Why is it that, except for some oil rich Gulf Monarchies...

>without memeing
>genes-culture

Neither of those countries are first world nation, although in some ways they bear similarities. HDI doesn't equal first world nations. Unless you think Cuba is first world now.

East Europe was stunted by communism.
Also yes, those countries are White majority and Saudi has oil.

>East Europe was stunted by communism.
And Mongol invasions, and serfdom, and Russian Imperialism, etc. Excuses.

When people say First World they usually mean it using Maoist Three Worlds Theory instead of USA-USSR-Unaligned Worlds used by American strategists.

Oh, yeah I was going by the wrong definition, thanks for correcting me.

Communism was fairly recent

They lagged behind Western Europe before communism too. Or are you trying to imply that Tsarist Russia was as wealthy and industrialized as the West?

shitty thread desu

>genetics
lmfao

Most of Europe was poorer then. Golden Age of capitalism was 1950 to 1970.

>UN are White and East Asian

uhh what about the US?

Chile is majority mestizo.

>and something else, something far more recent happened. Something that may explain the divide between Western and Eastern Europeans.
Communism?

Not him but different environments exert different pressures on population groups. Man is an animal like any other, and his condition has like every animal to have ever lived been determined by nature. The way in which these groups interact with their environment is culture; to suppose that the human brain is some kind of magical organ immune to environmental pressures is wishful thinking at best

The brain is much more resistant to change then any other part of the body. This is seen how we still retain a massive fuckton of hit from our way earlier parts of our evolutionary changes.

Is 60,000 years of separation not enough to change it, even if slightly? Because even slight changes affect behavioral patterns

Likely no. 60,000 years of separation isn't enough to cause any meaningful neurological differentiation in animals with a reproductive cycle like humans.

>Likely no
There have been studies to show that there are tangible differences, but due to political implications it remains an obscure topic. Not trying to say that one group is inferior or superior to another, since acknowledging differences is somehow tantamount to this in people's minds. Here are some links pertaining to research done in this field

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361742/
>journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013642
>wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636

>East Asia didn't experience Western Imperialism as harshly as Africa or Latin America.
No they experienced the exact same Western imperialism, remember the opium wars, opening up of japan, etc.

The real difference is that East Asia already had great established civilizations before the Westerners arrived. As a result, Western imperialism didn't effect them as harshly. On the other hand Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America were still in the stone age.

Geopolitics and economics, mostly.

And it was much less destructive than the Mongol invasions.

Even in the interwar years Eastern Europe (and much of Central Europe) was poorer than Western Europe.

This, Chile is castizo/mestizo. Sad that all the nigger infestation in the last 4 years will going to thrash us into oblivion

You're all spics and beaners to me

t. La Creatura 56%

Try Danish

el extinguido....

>Some say that cold winter is why European and East Asians turned out the way they did, but this may be inaccurate
I assume it is because China is fucking gigantic and some parts of it never got very cold but were highly prosperous.

>What is the cause for this, historically speaking?

Ah yes, this is the thin veneer of history that I've come to expect from this board.

Because the UN are leftist pieces of shit

are these countries first world

No, they are not in the highest category in the OP map, but on par with India.

The Bahamas is black and a first world country

>On the other hand Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America were still in the stone age.

You don't know what stone age means you dumb faggot. Latin America was but they made some big advancements and in regards to Africa iron metallurgy was nearly fucking everywhere.

>The brain is much more resistant to change
not necessarily talking about change here, friend.
The Genetics of Modern Europe are all descended from the best and brightest of European Nobility.
The poor, violent, and stupid were outbred by the wealth, intelligent, and peaceful.
This occurred multiple times in Medieval and Early Modern Europe.
Think of if we killed all the Africans with an IQ below 120.
Then we did it again with their kids, then once more with their kids.
eventually you'd pull up the African IQ to a point where it will not regress below 95 or so.
Imagine doing this selectively for over 1,000 years, Africans would probably be on par with Europeans, although their population would never exceed 10,000 at any given time.
10,000 is a rough number going by how many Africans are actually born with high IQs
Ultimately they would still build different societies because their intelligence manifests differently than that of other races, but they certainly wouldn't be the shithole they are now.
And I don't mean we take college educated Africans, I mean we take Africans who are more intelligent than other Africans independent of environmental factors.

>in regards to Africa iron metallurgy was nearly fucking everywhere.
Funny how it was really only in places where Iron Age Indo-Europeans went.
R1b has a strain in Africa, dated to be there from around the time metal was first being used.

Holy shit user

>Why is it that, except for some oil rich Gulf Monarchies, all First World countries according to the UN are White and East Asian?

Only two countries are East Asian have high HDI's, and both of them are due to Amercian occupation and assistance after WW2.

