Talk:Climatic determinism

Comment 1
This article seems to have a bad title: there doesn't seem to be any paradox involved and "Equatorial paradox" gets few hits in a web search. -( 16:33 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * Philip Parker's 2000 book Physioeconomics calles it the equatorial paradox; that's how I ended up here, by doing a search for that term. --Sadi Carnot 16:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment 2
The article says:

''Singapore is a notable counter-example: it is located at 1.22° N and is one of the world's most prosperous countries. This prosperity is based on its position as a port.''

While the prosperity could indeed be seen to be based on its position as a port, this can hardly be the only reason. I think it's a POV argument. If nobody objects, I'll try rewriting this. Any suggestions? Martijn faassen 21:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What about Russia?? Very north but poor. What about North Korea, Argentina, etc.? There are lots of other factors. I think with modern technology, this theory becomes less and less valid over time. Prime example Singapore and Malaysia. But also Dubai, Costa Rica, Panama and others are not doing that badly these times.


 * Obviously, very poor countries can not afford technology like AC, but they could build their economies step by step. Dubai for example had lots of seed money to build the economy, but even that helps only when you have a visionary leader, functioning bureaucracy, education, etc.

Hmmm. I have added some historical perspective on this - if you attack the paradox mathemathically, it suddenly emerges in the 1500s-1600s (I don't see what makes a credit system, trade routes of many 100s of miles, mfg "plants" etc less sophisticated and developed just because the Aztecs uses cocoa beans and human labor and produced feather dusters instead of gold and draft animals and brass knobs). Or consider Angkor, which is as tropical as it gets, or the fall of the Islamic nations. It is so self-evident if you know the least about non-Anglo-European history that some scholar should have discussed this. I have not read the literature (being no SocStud person), but I would find it highly odd if there's no citable source on this. Dysmorodrepanis 01:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment 3
I think the effect is only applicable to large countries with clear climate zones. Singapore is a small island. Also, the fact it was founded by the British and is dominated by Chinese culture adds to it being a special case.

The effect is only applicable to large countries like the US, India, China, Brazil, and Australia with noticeable climate zones. In general, the tropical zones are less developed than the temperate zones. Once you get too far north (Russia) or south (Argentina) the effect reverses.

The paragraph on the two American civilizations actually supports the theory. I presume the author is talking about the Aztec and Inca. These advanced civilizations developed in more temperate climates than their less developed tropical neighbors. The climate difference being due to elevation instead of latitude. The Aztec developed in the high temperate Central Valley of mostly tropical Mexico. The Inca occupied the temperate Andes highlands of equatorial part of South America.

Also, advanced ancient tropical civilizations like the Maya and Angkor seem to be more vulnerable to periodic environmental collapse. This suggests the temperate climates are relatively more stable and further supports the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.133.156 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)