why is there such differencesin the scale of civilization in different nations in the world?

Question

Either according to Christianity or Human evolution theories, all human beings first "arrived" at the same time all over the world. But why were some human beings more civilized, or had more of that complex mind than other human beings at a different location?

Why did the human in Erope become more civilized than in Asia and Africa?

Still, why was Egypt stood out as the most civilized nation in its surrounding region? Whereis in Europe, the level of civilization was spread out and more even?

ok if u say it's the DNA: how come the DNA varied so drastically? Is it because of the influence of the weather, and environment that influenced the kind of food they ate, behaved, thus in the long influenced the DNA?

If so, how did such change human's behaviour? Was it because the weather was cruel so they had to fight for survival, created things to protect and develop, thus developed a more civilized mind?

Or was it that a better environment and weather would improve that "complex mind" in people? And why?

Answer 1

I'd like to point out that the knowledge 'borrowed from the Muslim libraries by Europeans' came originally from India. I've studied a LOT about pre and early history, and generally the Northern and Eastern India area is the source of most of modern mathmetics, not the middle East. So, thank the Hindus.

The Aborigines were in Austalia for about 50k years as far as we can tell, and never got past the stone age. To date, all the higher technologies in the bigger African cultures seems to have originated in India and the middle East and worked it's way down, except for ancient technologies involving bone and stone. Anyone who starts banging on about Egypt and Nubians, I'll point out that the worlds oldest pyramids are in Europe and Asia, as are the worlds oldest writing systems (Rhine area Vinca script, and Chinese grave pictograms both pre-date anything in the middle East).

There's evidence that humans have been in America since well before the Amerindians colonised it, (Kennewick man and the Pericues). They've managed some pretty impressive civillisations, and they only died because of European illnesses they had no resistance to. If they hadn't got sick, I doubt that anyone would be speaking Spanish in South America.

Europeans weren't lucky in having a stable climate in Europe, and when the last ice age ended a lot of the fertile land they'd inhabited was flooded, and they were displaced and had to start all over again. Prior to that, most of the UK was ice covered, some parts of the UK have only been inhabited for ten thousand years. They've kind of hit the ground running though.

I think the crucial factor in Europes recent development was professional scientists. Other than that, right up until 1800 I doubt we'd done anything original.

Also, Europe and Asia don't have malaria and other tropical nasties to slice IQ points of the population. Gives them an advantage, even if the weather is godawful.

Answer 2

a more intelligent group of people. There have been many great Asian and African civilizations, even using a Eurocentric measure of development. Egypt is held up today as the most civilized becuase of the Victorian craze over Egpytian Archeology. There is not difference in intelligence or the complexity of minds of humans in different parts of the world. You just haven't learned about their achievements yet. You can begin by reading some of the links given below.

Answer 3

Don't confuse an urban civilization with a more intelligent group of people. There have been many great Asian and African civilizations, even using a Eurocentric measure of development. Egypt is held up today as the most civilized becuase of the Victorian craze over Egpytian Archeology. There is not difference in intelligence or the complexity of minds of humans in different parts of the world. You just haven't learned about their achievements yet. You can begin by reading some of the links given below.

Answer 4

I do not have time to write elaborately. A full book can be written on the subject you just initiated. Your perception is a bit erroneous. There were Accadians, Sumerians, Minoans Hebrews, Phoenicians, Assyrians Persians and Romans etc., civilizations (most belonged to M-East) and much before Christ there existed mighty civilizations in Asia. In the near past when Europe was in the dark ages the east was enlightened.

When one civilization takes prominence it does not mean that people outside that are uncivilized. It only means that others follow them. Moreover, you must first set a criterion and only then you might be able to judge who is civilized and who is not. What is yours? Is prosperity the criterion? Or what? Is Free-mixing the measure of being civilized ... it is debatable..... Come up with a measuring unit and then judge.

Answer 5

Humans "arrived" in Europe over 30,000 years ago. Man reached the Americas perhaps 15,000 years ago. Everybody wasn't everywhere at the same time.

Asia, the Americas and Africa all had extensive civilizations. Algebra, paper, corn, tobacco, gunpowder and Arabic numbers all were imports to Europe from these continents.

European civilization was built on on scientific and medical information obtained from Islamic libraries. The products produced by Asia (silk and spices) caused Europeans to develop trade routes, which lead to the Age of Discovery.

You could argue that the long history of warfare in Europe resulted in the technology that gave them the advantage over other peoples. Germs, particular smallpox, devastated many civilizations.

A number of civilizations, as example China, developed but didn't expand. Had China continued it's sea exploration and set up colonies, it might have been China that colonized Europe. Had the American civilizations not been decimated by disease, Europeons might never have gotten a foothold.

Answer 6

I think maybe those in the warmer more tropical zones found they could enjoy life more just lolling around eating coconuts and fish from the sea and mangoes and stuff and building little straw huts rather than having to concentrate and work out how to manufacture complex items to fit with the more seasonal environments in places like Europe??? and over the years the Europeans had to think of more ingenious ways to make clothes and keep warm and engineer better housing to cope with weather and maybe more time to kill in the cold winters where they might have been more cooped up and got their imaginations going whilst the less concerned people in the tropics were having a lovely time frolicking in the sun and surf????? so didn't need to strive towards a different way of living as they had it all???????

Answer 7

Civilizations have a way of rising and falling over time. it is a fallacy that European civilization is more advanced than that of Africa or Asia. Those parts of the world had cultures that way surpassed anything Europeans had during earlier parts of history. it is just now that the western world is in an upswing and dominant phase. ask again in a thousand years and the dominant society could be in Africa. The reasons for these changes could be anything from weather pattern changes to discovery of new technology, or the discovery of resources in a new region.

Answer 8

I like your question.

If civilization could be quantified, then the concept of scale of civilization can be considered.

For arguments' sake, lets assume that civilization can be quantified. That is, civilization is a concept that we can categorize as large or small.

I would imagine that large civilizations are the result of the big egos of the leaders and willingness to impose the human will on the natural environment, thus changing it for the immediate convenience of said societies.

In small civilizations, the egos of the leaders are not as big, and therefore willing to subject themselves to the whims of nature.

Hence, my argument is that the development level of civilization is directly correlated to leadership ego.

Answer 9

It has to do with how the ruling governments of how they chose to utilize the natural resources available within the boundaries of of the nation. The accumulation of riches by the despots who continue to dictate how to use any economic provisions that will provide relief for the misery of the members of their nation are the priority. Water is the most valuable natural resource missing from many of the nations in Africa. Without water, agriculture effort has no chance for crops to mature. Water is available, but it is very deep and will be costly to access. Ganglike military bands commit atrocity without intervention by these dictatorial despots who have only personal accumulation of wealth. Europeans are not the leaders in the development of cultural contribution resulting in technological knowledge. China is. I suggest you watch the History Channel on your TV. You will enjoy a lot of enlightenment.

Answer 10

Socio-Ethnic scientists at several univeristies are beginning to conclude that intelligence, and what is now called "ambition-orientation" (AO) play the most important roles in the discrepancy you mention.