Posted on 04/24/2016 9:05:52 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
A few years ago, two economics professors, Quamrul Ashraf and Oded Galor, published a paper, “The Out of Africa Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development,” that drew inferences about poverty and genetics based on a statistical pattern.
The world’s most genetically diverse countries (using their measure of what counts as genetically diverse) are in sub-Saharan Africa, which is the world’s poorest region. The least genetically diverse countries are in places like Bolivia, which have low incomes but not as low as in that region of Africa. There’s an intermediate level of genetic diversity among the residents of the middle-income and rich countries in Asia, Europe and North America.
Genetic diversity arises from migratory distance of populations from East Africa. Countries in east Africa have the highest genetic diversity because this is where humans evolved. Populations that settled in other parts of the world descend from various subgroups of people who left Africa at different times. Thus, these groups are less varied in their genetic profiles.
Ashraf and Galor put this together and argued that this is “reflecting the trade-off between the beneficial and the detrimental effects of diversity on productivity.” Their argument was that a little bit of genetic diversity is a good thing because “a wider spectrum of traits is more likely to be complementary to the development and successful implementation of advanced technological paradigms,” but if a country is too genetically diverse, its economy will suffer from “reduced cooperation and efficiency.” Thus, they wrote, “the high degree of diversity among African populations and the low degree of diversity among Native American populations have been a detrimental force in the development of those regions.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Because whitey takes all their money, enslaves them, prevents them from learning how to read, rapes their women, keeps them from buying books and refuses to give them free wifi.
PC enough?”
It’s because the Muslims to exactly that!
Liberty and capitalism.
That was easy.
5.56mm
“I think weather comes into the mix. In warm weather you don’t need to be as industrious. Although...the Eskimos haven’t had the most advanced civilization either.”
Many years ago I developed a theory that explains the differences in accomplishment between blacks and other races. In Africa you can live like your ancestors did thousands of years ago, there is no selective pressure to change your way of life. You can be a half wit and still be able to get water from a lake, build a mud hut, and plant a few seeds. There is little or no drive to make things better. As the more industrious africans moved north they encountered different environmental conditions, that forced them to adapt to survive. New technologies and skills had to be developed to cope with the harsher conditions. The more intelligent and those who persevered survived. The slow witted and lazy died. Over thousands of years it can make quite a difference.
The lack of drive to improve their living conditions is illustrated by a show that mentioned the large number of africans killed by Crocs while trying to get water or doing laundry. Its been going on for thousands of years and little has been done about it. If white people lived there every dangerous animal for 100 miles would have been killed centuries ago, or someone would have drilled a well for the village.
There is an old book by Huntington, Climate and Civilization, that argued this point.
I was taught in college that the reason Africa is so poor is that they do not have a sufficient population to fuel the engines of industry which is how nations advance technologically and economically. It made sense to me then and now. America was only able to fuel its Industrial revolution through heavy immigration from Europe.
Yes it be.
Africa's problems have nothing to do with corrupt violent cultures that support abusive dictators. Also none of Africa's problems have to do with testable lower IQ’s than say Norwegians...
Further is has nothing to do with silly liberal elites destroy natural cultural incentives that DID work - and replacing them with modern ‘pity party’ excuses that are sooooo seductive to those who are failing.
Nope, it's either too much - or too little - diversity - and ultimately the fault of others....maybe even Donald Trump himself...
The elephant in the room is race and genetics. No one wants to be called a nazi, which has already happened on this thread, but everyone secretly knows it. If you somehow magically transposed the populations of 19’th century Europe and Africa, in a few decades Africa would be transformed into a modern first world region, and Europe would descend into apocalyptic barbarism, much like what Africa is today.
1. Africa has a large land mass but very few natural harbors suitable for modern trade. Africa's land mass is almost three times larger than Europe's but its coastline is 25% shorter.
2. The "fruit tree principle" is very much at work in Africa. Basically, the lack of a harsh climate means it doesn't take a lot of hard work, innovation, and ingenuity to survive.
You don't have that option in most of the mainland U.S. where at least several months a year consist of freezing weather and you would die of exposure sleeping outside.
We have gotten so used to being able to live in the comfort of heated buildings in northern latitudes that we forget how fragile the human body is. Would you have the misfortune of having your car break down in the middle of say New Hampshire in winter on a secluded road when it's minus 20 degrees, your life would literally be in danger within an hour if you did not also pack blankets, winter weather clothing and the ability to get a fire going.
Until recent times, it was a struggle to live up in these latitudes and one always had to improvise and be quick on one's feet just to survive.
It appears Africans are near the bottom - could that possibly have an effect? /s
Africa is poor because it’s only half civilized(Farming but unable to build functioning cities without outside help). Civilization is a long process that involves a lot of killing of people who can’t act in a civilized manner. In Africa this process was proceeding with groups like Tutsi and Ashanti when it was interrupted by the British and French he thought these groups were being to mean to people who can’t act in a civilized manner.
It took 1000 years from the point where the Germans encountered the Romans to become fully civilized and It will probably take just as a long in Africa.
That’s a very good question.
Africa should have practiced diversity, like we do, welcoming the pale-complexioned folk instead of eating them.
“It’s entirely possible that Neanderthals didn’t just die out, but rather ceased being a distinct group due to genetic swamping. They interbred and blended into the larger group.”
Another possibility is that Neanderthals may have been very intelligent (even more intelligent that humans) but not very aggressive. When competing with homo sapiens they may have been wiped out intentionally or unintentionally. Note that all Europeans and even asians have some neanderthal genes, but not sub saharan africans. That may account for the disparity in intelligence.
I’ve spent some time in Jamaica, and often thought that they’ve had little reason to become industrious since they could pick fruit off of trees all over the place and it seldom got cold.
They did not prove causation, especially the claim of needing just the right amount of genetic diversity to drive high level societal accomplishment.
I also wonder how much of Africa even has written languages. A civilization without a written language is basically aboriginal, no matter how much that important fact is masked by the modern amenities that were brought by colonial powers.
And yet, Africa fails. Could IQ be a factor? Not one liberal elite on the planet will even consider the possibility. Strange world.
Thank you for posting that link.
I found it most enlightening.
I wonder what would happen if we applied the same logic to any “poverty stricken” (slum) area of Chicago, L. A., Kansas City, etc.?
As a counter to that, I recommend Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.