What's the scientific reasoning for Africa's failure to ever accomplish anything of value?

What's the scientific reasoning for Africa's failure to ever accomplish anything of value?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_equilibrium_trap
youtube.com/watch?v=P73REgj-3UE
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Low capacity for abstract thought.

It's just simple geography.

I don't get why people keep making a big deal of this.

Wherever the land was plentiful and there was opportunities for trade and such, civilization flourished and from there came many innovations.

Wherever there was nothing else but mountains and deserts the sheep herders remained sheep herders.

Think of this. Europeans accomplished plenty of things. They had multiple successful civilizations. The Chinese also had multiple successful civilizations. And the Indians as well. And the Arabs and all around the Levant there were also multiple successful civilizations.

Then you have Mongolia, and all the 'stans surrounded by all those successful civilizations and they accomplished nothing. Why? Because they are hostile countries. Not really fit for human habituation.

Africa has more natural resources than any other continent on the planet

Smart people get tired of retards and move somewhere else. This keeps happening so the oldest human settlements just become dumber and dumber.

Doesn't matter when you have governments and leaders that are incapable of handling those resources (or are rife with corruption).

No it's not.

Pic related is arable land per country. Africa is a huge continent full of deserts.

K

>you have governments and leaders that are incapable of handling those resources (or are rife with corruption).
Hmmm... I wonder why they have such poor leaders.

>petroleum and uranium at all relevant during the crucial early formation years

Where is the correlation...? Countries with less arable land than Europe or American still have large quantities of natural resources (South America, Africa, Russia, Australia etc).

Holy fuck, what an retard.

Love the irony.

I actually thought of mentioning uranium and petroleum but then I second guessed myself because surely nobody would be so retarded. But here we are.

Fucking imbecile.

Go back to I'm not going to waste my time "debating" with a brainlet.

You think petroleum, uranium and gas can help you survive before the 19th century? No.

I sheep herders can afford to and survive by staying sheep herders, their land is not hostile, in fact it enables them to survive with a bare minimum of effort. A land where, no matter where you go you freeze to death in a matter of hours to days during several months of the year is hostile and requires you to get crafty quick. As you said it's simple, but you still got it wrong.

K. How about the literal diamonds overflowing from the ground?

Their land can become hostile. Herders migrate out of certain regions of Africa because of this.

>lock on the door
hilarious

Kek didn't even notice that

Ok, so you have to herd your sheep over there instead of here. In Europe you freeze over there just as much as here. Which environment seems more hostile?

Low iq is a big issue in Africa corruption ,violence ,superstition and hostility to math and science mean Africa is going nowhere without a eugenics program

>Ok, so you have to herd your sheep over there instead of here.

Yes, it is this simple. Well done you just solved the problem of drought induced mass migration.

The suffering experienced in Africa is beyond anything you can imagine people are burned alive ,starve, terrible things the only solution is to increase the national iq

No I didn't, but mass migration and one of its causes, massive overpopulation, wasn't any more of an issue during the time where civilizations were built than uranium access.

The stuff that's underground?

Diamonds ain't worth shit.

Europeans and Americans used to burn each other alive all the time...

overpopulation doesn't cause mass migration.

They only are wortha shit because ofa huge ass mono[poly, break that monopoly and Diamond prices go to the shitter.

Either that or people stop falling for the Diamond brainwash and go back to the cosmetic gems of the past that were better then diamond pre DeBeers marketing.

Of course it does. Overpopulation causes poverty, disease, crime and other things you don't want in a society, especially in societies as primitive as africa's. But that's beside the point (see sheep herders).

Because overpopulation is not a thing, Underestimation is a much more accurate thing to say and even currently they are making decent progress in stuff like diseases

I don't understand what you are saying. If you think africa isn't overpopulated, I assure you even you will see it that way in 20 years, and by the way there will be even more migration then. But as I said, that's not the topic of the thread.

What's the reason for all these /pol/ posters failure to accomplish anything of value with their own lives?

What's the scientific reasoning for having this same fucking thread every week?