>On the other hand Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America were still in the stone age
North America was in the Stone Age too.
What's your point?

Argentina is a shithole that always gets put higher on the scale than it realistically should be because it has free healthcare and education and a total population of 3.

I've been there and its fucking nice, what are you talking about? Why do the other spics hate pastanigger spics so much?

Capital Federal is basically an independent country that lives off leeching from the rest of the country which reaches literal Somalia-tier conditions the further North you go.

I've backpacked around all South America, you can't bullshit me. I've been in the north of the country (Cafalliate) and it was nice too, nicer than Buenos Aries imho.

Crossing from Bolivia into the North of Argentina, the difference in wealth and development is very real.

Where are you from anyway?

* Cafayate
My bad I couldn't remember the spelling

Cafayate is a touristic destination, of course it looks nice.

>Where are you from anyway?

Salta, the city is ok, but the periphery is favella-tier, and the villages around the province get to mud-hut tier with the worst not having even food or water.
Also even white blonde German immigrant descendants live in Congo shanty-towns in middle of the jungle if you go East to Misiones.

I was in Salta too and it was nice. You are trolling or you have no idea how people in really shithole countries live. Obviously its not Scandinavia but it was better than East yurop, the UN rating seems fair.

Ever heard of the Scientific Revolution you shitheads?

>genetics

Clearly not, you people are all dumber than niggers.

>I was in Salta too and it was nice.
>Salta, the city is ok
>the periphery is favella-tier
>the villages around the province get to mud-hut tier
>the worst not having even food or water.
>if you go East to Misiones German immigrant descendants live in Congo shanty-towns in middle of the jungle

Pic related.

Pic related is Salta.

Meh. East Yurop has those too.
Pic related is Greece.

Like I said you are being dramatic. Its not a top tier country but it wasnt bad. Most people didn't live like that. I've been in some real shitholes like Suriname and I'm telling you, you people are lucky.

I'm not suggesting Argentina is in on itself an Africa-tier country, i'm just saying that it is overrated in these quality of life/wealth charts and that Buenos Aires is a far cry of the actual situation of most of the country. Which is run-of-the-mill South America second-tier country. Nowadays Bolivia is doing better in general.

>Bolivia is doing better in general.
No fucking way, thank you for confirming you are a troll. For a second I thought you were a real person.

The dark blue countries are the ones most influenced by France, it's as simple as that.

It actually is tho, they're actually improving rather than regressing, they're not richer in absolute terms but they are managing themselves way better.

Another argie here, from Buenos Aires. What you both are not taking in cosideration is that the province of Buenos Aires and the Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires have like 60% of the total popilation of the country. Also, al least 5% live in mayor cities (Rosario, Cordoba Capital, etc). Ciudad de Buenos Aires is first world tier like most of the mayor cities/capitals in the country. This mean that at least half of the population live in relative good places.

But, of course, we argentines have no fucking clue about how lucky we are in general and always look down on ourselfs. Idk why. And belive me I am from the Conurbano, (La Matanza) and I am now living in CABA, so I know what a shithole looks like.

I don't take that into consideration because geographically speaking that's 3 cities vs at least another 20 ones. Sure that's most of the population, but that still leaves over 40% of the population living in average-third-world to Africa-tier conditions.

I know that Argentina is good for South America standards if not amazing, but it's super misleading to put it in the same general category as Germany, the US or Sweden in any chart.

Why did these genetics only take effect in the last few hundred years. For millennia before then, Europe was largely an irrelevant backwater while the MENA, India and China raced ahead. Suddenly after the industrial revolution, superior European genes begin to have an impact.

MENA and India become war-lord playgrounds with genocides every other day even before the Roman empire collapses, what the fuck are you talking about?

Also ME and India are Caucasoid regions anyway.

Not sure why i'm defending /pol/-tier statements like genetics making a difference but whatever.

>Sure that's most of the population, but that still leaves over 40% of the population living in average-third-world to Africa-tier conditions.
Nono, only the north is in that condition, and maybe some "villas" in the conurbano bonaerense and Rosario.

The small towns are that, small towns, but they are not "Congo tier". With that mind set, the small towns in Italy, USA, UK, etc, are also a shit hole? You dont need skyscrapers in order to clasify a town "Not third world tier". For example, If drive a couple of hours from CABA, Buenos Aires is mostly rural. In the small towns that you will find is normal to left the doors without key.

Es el tipico self-hating argie.
Afuera ya piensan que todos vivimos en favelas en la colina tipo brasil, este va y les refuerza el estereotipo.

Como si en Italia no hubiera villas miseria. Yo vi una con mis propios ojos desde el tren, y era gigante.

