Northern populations are more intelligent because living conditions are harsher ?

Economics Economics Questions
1

Hi

So I’ve just listened to this : http://mises.org/media/4691

Hoppe says that one of the explanation for the industrial revolution is that Europeans were simply more intelligent. According to him, there’s a long natural selection that tooks place until the Welfare state grown bigger and bigger : people who were more intelligent were more successful and earned more money than those who were stupid, so they could die older and have more children.

So centuries after centuries, this took place, but only in northern countries. Why ? Because living conditions are “harsher” in these places, and living is easier than in the so-called third world countries, where “every days look the same”.

And now I wonder, how can he says that living was harsher in northern countries than in… Africa for exemple ? We’ve all watched reports on TV where we see people in villages in Africa eating dirt, dying from deseases, having no water, having to walk 6 hours each day to seek waters or to go to the nearest school… so how was it harder than peasants in England ?

EDIT : subsidary question : I have an economic history exams in 10 days about the industrial revolution. Can I write that northern people (French, yeay !) are more intelligent that african/asian/indians and that’s why the industrial revolution happened in Europe ? =D

2

To answer your question: Snow?

3

Sorry, but that’s just racist crap. Cultures from all over the world contributed to Western progress, and many others have dominated at different times in history. We just happen to be on top at the moment. There is no racial advantage to being white.

Also, if you take a look around, it’s not the rich yuppies who have families with 14 kids.

The Rev

4

I think this is by far the weakest stuff Hoppe pushes, which I find a shame since I really like his work on epistemology. Simply stating colder climes as more inhospitable necessarily leading to natural selection of sharper intelligence is making a lot of shaky assumptions. Just to give a few examples, though colder climes may be more sparse in terms of food, they also tend to have fewer predators, while tropical climes while being more fertile are also more unhygienic. It’s no wonder an interesting fact therefore, that spiced food originated from areas in the tropics for instance.

The climes are not necessarily “easier” or “harder”, different environments differ in the challenges they bring, and the analysis of the evolutionary adaptations this may bring is far from trivial.

5

The theory goes the farther north you go the more vital technology is to survive. Man was physically adapted to survive in the warmer tropical climates in africa. When man left africa they encountered environments that they were not physically adapted to live. Clothing, shelter, hunting techniques, etc. had to evolve in order for the people to survive.

Examples) Little to no clothing is neccessary in tropical climates. In temprate regions you need thick, layered clothing for the winter and lighter clothing needed for the summer.

Basic shelter that can keep you relatively dry is all that is neccessary in tropical climates. In temprate regions you need shelter that is insulated against the cold, strong enough to carry the weight of snow, but livable during summers as well.

Hunting in hot climates was done by running the animal into heat exhaustion. Needed different methods in cold climates where the prey will not overheat.

The changes forced by climate forced the people to develop technology to overcome thier physical short comings. Thats it in a nut shell.

EDIT : subsidary question : I have an economic history exams in 10 days about the industrial revolution. Can I write that northern people (French, yeay !) are more intelligent that african/asian/indians and that’s why the industrial revolution happened in Europe ? =D

Not unless you want to be lynched, ridiculed, and/or exiled.

6

But you still think that there’s an “evolutionary adaptation” that made some people more stupid according to where they live (or rather where their ancestry lived) ?

I personnaly think there’s a “natural selection” (when there’s no welfare state and… even no capitalism at all…), in a pre-capitalist society, not-very-intelligent-nor-cultivated people make their children stupid by the way they educate their children. And if they’re stupid, they’re more likely to have/do a bad job, have less money, which means shorter life expectancy, and less kids, or with more kids but fewer kids who survive, and on the long run, there will be more and more “intelligent” people in comparaison to the total population…

But I don’t think it has anything to do with skin colour, “race” etc. I think intelligence is cultural. And I don’t think this “cultural selection” doesn’t have a effect in capitalist free-market societies : even for blue-colar workers, working conditions wouldn’t be that bad, and they wouldn’t die at 30 and their kids wouldn’t die at 10.

7

Wouldn’t have then the industrial revolution happened with the Chuckchi?

If you look at England where the industrial revolution happened first, it was for the most time a backwater. So if they were racially superior why were they for so long so backward? Obviously a better explanation is needed.

8

People come up with all kinds of theories, but that’s all it is - a person’s theory. In reality, people’s intelligence has nothing to do with where they live. It’s an issue on another level entirely (the mind) and has nothing to do with the conditions of the body. There were people (very few) who survived the concentration camps with peace and compassion for their opressors and then there were those who still have not forgiven or forgotten every single hurt and slight. They shared the identical physical conditions…

It just so happens that everything happens in waves throughout history. Nations rise and fall (southern nations and northern nations, by the way), nothing stays constant. Superpowers rise and then disintegrate. Just look through the history of civilization. And nobody has a good explanation for it.

9

Perhaps they are smarter because they stay at home and read books instead of going out because of the harsher conditions. Over time this could have been beneficial. But whatever reason they are smart, it only means something when they use those brains.

10

Woot, first post, bravo ! :slight_smile:

Well, if one’s intelligence doesn’t depend on the place they live, how is it possible that most people in very poor countries can’t read, can’t do maths, that there’s not many doctors or scientists ? Our mind depends on how we’ve been educated by our parents, our schools, our friends, by influence from outside our mind and body.

If two persons live the same experience, their lives before this experience were different, that’s why they don’t feel the same after or during this experience. I’m sure the same cause have the same effect, but no human is subject to the same cause, because we have all different friends, different parents, different schools…

Damn I should stop talking about philosophy in a foreign langage, I’m not fluent enough :frowning:

11

“But you still think that there’s an “evolutionary adaptation” that made some people more stupid according to where they live (or rather where their ancestry lived) ?”

