have desertified over the last thousand years explaining their modern/ancient disparities. In modern times, the green/yellow all have diversified economies that are more responsive to technological changes. Within a country with multiple colors, it is usually the green/yellow which predominates in HDI

Such as? Pretty much 9 out of every 10 civilizations came from either a green or yellow area. Except for Egypt and Mesopotamia, and the later was likely much more temperate 3000 years ago

>9 out of every 10 civilizations
Sure bogs are more impressive than Borobodur.

>Such as?
You mentioned several yourselves (like virtually the entire Middle East). To that I'll add:
- The American South is not the most developed part of the country, certainly not dominant over the Northeast and Midwest, not to mention all of Canada.
- Southern Europe and Turkey are largely yellow, and are not on average more developed than Central Europe and Scandinavia (!)
- Large swaths of Angola, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (!!!) are green. Not all of those countries are hellholes but they do not stand out as particularly stable or prosperous even in the small pond of Southern Africa.
- Say what you want about Eastern Europe/Russia, but by most objective standards it is fairly developed, although obviously it has its issues, and it's uniformly blue on the map. Conversely, while it's made great strides, a lot of China (almost uniformly green in the populated parts) is still very, very backwards. Its dominance comes from its sheer size.

>Within a country with multiple colors, it is usually the green/yellow which predominates in HDI.
I mentioned a few notable counterexamples (America is the most obvious one). Setting that aside ... oka, in that they tend to be the most populous areas and therefore more economically active. In a lot of cases the green/yellow streaks correlate almost 1:1 with population density (e.g. South Africa, India). That does suggest that those are climates that are more able to support large populations, but not that they
>keep people energized and focused
as you said.

>Pretty much 9 out of every 10 civilizations came from either a green or yellow area.
If we're talking historically, sure, those areas were more successful. When I say there are many counterexamples, I'm talking about stability and prosperity today, not historical relevance, as that's what the OP's map deals with.

>his trying to solve the North-South divide
kek
might as well post this on /pol/, you'll get the same results
tl;dr nobody has figured this out
my best guess is purely historical; climate in europe favored agricultural development waaay back when, and that just amplified towards the future, giving birth to rich empires that conquered poorer places in the south
there's plenty of exceptions on that map anyway, I really think it mostly just has to do with colonialism
oh and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North–South_divide

Cold climate enforces evolutionarily adaptation and therefore racial progresiveness.

Negroes are less advanced because they didn't change much throughout 200,000 years.

While the Nordics, creators of greater Indo-Germanic culture, adopted many racial traits that made them the most succesful race in the planet. Including big brains, narrow noses, tall stature, blond hair, blue eyes, white skin.

So the easy conclusion is: Negroid and Aboriginal races are inferior to the Nordic and other Europoid and Mongoloid races because they were not progressing.

...

Colder climates demanded the development of storage systems and inventory management in order to have supplies for months in which you couldn't rely on crops. While agricultural societies in these areas were forced to adapt, societies in warmer climates where harvesting was possibledidn't need to. Necessity usually is the driving force behind progress.

*where harvesting was possible the entire year

Civilization began in the Middle East

This divide looks more related to whiteness than to climate imo

>Japan is included
/honorary/

Because you've cherry picked that picture to include every nation you consider "successful" as colder climate.

Nevermind then

>Environmental determinism.
>2018.
Wew lad

probably this

North south divide is just retarded mate. Plenty of “poor” countries up north and “rich” countries down south. Also this map fails on all accounts.

Because in cold countries they spend more time inside instead of doing stupid shit like stealing and murdering.

>China
>warm
>Island China
>cold
Wtf. People in Xiamen and people on Penghu are literally the same. They are the same families as well.

Basically this map is brainlet racism

What about american abos or siberians?

>Nordics, creators of greater Indo-Germanic culture

>*where harvesting was possible the entire year

Bullshit

Its an arbitrary distinction that will evaporate in few decades.

Evolution here's why
Never noticed that in winter people tend to think more while in summer or in hot places people tend to be more impulsive?
There is a reason because we have long hollydays in summer and little in winter
But even extreme cold can do the same harm as hot so temperate climes make people think more so evolve while in hot climas people are dumber and more inpulsive and in extreme cold climas people tend to not evolve but not to be impulsive so less violent

Explain why white warm countries are also poor except for Australia.

wet season - dry season

observe, the master race

>They cannot be taught to read and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw
Anglos will always be BTFO

That’s the north/south prosperity divide. His intention was foe you to see that the prosperous countries were generally located in colder regions, which this map makes no attempt to classify.

Overestimated again

>Anglos
>during roman conquest
Blackholebrainwojak.jpg

South American here. This and all the "hot weather makes you lazy" posts are correct.
The alternative explanation is than the "northern world" genetics deal much better with stressful weather and can succeed, unlike the native and mestizo populations who work just enough to survive.

>white warm countries
Such as?

Then nomads in the Sahara should be the most advanced people

This map doesn't make sense when countries at similar levels of development by IHDI are arbitrarily thrown into "south" and "north" (Romania-Kazakhstan, Moldova-Costa Rica, Ukraine-Argentina/Chile, etc).
>Why are countries with warm climates generally less successful than ones with a colder climate?
Even by this bullshit map, try and explain what the fuck is going on in east Asia.

>There are several countries on that map that are arguable which is why there's no one canonical map of the north-south divide. Try googling it, you'll get different ones.
There's a simple reason for that. The North-South divide is bullshit and is only used for political talking points in place of actual, real discussion.

>I really think it mostly just has to do with colonialism
This nigga knows

My theory is that succesful anglos have more % of anglo-saxon and or norman/french blood.

Some human beings fit their surroundings better than others, whatever that might be, but the needs to fit in those surroundings might be different in different areas.

Also, not all civilizations bloom at the same time, and many might get fucked by others.
Asia, Middle east or Latin america did comparitavely better in some eras than, say, europe.

Brains are cpus are run better in cold. It's why meds are so inefficient.

Because doing stuff in warm weather is fucking terrible, much better to just relax a bit

Hot countries are full of shitskins

Greece, Italy, Spain, Albania, Portugal, Southern US, Southwest US

>Southern US
>Southwest US
>Albania
>white
Is this a joke?

>invent modern society
>some nigger defending soyboy on Veeky Forums deems you unsuccessful

Do one mate

Cold causes more thinky thinky, warm makes you stupid stupid.

tropics too spicy for ytpipo

I never understood the retards who thought of it like this.

It is far colder in western South America(Chile, Peru, etc), Middle-East(Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Caucasus), Central Asia(Tajikistan,Turkestan, Mongolia, etc) than 90% of Europe. The only cold places in Europe are Scandinavia and eastern Europe. Europe isn't a good example of a cold climate, it's very temperate and hospitable.