It's always good for a big harvest of (you)s

Because population density wise and how much the land could actually hold it's much lower then it can be.

and fertility rates are dropping as well as standards in loving and education improving.

>implying that niggers will accomplish anything
>implying that pol posters aren't actually for the most part law-abiding wageslaves and college students while niggers are a huge detriment to society

It might have to do partly with Africa historically getting fucked over by everyone.

The other parts, I dunno. Diseases and shit, maybe.

>weather explains everything
>hot = food everywhere, you don't have to think
>cold = you have to think to find food, to survive during winter
>compare an iq map and a weather map

>skin = brain
>you think with your skin!
>correlation = causation!

1.Absence of any impulse regulation in the brain
2.Absence of any complex abstract thought
3.Absence of empathy

>muh geography

>muh rainforest too hard
Indus Valley civilization and Khymer Empire
>muh desert too hard
LITERALLY THE FIRST FUCKING CIVILIZATIONS ON EARTH
>muh muh grassland too hard
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHH China
>muh muh mountains
Middle east again
>muh lack of closeness to Eurasia
Any civilization in the New World

Just shut up and admit that niggers are stupid.

Isn't it true that the Ancient Egyptians understood general relativity before Einstein?

Are you implying that climate (which affects basic things agriculture, water supply, permanent settlement etc) has nothing to do with this? It says it right there on the bottom text of the image retard. Seems like you'd fit in well with those low African IQs.

most retarded post of the year award

diamonds are worth fuck all if you've got shit agriculture so can't get any surplus and are stuck on the bottom of the hierarchy of needs, and don't have anyone to trade with. they're literally completely fucking useless. and then when a civilization advanced enough to travel that far down along africa finds that you have diamonds, they're just going to fucking steal them

guns germs and steel fuckboi you're missing 99/100 variables

Crude languages without the ability to describe abstractions or future events leading to .

>law-abiding wageslaves
So you're proud of being a cuck?

Huge continent with low% arable land is still a lot of arable land. Canada is as orange as most of africa but still a net food exporter.
Everyone's shitting on this but fact is africa has fucktons of resources and has done nothing with them despite the required technology existing for hundreds of years.
no

>Everyone's shitting on this but fact is africa has fucktons of resources and has done nothing with them despite the required technology existing for hundreds of years.

But they have used the resources that were accessible with relative ease with what they had.

You have to fucking realize that many of the resources people jack off to are only accessible with modern tech to extract them and hopefully favorable market prices for said resources to sell for.

>Huge continent with low% arable land is still a lot of arable land. Canada is as orange as most of africa but still a net food exporter.

Because the fertile areas are extremely fertile as such and also carry the entire nation and is pretty young in terms of usage. Most African soil is heavily drained or farmed..

is this map considering irrigation or just naturally occurring land?

you're sort of right.

Eurasia is the most successful because the land goes mostly east to west. providing huge climate band. which means wide areas of similar food plants and food animals. allowing people to move and settle in lots of places. these people then kept trading along these wide bands and exchanged ideas. building off each other.

Africa and to some extend the Americas, run north to south. so your bands are narrower.

I'm about to wreck you all at once:
Blacks do have lower IQs, fact.
Race isn't just skin deep you retards, look at the genetic differences between races, that would mean differences in the genes that control the development and operation of the brain.
Africa has sparse arable land, but still lots of it, due to being massive.
>But muh inedible shit?
What is trading you retard? That is, if they'd actually developed a complex language, but they didn't, because low IQ.
Face it, Africans, before MUH EVUL COLONSATION where useless.

bro we where all africans back in the day...

Mutative adapation.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Maybe someone was bully by blacks in school every week.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

This.

Take a linguistics class and say that again. Eejit.

But it is, they aren't as concise and able as European, Middle Eastern or Asian languages.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Guess I'll build a civilization from nothing but fucking sand

Why haven't humans colonized space?
They have had the technology for hundreds of years but they waste their time murdering each other.

Following /pol/ logic humanity should embrace extermination should a more advanced group come to earth.

If you can't farm an excess of produce to feed miners, you won't go mining copper ore.

