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 ...
True - the Coptic Christians of southern Egypt are closer to the Pyramid builders than the now Muslim populations to the north, a mix of Arab invaders, Greeks, Romans and every other invading population.
Because africa hasn't advanced culturally since the stone age.
I have seen lines of argument like yours before, and I can see some truth in it. Basically, contentedness breeds laziness. I mean, if all you had to do to eat was walk out the door and pluck a fruit from the tree, why would you bother to invent agriculture?
African corruption - precisely the sort of thing which is growing in the United States.
Any other dumb questions?
"They're rioting in Africa. They're starving in Spain. There's hurricanes in Florida and Texas needs rain. The whole world is festering with unhappy souls."
There’s also less movement of the sun at the equator. Cold northern climes would jolt the impulse to “be prepared”. Too much cold would discourage the eventual migration—and development of advanced cultures—to the Americas.
Of course, the counter to this that the notion that genes have nothing to do with achievement among individuals or among groups is a Marxist dogma. The idea that we're all equal, born with blank slate minds, and solely products of society and environment is the foundation for all left-wing social engineering experiments.
for the SAME reason every democrat run city is bankrupt and lawless.......
... and I don’t like anybody very much.
:)
Merry Minuet.
Remember it from a half-century ago on one of my parent’s LPs.
Remember LPs?
OTOH, YouTube is just a click away!
Andrew,do you REALLY have to ask? Seems pretty obvious to me.
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.