regions like middle eastern and all parts of asia has gotten more in people since it was believed by scientists that life gotten started in that part of the world.
2006-09-28 18:01:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by raz 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
In pretechological times the Indus Valley and the lands around the Yangthze Rivers were the richest, most arable lands on earth.
Middle East lands, although they developed agriculture sooner, were smaller land areas and have been subjected to over farming, soil erosion and warfare/invasions.
China and India were realtively isolated, larger and came up with stable social systems which allowed huge populations to develop thousands of years ago.
North America, Australia and Northern Europe require technology to create optimium farming conditions.
China and India may seem crowded and "backward" today, but 500 years ago if you looked at the world, the bright non technological light would shine brightest over these countries with London a miserable slum and New York a forest.
in fact, it was because European land was so terrible that they developed so many small countries, developed an intensity of warfare capability unrivalled on Earth and developed technology to transform their marginal lands into materially wealthy.
Plus China and India did not have winters like they do in North America and Northern Europe, so they had extended and multiple growing seasons.
Sadly, Africa is like the Middle East, only older and worse. People stated off there and so we had to make a lot of mistakes before we learned better. With the exception of Egypt, there is no part of Africa that has not been invaded, trampled under and despoiled over and over. Although the continent of our origin is ideally suited to the easy living of a homo-sapiens, it is for this reason that technological artifice and therefore modern society made such a late arrival there.
Why build elaborate technologies when the land is so naturally wealthy that you can thrive and survive with ease? There are more kinds of people and tribes and cultures in Africa than even the Middle East or Europe, so cultural cohesion is a near imposibility compared to the relatively homogenous populationsof India and China.
2006-09-29 12:15:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by aka DarthDad 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
The populations of India and China seem exceptionally large because they comprise many different groups of people that happpend to have stayed together as nations.
If you compare either one of those countries with the US or and individual European country, of course the Asian populations seem huge. However, a more valid comparison may be the population of the US+Europe (approx. 1 billion people) and either China or India. As you can see, the population really depends on where you place the national border.
2006-09-29 01:04:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by picopico 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
there were 4 civilizations in ancient times wich were built around rivers.
egyptians-nile
babylonians-tigris/euphrates
indians-ganges
chinese-yangtze
the babylonians were among several other civilizations in the area. these civilizations went to war at various times. the tigris/euphrates river system has been settles by various groups throughout history that went to war and destroyed each other's advancements before settling the area.
th egyptians were among other civilizations that they went to war with. their major limiting factors were the greek and roman empires.
in india, major wars were much less frequent. the himalayan mountains imited contact with any neighboring cultures to the north. cultures to the east were undeveloped and posed no threat. the empired in babylon ad egypt were accessable, but distant. this allowed the indians to build an infrastructure capable of supporting thousands of people. people tend to breed tofill the capacity of the land. as population rises, there are more people to farm and work, increasing the capacity of the land further.
in china at the yangtze river the only major enemy of the han race was the mongols. they had a huge empire, but it didn't contain any major rivers to build a farming civilization around. internally, there were other races of chinese, but they were either subjugated or wiped out by the han. they also had a sort of religious unity. in far east cultures there is sometimes an emperorwho is supposedly of divine origin. every kingdom in the area is loyal to him to an extent. this encourages cooperation between various small kingdoms so they can build their civilizations so they are able to support large populations instead of going to war all the time.
2006-09-29 01:13:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Stand-up Philosopher 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
The Indians eat better,have better diets and so do the Chinese..
Ancient Chinese Secret ?
2006-09-29 00:52:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dfirefox 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
My guess would be because:
1) They have less access to birth control
2) They have more sex
3) When you have a large population like that, the only thing it can do is get bigger. 1 billion people can produce 500 million+ offspring whereas in america, 300million people can only produce 150 million+ offspring.
Thats about it.
2006-09-29 00:51:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by iswd1 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
It might still happen in those other countries . . .india and china have been populated longer . . . africa is a little harsher environment
2006-09-29 00:53:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by a_blue_grey_mist 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Lack of natural disasters for population control.
2006-09-29 13:18:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Angel Baby 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Indian from India? or Native American?
2006-09-29 00:58:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by tragictrust 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
Large land mass.
Not bothered by overcrowding.
Less warlike.
2006-09-29 22:23:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by The Gadfly 5
·
0⤊
2⤋