Most agricultural crops in sub-Saharan Africa were pretty low yield for the amount of work required, like native African rices, teff, etc.

Also historically, sS Africa didn't have nearly as large a population share as it does now, and it was distributed differently. Less noggins to be joggin.

No, man, it isn't.
There is a reason we don't use African languages for technical writing.

They had (before desertification) and still have more natural resources than Europe.
So, suck, a big, fat, dick.

I HATE it when Veeky Forums makes a false dichotomy and acts like its the only objective answer.
Off yourself.

>I HATE it when Veeky Forums
Maybe you should go back to /pol/ then.

lelnope, not even close. The resources are just distributed between far fewer people.

And what's that reason, besides the fact that most technical papers are written by English speakers?

The language isn't descriptive enough.

And?

>No obvious /pol/ affiliation.
Try again.

You have 10 seconds to link to a detailed comparative analysis of the expressive power of various African languages or you're talking out of your ass

except the current oldest homo sapien is in europe.

Just look at vocabulary size.

>And?
I get that you're a brainlet, but this is too much...

It means that industrialisation is required to take advantage of it, because each region is in the arse end of nowhere, and each region is comparatively much less resource rich than even the shittiest areas of Europe.

Like seriously, farmers in Europe don't even know how much rain they get, because it's an irrelevant factor for them.

Are you seriously saying other languages are fundamentally limited by not having direct translations for cattywampus or widdershins?

Yes you dumbfuck?
If you have a limit of vocab you literally cannot describe as much as concisely.

Then why didn't they develop industry to transport the resources?
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AS SMART AS US.
Fucking obvious.

It's funny because each language has expressive and abstract religious phrases and words

You never showed us how though. You just sperged and did a "Cuz I say so" thing.

If you have less words, you have less methods for description, therefore it is less descriptive and if it is less descriptive... it is less accurate.

By arable land map
Canada & Norway have few arable land s
>while
Nigeria & Rwanda in Africa have plenty of Arable lands.

So how can explain that Canada & Norway are much more developed than Nigeria & Rwanda?

jesus how do you even operate a computer? color me impressed

>developing industry without surplus
>developing anything without surplus
legit just kill yourself right now

...

You know nothing about linguistics. I want academic papers user, not bs made up on the spot.

Do you realize how redundant most vocabulary is?

Name one (1) example of a missing word in a language that detrimentally hurts it in a practical way.

.

The literal opposite is true:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_equilibrium_trap
Necessity is the mother of invention.
However, if you lack the intuitive intellect to innovate, even in times of dire necessity, no invention occurs.
In fact, that's a rather good example of the "clean water crisis".
If they had intuition that would figure out methods of purification (such as evaporation and condensation), but they don't.

,

>Nigeria & Rwanda in Africa have plenty of Arable lands.

Not really. Look at the map, the history if those places and the statement and try to think about itvagai

If you cannot follow that basic line of thought, then I'm surprised you even have any grasp of the human language.
Take an apple.
People B have a name for apple, they can concisely describe and apple to you.
People C cannot.
Who is people A going to trade with for their apples?

Not an argument and it doesn't pertain to the question at hand.
Does Swahili have a term for manifold?

This White Guy is more advanced than Most Africans.
youtube.com/watch?v=P73REgj-3UE

Are You Blind? T

The map shows that Nigeria & Rwanda in Africa have plenty of Arable lands.

The opposite of what you believe.

It's plain stupid to think african languages have difficulty describing shit bexcuse the obviously do. I bet you believe that afriend languages have no concept of time as well.

Also most languages don't have a word for that. Good thing you can just borrow it from English or make up a new word based on previous concepts you moron.

Answer the question.
Does Swahili have a term for manifold?
If it doesn't, it isn't a very useful technical language is it you fucking goon.

Because the amount if land per farmer us completely different as well as the size if it. Rwanda has a high % if arable land but the quality is unknown and it's small as hell in a crowded little nation.

Also, using a loanword means that the white mans language is better, which means...

...

They just use the word manifold just like other languages do user.