this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
55 points (76.7% liked)

Asklemmy

50895 readers
928 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
55
[deleted] (lemmy.ml)
submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] mkwt@lemmy.world 25 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

There was a book a while back called Guns, Germs, and Steel that delves into this topic.

The root cause, as I understand it, is that Europe is on a continent oriented east-west instead of north-south. And Europe in particular is on the part of that continent that has a lot of easy access to the sea.

East-west orientation allows you to transplant plants and animals long distances and keep them at roughly the same latitudes, which means roughly the same climate. That is a big boon for spreading "civilized" agriculture, which is what creates surplus of labor, which creates non food jobs that advance technology.

Among the common 5-7 domesticated food animals people eat today, all but one or two were domesticated in Mesopotamia, but then spread all over Europe.

Access to the sea is the other component that turns tech advantage into colonialism, because it gives the transportation. Even today, China and Russia are great powers, but they are forced to be continental powers instead of maritime powers, because nearly all of their coast lines are hemmed in by narrow seas that are easy to blockade.

There are, of course, a bunch of other factors I'm not even thinking about and competing opinions. But I don't for one second think that any of this has anything to do with European "innate intelligence" or skin color.

[โ€“] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 17 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

You might get some downvotes for mentioning that book. The author makes a few sloppy assumptions, and the anthropology/sociology/history communities love to hate him for it. His overall thesis is still generally good though, IIRC.

One thing I don't think is in Diamond's book: once Europe had realized they could sail far and wide to get things, the Dutch invented the idea of a stock market to fund voyages (the British took this idea and really ran with it). This system made long, risky trips easier to finance. Instead of a single monarch funding a single expedition, many people could pool their money to fund many expeditions.

I agree that none of this means Europeans have some special intelligence or attitude. Any other civilization that developed in similar conditions could have followed the same path.

[โ€“] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 3 weeks ago

I think that a lot of the arguments regarding why Europeans did better compared to near peers goes to variations in social differences between Europeans and other near peer civilizations.

It also includes the destruction of extended clan networks, independent universities, and higher wages for Europeans compared to others parts of the world.

Very interesting read, TIL. Thanks for that info, that blew my mind