No, really, hasn't the thought ever occurred to you that all the countries that are smarter and betterer than the other countries are all European? And also there are Asian people, of course. But they are Asian, who also have white skin, just like the Europeans countries, who we've confirmed are superior? Is that a coincidence? What's the reason for this? Historically speaking, of course.

For thousands of years civilization flourished in MENA, India and China before northern Europe amounted to anything. Why did the superior genetics not have an effect for all that time?

>only the north is in that condition, and maybe some "villas" in the conurbano bonaerense and Rosario.

Patagonia has like 1 inhabitant per 100km2, so most of the remaining 40% live in the North.

And small towns in Europe are mostly inhabited by old or rich people, and they have all the commodities of modern life reach them easily. Here common basic services oftentimes don't even reach parts of the cities.
There are nice small towns in Argentina, but a lot of the provincial areas are just poor shanty-towns.

>I saw a poor person once during one of my trips to Europe

This is France

Poverty exists everywhere, but poverty in Argentina exists in bigger numbers than in France.

Seriously have you ever considered that the reason there are so many "self-hating argies" is that there is a huge inequality in the conditions in one part of the country vs the other?

I'm not saying we are better off than France, I'm saying you are a fucking idiot with no sense of proportion. Also most people in villas are illegal immigrants, this is a fact.

In France they tear down the gypsy encampments and kick them out of the country, here we give them free healthcare, citizenship, welfare, child alimony, so that liberals like you can whine about inequality and how Bolivia (where these people come from) is doing better than Argentina.

Surreal.

>Patagonia has like 1 inhabitant per 100km2, so most of the remaining 40% live in the North.
False. Pic related. Oly 2 of the top10 most inhabitated areas in Argentina are from the north area. And dont even reach 1m people.

>And small towns in Europe are mostly inhabited by old or rich people, and they have all the commodities of modern life reach them easily. Here common basic services oftentimes don't even reach parts of the cities.
Neither in rural towns around the world. That does not make a town a shit hole. Here, every town have schols, some kind of medical institution, law enforcement oficials , etc. You are generalazing. The most shitty places in Argentina are very VERY shitty, but those are the exception not the rule.

>There are nice small towns in Argentina, but a lot of the provincial areas are just poor shanty-towns.
They are more nice ones that really shitty ones.

One thing is inequality, other very diferent is to say that the entire country ( o the bast mayority) is a shithole because of that.

>I'm saying you are a fucking idiot with no sense of proportion

How so? It is almost half the country, my half the country for that matter.

>Also most people in villas are illegal immigrants, this is a fact.

They don't bother staying when they're this close to the border, most pick up their welfare and drive back, they're not the majority of villa-dwellers.

>liberals like you can whine about inequality and how Bolivia is doing better than Argentina.

Why are you accusing me of being a liberal? I stated the objective fact that Bolivia has been improving while Argentina has been stagnating, and we've been ruled by both conservative and liberal governments.

>Only 2 of the top10 most inhabitated areas in Argentina are from the north area.

And none from Patagonia.

>Neither in rural towns around the world.

The majority of the world is incredibly poor. Not every town has proper law enforcement or medical institutions, but yes, Argentina is in general very good at providing those services to everyone. I was talking about things like water, food or electricity.

>One thing is inequality, other very diferent is to say that the entire country ( o the bast mayority) is a shithole because of that.

Geographically speaking it is a majority, minority of the population, but still a significant amount.

...

>How so? It is almost half the country, my half the country for that matter.
>Half
1% of the population lives in villas and the majority of them are foreigners. Their children are counted as nationals so they are not included in that number.

Source:
lanacion.com.ar/1301797-hay-mayoria-de-extranjeros-en-las-villas

>They don't bother staying when they're this close to the border
>3 million Bolivians in Argentina
>"but they don't bother staying!"

>I stated the objective fact that Bolivia has been improving while Argentina has been stagnating
No, first when you were arguing with the foreigner you said Bolivia was better, then you had to backtrack because of how ridiculously stupid that was.

Anyway, not much of a feat to increase from zero to a little more than zero.

Bolivia per capita GDP is $7200
Argentina per capita GDP is $22,500

Just so you get some sense of proportion

>water
Lanata te quemo el cerebro

>1% of the population lives in villas

I doubt it, but even if so, you don't need to live in a villa to be poor, and that's not what i'm arguing anyway, stop projecting your insecurities to me. What i'm saying is that most of Argentina is an average third-world country and shouldn't be put in the same category as Germany, the US or Sweden in any chart of quality of life.

I have seen that article before, a census in 2 villas from Buenos Aires don't reflect the situation of the whole country.
Children of immigrants are nationals, and if not then you might as well say the North isn't Argentina.

>when you were arguing with the foreigner you said Bolivia was better, then you had to backtrack because of how ridiculously stupid that was.

>"Nowadays Bolivia is doing better in general."

