English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

- It seems to be that countries in the Northern hemisphere are more developed.

- If you take a continent like Europe, northerners seem to have a more powerful economy.

- Inside a country, the more developed areas seem to usually be located in the North (like US, Spain, Italy, France, Germany... not England or Japan though)

Is that a coincidence???

2007-02-01 23:46:13 · 6 answers · asked by Diomedes 3 in Social Science Economics

6 answers

Well..it kinda depends on your definition of development and economy.Don't judge a book by it's cover.Spain,Italy,and France are more historical countries mostly known for their landmarks and traditions.Germany is in complete poverty and has been for years.The euro in Europe has as much if not more worth than the American dollar and Japan is so developed they have no more room to build..so they stack.On top of that...if you break off the shell of your choice of electronics in your home..you will find it's major components being from there..Even your good old American John Deere tractor has a Japanese designed transmission.I think it's more a rat race than coincidence.

2007-02-02 00:13:48 · answer #1 · answered by jen_n_tn 3 · 0 0

Jared Diamond goes into great detail about the historical reasons for why the Northern hemisphere came out "on top", to be in the position to colonise the Southern hemisphere (using Europe's guns, germs, and steel, as he puts it), which in turn leaves those former colonies with a legacy of economic shortfalls. There were a couple of big factors:

Eurasia is a large east-west oriented land mass, which allows plant and animal species (and human cultures) to mix and migrate over great distances while staying at roughly the same latitude (and therefore roughly similar climates).
Due in part to this, Eurasia and the Middle East had dozens of crop species as well as several choices of livestock, all of which encouraged the development of permanent settlements, societal specialization, avoidance of famine, and better nutrition.

Permanent settlements then lead directly to social specialization, the development of exponentially accelerating technology (which always spurs the development of new technology), and so on, until the period of colonization during which once-mostly-separately-developing cultures forcibly collided. The cultures that had a large technological advantage, because of past geographically intrinsic advantages, won.

2007-02-02 00:10:25 · answer #2 · answered by Mardy 4 · 1 1

South

2007-02-02 00:26:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Actually draw a line or color in the countries that are Islamic vrs All other religions or lack of. You will find even a larger gap. Alot of it may also have to do with the ability to grow agricultural crops. Hard to do in Northern Africa and the middle east

2007-02-01 23:52:08 · answer #4 · answered by mark g 6 · 0 0

that is ironic yet using the slavery as an difficulty antagonistic to partition couldn't quite be justified. the in hardship-free words element the different part has to say is that each and each man or woman proper we abolish slavery yet we nonetheless decide on to be self sufficient. Nope you ought to look on the wider image than purely slavery which contained in the proper wasn't all that major because the conventional reason for the conflict

2016-12-03 08:43:49 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I think it might be. Or maybe it is a reversal of fortune. Earlier in history the southern hemisphere were more powerful.

2007-02-01 23:53:23 · answer #6 · answered by Micah L 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers