Why was sub-saharan Africa incapable of contributing anything to the scientific advancement of mankind?

"No"

You're an idiot and a buffoon

not an argument

>remember that europe was able to develop sciences and further study them after the renaissance
Look a bit closer at that word Renaissance. It is about Greece. And the rediscovery you mention is exactly the rediscovery in Europe, and in particular in Italy, of Greek culture including sciences.

Is it even possible to talk seriously about the history of science without acknowledging, say, Aristotle?

For the same reason technology did not advance among indigenous Americans, or the Aztecs, or the southeast Asians.

Feudalism. Science can only advance in an atmosphere of a strong, centralized government with a labor class. You cannot advance technology among tribal societies. It's why Genghis Khan lost Europe.

Seriously, don't you /pol/ at all, past muh ?

Do you retards serious waste your time bringing back these zombie threads just to raid us?

>Most important rare earth minerals used in chips come from there

OP meant the people of sub-sahara Africa -- not the actual land itself.

Geologist here. The soil is not very good for farming. A lot of it is shit like Oxisols and Ultisols. YOU try growing crops in heavily leeched acidic rainforest soil deposits. The places where the soil is good,are places with very little rainfall. Even the Dutch failed to colonize Africa and believe me they tried.

When basic survival is at risk it's very difficult to have time for scientific achievement.

Just check out the US map of soils for comparison. See those Molisols? Right in the heartland of the US with plenty of rain? There's a damned fucking good reason the US is the breadbasket of the world.

that shitty jpeg doesn't really prove anything. i could make Africa seem better than Europe by having an image of Cape Town next to an image of some shitty eastern-european shithole.

here's my "proof" that africa's better than europe.