haxxiy said:
The thing is there is a reason Eurasia developed into developed empires rather than staying stone age like America, Africa and Australia. Eurasia's size and eco-diversity gave it more species of domesticable plants and animals than other continents, certain favorable climates and landforms (a Mediterranean dry season eases grain-storage, for example), a long human presence (late discovery of the New World meant mass extinction of large mammals that might have been domesticable), and east-west trade routes (pigs and wheat do well in both France and China, but Mexican corn took centuries to adapt to Ohio). Eurasia and it's three powerhouses - Europe, India and China - probably were 90% of the world's economy or more for at least five thousand years now. So outside those areas and where there was an active effort to colonize and build a new nation from scratch, like the US, things remain almost as dire as they have been throughout most of history, just with a modern paint of AK-47s so people can kill each other more efficiently and antibiotics so they can overpopulate their lands and live 40 instead of 20 years on average. Now say if Germany won WW1. The european empires would probably have survived to the present and we would have a much different world - one that probably would involve way lower populations in Africa but better infrastructure - even if many of it to economically serve the metropolis - and efficient governments. But re-colonize them again? Yeah buddy, I don't know about that. Maybe they should just be left to their own devices, to elect who they want and rewrite the bordes the way they want if that's so much of an issue. |
I feel like someone has read guns germs and steel.