I didn’t positively claim that as far as I am aware, I just didn’t rule it out. My critique of Hoppe was actually more limited to questioning whether his hypothesis necessarily supports his conclusions, if we take on board the basis of his evolutionary argument. I don’t think they necessarily do, though I know Sudha Shenoy had a rival “explanation” of the industrial revolution indeed arguing the almost polar opposite case that there wasn’t one, so I think a lot more work would need to be done to sort whether this or that hypothesis rules out the other.

I agree cultural factors have a big role to play, indeed these have been posited as one of the major causal factors affecting high academic achivement among East Asians etc, with strong family structures. Similiar things are seen in the UK, except in the opposite sense with brown skinned indians and south asians outperforming whites and especially white males, so much so that people were even beginning to speak of affirmative action for that group a few years back if I remember correctly.

12

not-very-intelligent-nor-cultivated people make their children stupid by the way they educate their children.

THere is a difference between intellegence and education. Dumb people can be highly educated and intellegent people can be poorly educated.

I think intelligence is cultural.

Culture is knowledge. Its what you have learned. Its an education in some sense. I think the way we are using the word intellegence is the natural born ability to learn.

Wouldn’t have then the industrial revolution happened with the Chuckchi?

If the theory said that climate was the only reason then yes. Im not sure all other factors are discounted.

If you look at England where the industrial revolution happened first, it was for the most time a backwater. So if they were racially superior why were they for so long so backward? Obviously a better explanation is needed.

Backward in relation to who?

It’s an issue on another level entirely (the mind) and has nothing to do with the conditions of the body.

Mind and body are one. The mind is nothing more than series of biological processes. That process is more efficient for some.

I’m sure the same cause have the same effect, but no human is subject to the same cause, because we have all different friends, different parents, different schools…

There have been some amazing studies done on twins that seem to indicate that dispite all the difference that you have listed they turn our very similar.

though I know Sudha Shenoy had a rival “explanation” of the industrial revolution indeed arguing the almost polar opposite case that there wasn’t one, so I think a lot more work would need to be done to sort whether this or that hypothesis rules out the other.

What is his take?

I agree cultural factors have a big role to play, indeed these have been posited as one of the major causal factors affecting high academic achivement among East Asians etc, with strong family structures.

Are culture and genetic predispositions connected? If certain abilites run in families due to genetics wouldnt that affect the culture of the family?

13

Obviously. England’s climate isn’t even that harsh. In fact, it is not harsh at all.

14

Clearly an incomplete answer. However it is good to see someone

discussing this explosive issue outside of the politically correct orthodoxy.

15

“living conditions are “harsher” in these [cold] places, and living is easier than in the so-called third world countries”

Except for the malaria. And, if it’s “harsher” in Europe, then shouldn’t people be struggling to meet basic needs (e.g. food, shelter, warmth) there, while their easy-living southern counterparts can focus on higher-order goods?

“people who were more intelligent were more successful and earned more money than those who were stupid, so they could die older and have more children”

Kind of like how Octomom is smarter than Ramanujan.

16

Obviously. England’s climate isn’t even that harsh. In fact, it is not harsh at all.

Of course it is. Without proper shelter and clothing you will be gauranteed to die. This is not true in the tropics, you may be uncomfortable but you can survive. I though about this the other day. Here in South Carolina the climate is subtropical and much more hospitable than Most of Europe. But even here during winter you will die without clothing and shelter. Without our technology only a narrow band between the tropics is habitable by humans.

17

I think Hoppe’s explanation is neither particularly novel nor particularly correct, but alas, that’s what happens when you try to venture into areas that you’ve not done the reading for. (Though Oded Galor has an evolutionary explanation of the Industrial Revolution and the break from the Malthusian regime, I’ve not read enough of it to decide on its merits).

Personally, I used to adhere to the institutional explanations for the occurrence of the industrial revolution. Namely that the industrial revolution occurred when and where it did because 18th Century England had the right institutions. However, Gregory Clark’s explanation is quite convincing as far as I’m concerned. For anybody interested, I’d suggest that you pick up Gregory Clark’s “A Farewell to Alms”. His thesis is essentially that the institutional structures in England and the culture there meant that there was significant downward mobility as far as the children of the rich were concerned. This led to middle class values such as prudence , frugality and a distaste for violence (amongst others) permeating society. With these values being a prerequisite for the Industrial Revolution and subsequent economic growth.

18

Except for the malaria. And, if it’s “harsher” in Europe, then shouldn’t people be struggling to meet basic needs (e.g. food, shelter, warmth) there, while their easy-living southern counterparts can focus on higher-order goods?

African populations have developed a genetic resistance to malaria. Which is linked to sickle cell anemia, which occurs almost exclusively in African populations. For the same reasons European populations have developed a genetic resistance to the bubonic plague.

And they did for a long time. The point is that the harsh conditions put evolutionary pressure on the population. Those populations that are well adapted for thier environment dont evolve. examples are sharks and crocs.

19

“What is his take?”

Actually it’s a her. In any case, I haven’t been able to find her work on the subject but here’s where I originally found out about it:

http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2006/04/the_revolution_.html

Strangely enough, a longer time period might better suit your “they got out of africa and started wearing clothes” hypothesis.

20

“What is his take?”

Actually it’s a her. In any case, I haven’t been able to find her work on the subject but here’s where I originally found out about it:

http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2006/04/the_revolution_.html

Strangely enough, a longer time period might better suit your “they got out of africa and started wearing clothes” hypothesis.

Lol thank you. Its not my theory and theres more to it than that.