Which is true because they're actually improving rapidly to the point where they don't bother moving here other than to abuse our healthcare and welfare systems and then leave. Only thing they have to stay for is free education which admitelly they do.

>Lanata boogeyman

I saw that but no, i'm talking from actual experience, I don't know how much is even properly recorded considering there are some places in this city that have been without water for more than 50 years and the only thing I can think of is that nobody responsible has even heard about it and therefore also cannot report it.

>What i'm saying is that most of Argentina is an average third-world country
Are you trolling? In English when people say third world they mean African wartorn countries where people have no electricity, not places with full literacy, good infraestructure and 76 year life expectancies. Have you ever left your town? Do you know how people in Bolivia live?

>and shouldn't be put in the same category as Germany, the US or Sweden in any chart of quality of life
Maybe not, but the chart also includes places like Eastern Europe or Chile, are you saying we are inferior to them?

>a census in 2 villas
It was a nationwide census.
Read the article again.

>Which is true
Except it's not.

>And none from Patagonia
So? You were the one who said something like "if "patagonia"=low_population; then "North very populated", wich one thing does not imply the other.

>The majority of the world is incredibly poor.
I wanst talking about the poor people in the world. I was talking about the places that everyone cosider ok places.

>Not every town has proper law enforcement or medical institutions, but yes, Argentina is in general very good at providing those services to everyone. I was talking about things like water, food or electricity.
Again, those things are also very well provided. And those are the things that make a place a good place to live in.

The thing is that one thing is "being poor" and another is "being VERY poor". Also, is not the same being poor in Argentina that being poor in Bolivia, Chile, Congo or most easter european countries. Is "easier" to be poor here. The same way that I am almost sure that is easier to be poor in Uruguay. And, of course is a lot more easier to be poor in Germany or Norway.

>muhammad

>In English when people say third world they mean African wartorn countries where people have no electricity, not places with full literacy, good infraestructure and 76 year life expectancies.

Third world will as often be used to refer to Brasil as it will be used to refer to Somalia, but people will usually clarify when talking about a non-functional central-Africa state. You are just projecting your own toughs because you are already used to exaggerated people saying that Argentina is some kind of hell on Earth, but you shouldn't replace a meme narrative with an equally memetic narrative. It's not 0 or 100, you aren't either a wasteland or a super power.

Most of South America, the peaceful MENA, East Europe and even parts of sub-sahara Africa are in similar acceptable but still relatively low conditions, you can live and enjoy your life here, but to go as far as to say that we're as rich and prosperous, that we have no problems or worrying numbers of poverty and that we live as well as the first world countries is simply not true and pretending it is will only lead to further stagnation and more inequality. Chile is another country that is often overrated as is Uruguay.

>It was a nationwide census. Read the article again.

Point to me where it mentions anything about the rest of the country, the only thing it mentions in regards to that is that 86% of the foreigners are in the Buenos Aires area. No data about villas outside of Bs.As.

>nu uh

those things are also very well provided.

Infrastructure is the thing we're bad at, at least nowadays. There are many problems with the distribution of those resources.

>Is "easier" to be poor here.

We have a big net of social programs that other countries lack, true, but I don't consider it an achievement to have lots of "better off" poor people, when we all know that the number of poor people continues to grow and our acquisitive power in general keeps decreasing.

>you shouldn't replace a meme narrative with an equally memetic narrative. It's not 0 or 100, you aren't either a wasteland or a super power.
This whole debate started because you called Argentina a shithole. You are the only one using loaded language here.

Also,
>implying all of South America has the same level of development
I am now convinced you are a troll.

I called Argentina a shithole and you automatically assumed I said Argentina was a 5000 kilometer long favella because you are an insecure faggot.

>implying all of South America has the same level of development

Yes, incredibly similar. A couple of rich cities, a bunch of average okey-ish third world cities and then favella-tier or mud-hut dwellers in the much of the non-rich rural areas. Aside from our social programs and lack of guerrillas Argentina isn't special. We're not even particularly safe anymore ever since we let every cartel that wanted to come here do so.

This has got to be one of the stupidest posts I've seen.

the Roman Empire was hardly an irrelevant backwater
it was the biggest and richest empire of its time, outclassing even China and India
medieval Europe lagged behind the giants but calling it an irrelevant backwater is not fair either - European metallurgy, farming techniques and naval technology all came to outperform the Chinese and Indians by the end of the middle ages

but the fact is that there are a lot of factors that come into play
warmer climates are great for emerging civilizations since they allow big open stone structures, easier and more naturally productive agriculture, easy year round long distance travel, etc. etc.

the Americas had some civilizations, most famously the Incas and the Aztecs but those were annihilated by disease and plain conquest unlike the great Asian civilizations

>it's all the same hurrrrr
Fucking idiot.